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






                                

 
   GENERATING EQUITY: IMPROVING CLEAN ENERGY ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY

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

                            VIRTUAL HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 1, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-129
                           
                           
                           
     [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 
 56-468             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 Energy

                        BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
                                 Chairman
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania               Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice     CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
    Chair                            PETE OLSON, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York                 DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               BILL FLORES, Texas
    Massachusetts                    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Illinois, opening statement.................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Michigan, opening statement....................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, opening statement......................................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................    10

                               Witnesses

Ariel Drehobl, Senior Research Associate, Local Policy, American 
  Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy........................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
Tony G. Reames, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, School for 
  Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan.........    24
    Prepared statement...........................................    26
Robert Bryce, Visiting Fellow, the Foundation For Research on 
  Equal Opportunity..............................................    40
    Prepared statement...........................................    42
    Answers to submitted questions                                  129
Alexandra M. Wyatt, Policy and Regulatory Manager, Grid 
  Alternatives...................................................    50
    Prepared statement...........................................    53

                           Submitted Material

Report of January 2019, ``Disparities in rooftop photovoltaics 
  deployment in the United States by race and ethnicity,'' Nature 
  Sustainability Article, submitted by Mr. Rush..................   109
Letter of September 30, 2020, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, from 
  Allen R. Schaeffer, Executive Director, Diesel Technology 
  Forum, submitted by Mr. Rush...................................   115
Letter of October 1, 2020, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, from 
  Mark Wolfe, Executive Director, National Energy Assistance 
  Directors' Association, submitted by Mr. Rush..................   124
Letter of September 18, 2020, to Californians, Los Angeles Times, 
  from the Sierra Club, submitted by Mr. Rush....................   127
Letter of September 29, 2020, to Sierra Club, Los Angeles Times, 
  from United Latinos Vote, submitted by Mr. Rush................   128


   GENERATING EQUITY: IMPROVING CLEAN ENERGY ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2020

                  House of Representatives,
                            Subcommittee on Energy,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., via 
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Bobby L. Rush 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle, 
Sarbanes, McNerney, Tonko, Loebsack, Welch, Schrader, Kennedy, 
Kuster, Barragan, O'Halleran, Blunt Rochester, Pallone (ex 
officio), Upton (subcommittee ranking member), Latta, Rodgers, 
Olson, McKinley, Griffith, Johnson, Bucshon, Hudson, Walberg, 
Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
    Also present: Representatives Dingell and Schakowsky
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll,, Staff Director; Sharon 
Davis, Chief Clerk; Waverly Gordon, Deputy Chief Counsel; Perry 
Hamilton, Deputy Chief Clerk; Zach Kahan, Outreach and Member 
Service Coordinator; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff 
Director, Energy and Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy 
Coordinator; Jourdan Lewis, Policy Coordinator; Elysa Montfort, 
Press Secretary; Joe Orlando, Policy Analyst; Kaitlyn Peel, 
Digital Director; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Medha Surampudy, 
Professional Staff Member; Rebecca Tomilchik, Policy Analyst; 
Tuley Wright, Senior Energy and Environment Policy Advisor;Mike 
Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; William Clutterbuck, 
Minority Staff Assistant; 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; Brannon Rains, Minority Policy Analyst; and Peter 
Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Environment 
and Climate Change.
    Mr. Rush. The subcommittee hearing is called to order. 
Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled 
``generating Equity: Improving Clean Energy Access and 
Affordability.''
    Due to the coronavirus, the public health emergency, 
today's hearing is being held remotely. All of the Members and 
the 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 wish to speak.
    Documents for the record can be sent to Rebecca Tomilchik 
at the email address that we have provided to your staff. All 
of the documents will be entered into the record at the 
conclusion of the hearing.
    And now we will begin the hearing, and the Chair now 
recognizes himself for 5 minutes for opening statement.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has exposed a series of 
daunting truths within our Nation. One of these truths is the 
disproportionate impact of pandemics on our most vulnerable 
communities and its inability to compound the structural 
inequalities that afflict our Nation. Today we examine these 
injustices as we work to achieve a clean energy economy to 
confront the sweeping pandemic of climate change and to ensure 
equitable access to clean energy technologies and their 
benefits.
    Communities of color, low-income communities, and 
indigenous communities are disproportionately burdened by a 
traditional energy production system. According to the NAACP, 
nearly 70 percent of Black Americans live or have lived within 
30 miles of a coal-fired power plant and, as a result, 
experienced adverse health consequences associated with the 
production of energy at these plants.
    In addition to this, communities of color and low-income 
communities spend a higher percentage of their household 
incomes on electricity bills. According to an EIA report, 25 
million of these households have foregone necessities like food 
and medicine to pay their electricity bill, many of which are 
faced with this decision each and every month.
    In conjunction with this, low-income households are also at 
a higher risk of utility shutoffs, which effectively leaves 
them without access to a vital resource amid the ongoing 
pandemic.
    Given these circumstances, we must improve access to clean 
energy technologies and the affordability of their benefits 
within the frontline communities to lower electricity bills, 
improve air quality, and reduce energy insecurity. A recent 
report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 
demonstrates that energy efficiency and home winterization 
strategies have the ability to reduce low-income energy burdens 
by up to 25 percent.
    The National Renewable Energy Laboratory also suggests 
nearly half of all U.S. residential rooftop solar potential 
exists on the existing roofs of low- and moderate-income 
households who would directly benefit from these resources.
    The committee has worked to establish both short-term and 
long-term incentives to achieve these objectives through 
legislative proposals. Today it is my hope that the 
subcommittee and its witnesses will identify pathways and 
potential policies to address the various--that impede clean 
energy accessibility and affordability among these communities.
    I want to thank all of the witnesses for their 
participation in this hearing.
    And today I am going to yield right now to the chairman of 
the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for--I want to recognize Mr. 
Upton, rather, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 
minutes for his opening statement.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush

    Good morning. The ongoing coronavirus pandemic has exposed 
a series of daunting truths within our nation. One of these 
truths is the disproportionate impact of pandemics on our most 
vulnerable communities and its ability to compound the 
structural inequalities that afflict our nation. Today, we 
examine these injustices as we work to achieve a clean energy 
economy to confront the sweeping pandemic of climate change--
and to ensure equitable access to clean energy technologies and 
their benefits.
    Communities of color, low-income communities, and 
indigenous communities are disproportionately burdened by 
traditional energy production. According to the NAACP, nearly 
70 percent of Black Americans live or have lived within 30 
miles of a coal-fired power plant and, as a result, experience 
adverse health consequences associated with the production of 
energy at these plants.
    In addition to this, communities of color and low-income 
communities spend a higher percentage of their household 
incomes on electricity bills. According to an Energy 
Information Administration report, 25 million of these 
households have forgone necessities like food and medicine to 
pay their electricity bills - many of which are faced with this 
decision every month. In conjunction with this, low-income 
households are also at a higher risk of utility shutoffs, which 
effectively leaves them without access to a vital resource amid 
the ongoing pandemic.
    Given these circumstances, we must improve access to clean 
energy technologies and the affordability of their benefits 
within frontline communities to lower electricity bills, 
improve air quality, and reduce energy insecurity. A recent 
report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 
demonstrates that energy efficiency and home weatherization 
strategies have the ability to reduce low-income energy burden 
by up to 25 percent. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory 
also suggests nearly half of all U.S. residential rooftop solar 
potential exists on the vacant roofs of low- and moderate-
income households, who would directly benefit from access to 
these resources.
    The committee has worked to establish both short-term and 
long-term solutions to achieve these objectives through 
legislative proposals, like the CLEAN Future Act, and recent 
pandemic relief legislation to place a moratorium on utility 
shutoffs and to expand LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program. However, today it is my hope that the 
Subcommittee, and its witnesses, will identify pathways and 
potential policies to address the barriers that impede equity 
in clean energy accessibility and affordability within the 
communities that need it most.
    I thank our witnesses for their participation in today's 
discussion. I also thank the various stakeholders who shared 
their valuable insights in advance of this discussion. And with 
that, I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Michigan, Ranking Member Upton.

    Mr. Rush. And with that, I yield to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, Ranking Member Upton.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

    Mr. Upton. Well, thanks Mr. Chairman. Nice to see you.
    Mr. Rush. The same to you.
    Mr. Upton. I know we got started a bit late, but I am glad 
everything is working.
    I appreciate today's hearing on energy access and 
affordability for sure. It is very timely as we head into the 
winter months, still battling COVID and the economic fallout 
from the pandemic.
    Here in the U.S., of course, we are blessed with the most 
reliable and affordable supplies of energy and electricity in 
the world. Diversity is the key to our success, which is why I 
support, many of us, all of us support, I hope, an all-of-the-
above approach to energy.
    Nationwide our top sources for electricity generation in 
ranked order are natural gas, then coal, nuclear, wind, 
hydropower, and solar. Most Americans and businesses rely on 
gasoline and diesel for their transportation needs; we know 
that. And last year petroleum products accounted for some 96 
percent of total energy use for transportation; electric 
vehicles, far less than one percent.
    So, it is important to understand why we as a Nation have 
such a diverse fuel mix and how it makes us more secure and 
more competitive than other nations. In the Pacific Northwest, 
they have got plenty of cheap hydro. Some parts of the country 
have more wind, more sun, or more fossil fuel resources, and in 
some States, of course, nuclear energy makes the most sense. In 
reality, it is the weather, the population, and geography that 
varies so widely across the country making it impossible to 
make sweeping generalizations.
    In Michigan, households use more energy than the U.S. 
average. When the temperature drops, we use a lot more natural 
gas for electricity to heat our homes because it is more 
efficient and more affordable. We also use a lot of propane, 
particularly in the Upper Peninsula, in rural areas. That is 
why the one-size-fits-all Federal mandate, like proposals to 
ban natural gas and gasoline cars, doesn't work in States like 
Michigan.
    Instead, the proper role of the Federal Government is to 
promote innovation and technological development and to ensure 
competition and consumer choice. It would be foolish to bet it 
all on one technology or energy resource. Congress doesn't have 
a crystal ball. Rather than mandate a top-down clean energy 
standard or a ban on fossil fuels, let's learn from the 
experience of all 50 States.
    California's rush to green--even though it may have a good 
first name time, right, Bobby--is a perfect example. They have 
monopoly energy provides providers, an unstable grid that is 
prone to blackouts, and the Nation's highest prices. I have got 
serious concerns about a forced transition to implement the 
California standard nationwide.
    With that, I look forward to today's hearing to learn about 
what Congress can do to make energy more reliable and certainly 
more affordable for all Americans.
    I would also like to welcome the first witness, Dr. Reames. 
I plan to use today's hearing to focus on ways to promote 
innovation and new technologies. I think it is going to be 
useful to examine the lessons learned from States like 
California that appear to be struggling to provide reliable and 
affordable energy to consumers. In Michigan and States like 
Texas that are leading the Nation, we have got different models 
for incorporating clean energy. The key is to keep prices 
stable and affordable.
    I look forward to a discussion about carbon-free nuclear 
energy, which is, of course, vital to meeting our shared clean 
energy goals.
    The bottom line is we all want to see cleaner energy 
technologies, but whether we are talking about power generation 
or passenger vehicles, we are not going to get there by picking 
winners and losers. We should learn from the failure of the 
past and work together to make energy more affordable, reliable 
and affordable.
    With that, I look forward to our witnesses today and the 
interaction. Welcome, everybody.
    And, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton

    Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on 
energy access and affordability--a very timely topic as we head 
into the winter months, still battling COVID and the economic 
fallout from the pandemic.
    Here in the United States, we are blessed with the most 
reliable and affordable supplies of energy and electricity in 
the world. Diversity is the key to our success, which is why I 
support an all-of-the-above approach to energy. Nationwide, our 
top sources for electricity generation--in ranked order--are 
natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, hydropower, and solar. Most 
Americans and businesses rely on gasoline and diesel for their 
transportation needs. Last year, petroleum products accounted 
for 96% of total energy used for transportation. Electric 
vehicles accounted for less than 1%.
    It is important to understand why we, as a nation, have 
such a diverse fuel mix, and how it makes us more secure and 
more competitive than other nations. In the Pacific Northwest, 
they have plenty of cheap hydropower. Some parts of the country 
have more wind, more sun, or more fossil resources. In some 
States, nuclear energy makes the most sense. The reality is 
that weather, population, and geography vary wildly across the 
nation, making it impossible to make sweeping generalizations.
    My home state of Michigan, for example, is also unique. For 
one, Michigan households use more energy than the U.S. average. 
When the temperature drops, we use a lot of natural gas for 
electricity and to heatour homes because it is often more 
efficient and affordable. We also use a lot of propane.
    This is why a one-sized-fits-all Federal mandate--like the 
proposals to ban natural gas and gasoline cars--is the wrong 
approach. Instead, the proper role of the Federal government is 
to promote innovation and technological development; and to 
ensure competition and consumer choice.
    It would be foolish to bet it all on any one technology or 
energy resource. Congress does not have a crystal ball. Rather 
than mandate a top-down clean energy standard or a ban on 
fossil fuels, let us learn from the experience of other States.
    California's ``Rush to Green'' is a perfect example. They 
have monopoly energy providers, an unstable grid that is prone 
to blackouts, and the nation's highest prices. I have serious 
concerns about a forced transition to implement the California 
standard nationwide.
    With that, I look forward to today's hearing to learn what 
Congress can do to make energy more reliable and affordable for 
all Americans. I would also like to welcome our University of 
Michigan witness, Dr. Reames.
    I plan to use today's hearing to focus on ways to promote 
innovation and new technologies. I think it will also be useful 
to examine the lessons-learned from States like California, 
that appear to be struggling to provide reliable and affordable 
energy to consumers.
    My home state of Michigan, and States like Texas that are 
leading the nation, have different models for incorporating 
clean energy. The key is keeping prices stable and affordable. 
I also look forward to discussion about carbon-free nuclear 
energy, which is vital to meeting our shared clean energy 
goals.
    The bottom line is that we all want to see cleaner energy 
technologies, but whether we are talking about power generation 
or passenger vehicles, we are not going to get there by picking 
winners and losers. We should learn from the failures of the 
past and work together to make energy more available, reliable, 
and affordable for all.
    With that, I want to thank the witnesses for appearing 
before us today. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with 
you on these important issues, which I know we both care deeply 
about. Thank you, I yield back.

    Mr. Pallone. Am I supposed to speak?
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, the 
chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes for the purposes 
of an opening statement.

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

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush. Thank you for 
holding this important hearing on both energy affordability and 
clean energy access. Chairman Rush has been passionately 
working on including communities of color in the clean energy 
transition, especially through his blue collar and green collar 
jobs bill, and I thank him for his leadership on this and so 
many things.
    Energy access and energy burden often do not get the 
attention they deserve. Throughout the country, low-income 
households and particularly communities of color face 
disproportionate negative impacts on traditional fossil fuel 
generation due to their proximity to power plants and the lack 
of clean energy options. And these communities see increased 
risks of polluted air and water, resulting in a greater 
likelihood of health conditions, like asthma or cancer. They 
also disproportionately suffer the devastating effects of 
fossil-fueled climate change, like severe damage and flooding 
to their homes during hurricanes. While we are all affected by 
climate change, we have to make sure that no one is overlooked 
in their efforts to build a clean and resilient future.
    Along with climate and environmental threats, communities 
of color are also disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 
pandemic. Americans in all regions are suffering from job loss 
and are spending more time at home, but that means that many of 
them are bringing home a lot less money than they were before 
the pandemic, and their energy bills are going up because they 
are using more energy at home, and it is just pushing 
struggling families further to the edge.
    And as we experience a public health and economic crisis, 
unpaid electricity bills and the threat of electricity shutoffs 
should not be something struggling families are concerned about 
right now. Over 800,000 low-income customers are currently at 
risk of having their electricity shut off by their electric 
utility company, these communities, which already experience 
higher rates of COVID-19, are now being forced to deal with the 
potential loss of power. It is really an outrage, particularly 
since we included a moratorium on electricity and water 
shutoffs from the HEROES Act that passed in May, and that was 
four and a half months ago, but Senate Republicans have refused 
to act, and now we are again working to protect these valuable 
communities with a shutoff moratorium in our updated HEROES 
legislation, which may come up today. It is long past time for 
President Trump and Senate Republicans to recognize the need to 
act.
    This assistance is critical right now because the pandemic 
is only exacerbating an unfortunate trend that already existed 
that many struggling families face high energy burdens. They 
are spending a higher percentage of their paychecks on energy 
because of factors like income, location of where they live, 
and the quality of the building where they live. Yet while low-
income energy assistance programs exist, they have limited 
funding.
    In the updated HEROES Act, we include $4.5 billion to the 
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. And last 
week, the House passed the Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation 
Act, which included numerous bills from the committee that 
support low-income clean energy projects, energy-efficiency 
programs, and rural energy development. And I think that bill 
is a step in the right direction for a clean and equitable 
energy future.
    The transition to a clean energy economy has to be 
equitable and affordable. We must include all Americans in this 
enormous effort to ensure that no communities are abandoned or 
face the threats of climate change by themselves.
    [The prepared statement of The Chairman follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

     I thank Chairman Rush for holding this important hearing 
on energy affordability and clean energy access. Chairman Rush 
has been passionately working on including communities of color 
in the clean energy transition, especially through his Blue 
Collar and Green Collar Jobs bill, and I thank him for his 
leadership.
    Energy access and energy burdens often do not get the 
attention they deserve. Throughout the country, low-income 
households - particularly communities of color--face 
disproportionate negative impacts from traditional fossil 
generation due to their proximity to power plants and a lack of 
clean energy options. These communities see increased risks of 
polluted air and water, resulting in a greater likelihood of 
health conditions like asthma or cancer.
    They also disproportionately suffer the devastating effects 
of fossil-fueled climate change, like severe damage and 
flooding to their homes from hurricanes. While we are all 
affected by climate change, we must make sure that no one is 
overlooked in our efforts to build a clean and resilient 
future.
    Along with climate and environmental threats, communities 
of color are also disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 
pandemic. Americans in all regions are suffering from job loss 
and are spending more time at home during this public health 
emergency. That means many of them are bringing home a lot less 
money than they were before the pandemic, and their energy 
bills are going up because they are using more energy at home. 
This is just pushing struggling families further to the edge.
    As we experience a public health and economic crisis, 
unpaid electricity bills and the threat of electricity shutoffs 
should not be something struggling families are concerned about 
right now. However, 800,000 low-income customers are currently 
at risk of having their electricity shut off by their electric 
utility company. These communities, which already experience 
higher rates of COVID-19, are now being forced to deal with the 
potential loss of power.
    This is an outrage, particularly since we included a 
moratorium on electricity and water shutoffs in the Heroes Act 
that passed in May. That was four and a half months ago, but 
Senate Republicans have refused to act. Now we are again 
working to protect these vulnerable communities with a shutoff 
moratorium in our updated Heroes legislation. It is long past 
time for President Trump and Senate Republicans to recognize 
the need to act.
    This assistance is critical right now because the pandemic 
is only exacerbating an unfortunate trend that already existed 
- many struggling families face high energy burdens. They are 
spending a higher percentage of their paychecks on energy 
because of factors like income, location of where they live and 
the quality of the building where they live. And while low-
income energy assistance programs exist, they have limited 
funding.
    Fortunately, the updated Heroes Act includes $4.5 billion 
for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. 
And last week the House passed the Clean Economy Jobs and 
Innovation Act, which included numerous bills from this 
committee that support low-income clean energy projects, energy 
efficiency programs and rural energy development. This bill is 
a step in the right direction for a clean and equitable energy 
future.
    The transition to a clean energy economy must be equitable 
and affordable. We must include all Americans in this enormous 
effort and ensure that no communities are abandoned to face the 
threats of climate change alone.

    And, again, thank you, Chairman Rush, for taking the lead 
on so much of this. I would like to yield the remainder of my 
time to the gentlewoman from Michigan, Mrs. Dingell.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Pallone, for yielding.
    I would like to briefly recognize a wonderful witness from 
the University of Michigan, who my colleague from Michigan also 
recognized, Dr. Tony Reames, a Ph.D., who is assistant 
professor in the School for Environment and Sustainability at 
the University of Michigan, located in the heart of my 
district. Go Blue.
    Dr. Reames is a multidisciplinary scholar who has expanded 
the study of environmental justice to specifically focus on 
energy justice. Currently, Dr. Reames is exploring disparities 
that exist in residential energy generation consumption and 
affordability, focusing on the production and persistence of 
inequality by race, class, and location.
    Dr. Reames, thank you for being here. You are going to 
provide this committee with a lot of important information, and 
there is just so much this committee can learn from you and 
from the other witnesses today. We look forward to your 
testimony--and the other witnesses.
    And I would also like to thank the chairs of the full 
committee and the subcommittee for the work that has been done 
in the HEROES Act in working with Rashida and I. It is very, 
very important.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Pallone. I yield back as well, Chairman Rush.
    Thank you, Mrs. Dingell.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, the ranking 
member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for the purposes of 
an opening statement.

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

    Mr. Walden. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman, and 
colleagues, as well as our witnesses. Thank you all for your 
participation today.
    Today's hearing will examine an important topic concerning 
access and affordability of energy for low-income or otherwise 
disadvantaged households. As a result of the COVID-19 related 
shutdowns and economic hardships, energy cost burdens have 
become more common. Sadly, many Americans now know what it is 
like to have to live on limited resources to pay to keep the 
lights on, the air-conditioning running, the car fueled. 
Fortunately, the economy is beginning to rebound a bit, and 
there is help available for many of these families.
    Data from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient 
Economy, which we will hear from this morning, indicates 26 
million households face a high energy burden. This means six 
percent or more of these households' spending goes towards 
energy, and this does not include fuel for necessary 
transportation, which further adds to the burden.
    The Department of Energy data showed the States with the 
highest low-income energy burdens, ten percent or higher are in 
the Southeastern United States where the most electricity is 
used for heating and cooling. Low-income households in that 
region use approximately 36 percent more electricity than the 
national average for low-income households in other regions of 
the country. Fortunately, Southeastern States also enjoy some 
of the lowest electricity rates in the Nation.
    So imagine the impact on low-income households in 
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, or South Carolina if energy 
prices drove up the price of electricity so much they had to 
pay the same rates as residents of Connecticut, where energy 
prices are nearly twice as high. Or consider other parts of the 
country, like my home State of Oregon. If policies driven by 
the radical environmentalists severely curtailed our State's 
dominant hydroelectric production, what would that mean to low-
income households if we doubled our electricity rates to those 
of California levels? What would it mean for our ability to 
provide energy assistance?
    So, there are many State and Federal programs aimed at 
relieving American families' energy burdens. These include 
efficiency and weatherization programs at the Department of 
Energy and subsidy programs at the Department of Health & Human 
Services, programs which are authorized by this committee.
    Several witnesses this morning will talk about ways to 
improve coordination among Federal programs and how we measure 
poverty to expand energy access and affordability.
    My point here is that whatever the value of these programs, 
we cannot lose sight of the powerful impact Federal, State, and 
local energy policies, including clean energy, have on the 
underlying affordability and reliability of energy. Renewable 
energy sources have a place, they certainly do, but they cannot 
come at the expense of families who are already struggling to 
make ends meet. Policies that drive up energy prices or curtail 
access to energy sources conflict directly with efforts to 
confront poverty. These policies risk depriving people of the 
key component of community and household prosperity. Access to 
affordable, reliable energy is essential for jobs and economic 
opportunities, especially in lower income communities.
    This is plainly evident in the expensive energy policies of 
California. Mandates or regulatory policies are raising prices 
seven times faster than the rest of the Nation, as we will hear 
this morning. That is driving out high-paying energy jobs 
including thousands of jobs with zero-emissions nuclear energy.
    New policies seeking to end use of natural gas and gas-
fueled vehicles will further drive up housing and 
transportation costs, which is especially harmful to the 
working poor, who often have to commute great distances.
    Robert Bryce, who is testifying today for the Foundation 
for Research on Equal Opportunity, will provide some useful 
perspective we should all keep in mind so we can consider 
various policies to accelerate to clean energy systems.
    Throughout this Congress, Republicans have advocated for 
practical approaches to address climate risks and improve and 
protect the environment. We have advocated for removing 
regulatory barriers to promote innovation and to posture the 
deployment of new clean energy sources. Our view has been that 
the surest path to cleaner energy systems is to put the energy 
consumer front and center so we do not undermine our Nation's 
ability to make and do things nor to deprive people their 
opportunities for prosperity.
    We know this can work because we have seen the benefits in 
cleaner air, world leading reductions in carbon emissions, and, 
at least prior to COVID-19, an increasingly productive economy. 
We should not lose sight of that larger picture as we work 
together on policies to help those most in need.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Today's hearing will examine an important topic concerning 
access and affordability of energy for low-income or otherwise 
disadvantaged households.
    As a result of COVID-19 related shutdowns and economic 
hardships, energy cost burdens have become more common. Sadly, 
many Americans now know what it feels like to have limited 
resources to pay to keep the lights on, the air conditioning 
running, and the car fueled. Fortunately, the economy is 
rebounding and there is help available to these families.
    Data from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient 
Economy, which we will hear from this morning, indicates 26 
million households face a ``high energy burden.'' This means 
six percent or more of these households' spending goes toward 
energy-and this does not include fuel for necessary 
transportation, which further adds to the burden.
    Department of Energy data show the states with the highest 
low-income energy burdens--ten percent or higher--are in the 
Southeastern United States where the most electricity is used 
for heating and cooling. Low-income households in that region 
use approximately 36 percent more electricity than the national 
average for low-income households in other regions of the 
country.
    Fortunately, Southeastern states also enjoy some of the 
lowest electricity rates in the nation. So, imagine the impact 
on low-income households in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, or 
South Carolina if energy policies drove up the price of 
electricity so much that they had to pay the same rates as 
residents of Connecticut, where prices are nearly twice as 
high.
    Or consider other parts of the country--like my home state 
of Oregon. If radical environmentalist policies severely 
curtailed our state's dominant hydroelectric production, what 
would that mean to low-income households if we doubled our 
electricity rates to California's levels? What would it mean 
for our ability to provide energy assistance?
    There are many state and federal programs aimed at 
relieving American families' energy burdens. These include 
efficiency and weatherization programs at the Department of 
Energy and subsidy programs at the Department of Health and 
Human Services - programs which are authorized by this 
Committee.
    Several witnesses this morning will talk about ways to 
improve coordination among federal programs and how we measure 
poverty to expand energy access and affordability.
    My point here is that whatever the value of these programs, 
we cannot lose sight of the powerful impact federal, state, and 
local energy policies--including clean energy--have on the 
underlying affordability and reliability of energy. Renewable 
energy sources have a place, but they cannot come at the 
expense of families who are already struggling to make ends 
meet.
    Policies that drive up energy prices or curtail access to 
energy sources conflict directly with efforts to confront 
poverty. These policies risk depriving people of a key 
component of community and household prosperity. Access to 
affordable, reliable energy is essential for jobs and economic 
opportunity, especially in low-income communities.
    This is plainly evident in the expensive energy policies of 
California. Mandates to increase renewable energy and 
electrification are raising prices for power seven times faster 
than the rest of the nation, as we will hear this morning, and 
driving out high-paying energyjobs--including thousands of jobs 
associated with zero-emissions nuclear energy. New policies 
seeking to end use of natural gas and gas-fueled vehicles will 
further drive up housing and transportation costs, which is 
especially harmful to the working poor.
    Robert Bryce, who is testifying today for the Foundation 
for Research on Equal Opportunity, will provide some useful 
perspective we all should keep in mind as we consider various 
policies to ``accelerate'' to clean energy systems.
    Throughout this Congress, Republicans have advocated for 
practical approaches to address climate risks and improve and 
protect the environment. We have advocated for removing 
regulatory barriers to promote innovation and foster the 
deployment of new, clean energy sources. Our view has been that 
the surest path to cleaner energy systems is to put the energy 
consumer front and center so that we do not undermine our 
nation's ability to make and do things, nor deprive people 
their own opportunities for prosperity.
    We know this can work because we have seen the benefits in 
cleaner air, world-leading reductions in carbon emissions, 
and--at least prior to COVID-19--an increasingly productive 
economy. We should not lose sight of that larger picture as we 
look at policies to help those most in need.

    Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman.
    The Chair would like to remind members that, pursuant to 
committee rules, all Members' written opening statements shall 
be made part of the record.
    At this time, I would like to recognize our witnesses for 
today's hearing.
    The first witness that I want to recognize is Ms. Ariel 
Drehobl. She is a senior research associate for local policies 
at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
    She will be followed by Dr. Tony Reames, the assistant 
professor for the School of Environment and Sustainability at 
the University of Michigan.
    Our next witness will be Mr. Robert Bryce, the visiting 
fellow for the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity.
    And, lastly but not the least, our final witness will be 
Ms. Alexandra Wyatt, the policy and regulatory manager for GRID 
Alternatives.
    And I want to thank each and every one of our witnesses for 
appearing before us today, and we certainly look forward to 
your testimony.
    Ms. Drehobl, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an 
opening statement.

 STATEMENTS OF ARIEL DREHOBL, SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, LOCAL 
POLICY, AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY; TONY 
 G. REAMES, PH.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SCHOOL FOR ENVIRONMENT 
   AND SUSTAINABILITY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; ROBERT BRYCE, 
     VISITING FELLOW, THE FOUNDATION FOR RESEARCH ON EQUAL 
  OPPORTUNITY; AND ALEXANDRA M. WYATT, POLICY AND REGULATORY 
                   MANAGER, GRID ALTERNATIVES

                   STATEMENT OF ARIEL DREHOBL

    Ms. Drehobl. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, and 
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to 
speak at this hearing on ``Generating Equity: Improving Clean 
Energy Access and Affordability.'' My name is Ariel Drehobl. I 
am a senior research associate at the American Council for an 
Energy-Efficient Economy, also known as ACEEE, and I am the 
lead author of ACEEE's newly released energy burden report.
    ACEEE is a nonprofit organization that acts as a catalyst 
to advancing energy-efficient policies, programs, technologies, 
investments, and behaviors so that all households can 
experience equitable benefits from energy efficiency.
    Over the past five years, ACEEE has published three reports 
that analyze energy burdens across different populations. 
Energy burden is the percentage of annual income a household 
spends on its annual energy bills, and the energy burden metric 
is used widely to measure inequity in the energy sector.
    On September 10, we published a new report which calculates 
energy burdens nationally, regionally, and in 25 of the largest 
metro areas. From the study, we found that energy affordability 
is a persistent national challenge. Of all U.S. households, 25 
percent face a high energy burden, meaning that they pay more 
than 6 percent of their income on energy bills, and 13 percent 
face a severe energy burden, meaning they pay more than 20 
percent. Low-income households fare the worse. Nationally 67 
percent of low-income households face a high energy burden, and 
60 percent of low-income households with a high burden face a 
severe burden. Low-income households spend three times more of 
their income on energy costs compared to other households. And 
compared to non-Hispanic White households, the median energy 
burden for Black households is 43 percent higher, the median 
for Hispanic households is 20 percent higher, and the median 
for Native American households is 45 percent higher.
    This research shows that energy burdens are not equitable 
and that policy action is needed to improve energy 
affordability. High energy burdens are associated with 
inadequate housing conditions and have been found to affect 
physical and mental health, nutrition, and local economic 
development.
    Researchers have found that high energy burdens are 
correlated with older, inefficient, and unhealthy housing, 
which is itself associated with other negative health impacts. 
These households are more likely to stay caught in cycles of 
poverty. Bringing policies to address high energy burdens can 
ensure a more just and equitable energy system.
    COVID-19 has had a tremendous impact on energy 
affordability. More than 40 million Americans have filed for 
unemployment since the start of the pandemic, and many of them 
are low income. More than one-fourth of those who have lost 
jobs have reported skipping a utility bill payment.
    Black, Hispanic, and Native American households are 
disproportionately burdened by COVID-19. They face greater 
long-term exposure to air pollution, and they are more likely 
to face energy insecurity, economic instability, and chronic 
diseases.
    By expanding energy-efficiency programs, we can reduce 
overall energy consumption and our reliance on fossil fuels. 
Energy efficiency and weatherization provide a long-term 
solution to reducing high energy burdens. These strategies 
should complement bill-payment assistance and programs aimed at 
energy-saving education and behavior change.
    In our report, we estimate that weatherization can reduce 
the median low-income households' burden by 25 percent, making 
this investment an effective strategy to reduce high energy 
burdens while also benefiting the environment. These 
investments are especially important in the wake of the 
pandemic as they can also help stimulate the economy by 
creating local jobs while helping households afford their 
energy bills in the long term.
    Congress can take action to improve equity in the clean 
energy sector. We recommend expanding the low-income 
Weatherization Assistance Program and include funds for health-
related home improvements. WAP currently serves about a hundred 
thousand homes per year through community funding and leverage 
funds from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. This 
number is far below the 15.7 million severely energy burdened 
households in the U.S. At this rate, it would take 360 years to 
weatherize all eligible households.
    Weatherization can also stimulate the economic recovery by 
creating green jobs, maintaining employment for thousands of 
small business, and provide updates to furnaces and air 
ventilation that are critical to those most vulnerable to the 
impacts of COVID-19.
    Congress can also increase funding for LIHEAP, leverage 
Medicaid funding to improve health and efficiency in homes, 
address efficiency and affordable local family housing, and 
provide national guidance on how to protect the home health of 
Americans during this public health crisis.
    In conclusion, energy insecurity is a persistent national 
challenge that has been worsened by the global pandemic and 
economic crisis. Increasing investment in low-income energy 
efficiency and weatherization can provide a long-term solution 
to reducing high energy burdens for low-income households.
    I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to speak on 
this critical issue, and I welcome your questions and yield 
back the rest of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Drehobl follows:]
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
    
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentlelady.
    And, Dr. Reames, you are recognized now for 5 minutes.

               STATEMENT OF TONY G. REAMES, PH.D.

    Dr. Reames. Good morning.
    Chairman Rush and Pallone, Ranking Member Upton and Walden, 
Congresswoman Dingell, and members of the subcommittee. It is 
an honor to appear before you today, and I thank you for 
inviting me to discuss the importance of an equity-based 
approach to improving clean energy access and affordability.
    My name is Tony Reames. I am an assistant professor in the 
School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of 
Michigan, and I lead the Urban Energy Justice Lab, which 
conducts research on the production and persistence of spatial, 
racial, and socioeconomic disparities, and energy access, 
affordability, and policymaking.
    As Ms. Drehobl testified, stark disparities exist in U.S. 
energy burdens. Both urban and rural low-income households 
spend substantially greater proportions of their income on 
energy costs when compared to non-low-income households. 
Moreover, Black, Latinx, indigenous, elderly, and multifamily 
and renter occupied households are disproportionately impacted 
by high energy burdens. This leaves millions of Americans in 
energy poverty.
    Estimates before the coronavirus pandemic found that 25 
million households had to forego food and medicine in order to 
pay their energy bills, 17 million households faced energy 
shutoff, and 6 million households were unable heat or cool 
their homes due to being disconnected. And we know that the 
pandemic has only exacerbated these issues as the same 
communities reeling from COVID-19 are racking up massive 
utility debt and fear the imminent end of shutoff moratoriums.
    Thus, as policy discussions consider the transition to 
cleaner energy technology, acknowledging the nuance of energy 
poverty is critical to ensuring the transition is just, 
equitable, and affordable for all.
    Investments in residential energy-efficiency improvements 
have long been a key site of intervention to reduce energy 
burdens with additional economic and environmental benefits. 
However, an equitable investment in energy efficiency must 
account for disparate vulnerabilities of groups most likely to 
reside in the least energy-efficient housing.
    Our research shows that homes and neighborhoods with lower 
median incomes, more households below the Federal poverty 
level, and more racial ethnic minority head of households on 
average are less energy efficient. Furthermore, the persistence 
of racial segregation in America increases the energy poverty 
vulnerability of Black and Latinx households.
    As we implement policies and programs to transition to a 
cleaner energy future, individual adoption of new technology is 
crucial. Therefore, new technology must be accessible and 
affordable for all. However, our research shows that even entry 
level clean energy technology, such as LED bulbs, can be both 
less available and more expensive in communities where 
households would benefit most from the energy savings provided 
by these products.
    Moreover, millions of households that fall into the gap 
between qualifying for low-income energy assistance programs 
and having the resources to cover upfront costs for 
improvements have few to no avenues for improving energy 
efficiency in their homes or accessing renewable or other clean 
energy technology.
    There are several actions Congress can take to address the 
disparities in clean energy access and affordability that we 
raise in our research. Components of legislation, such as the 
Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act and the Housing is 
Infrastructure Act are good examples.
    In my written statement, I discuss the need for a national 
energy poverty and justice strategy and potential approaches 
that can be taken.
    First, we can explore the feasibility of restructuring and 
integrating the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, 
Weatherization Assistance, and other energy-related assistance 
programs into a streamlined comprehensive strategy for Federal 
energy assistance.
    Second, develop a national framework to identify and 
quantify current residential energy equity gaps across 
geographies, race, ethnicity, income, and other social 
demographic groups.
    Third, determine whether individual or place-based 
approaches to policy design and implementation best address the 
identified energy disparities.
    And, fourth, establish measurable equity goals and 
transparent mechanisms for tracking progress, such as energy 
poverty reduction goals or employment equity targets in the 
clean energy industry, and institutionalize these equity 
metrics and set new policies, funding, and evaluation.
    Again, I would like to thank Chairman Rush, Ranking Member 
Upton, and members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to 
discuss an important and timely issue, and I look forward to 
your questions and comments.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Reames follows:]
    
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
    Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks Dr. Reames.
    Dr. Bryce, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF ROBERT BRYCE

    Mr. Bryce. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I am not 
a doctor. I am barely a mister, but I appreciate the honorific.
    My name is Robert Bryce. I am a journalist. I am a 
filmmaker. I am a podcaster. I have been writing about the 
energy business for 30 years. I am also a visiting fellow at 
the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity.
    These discussions about energy burden are important and, as 
Dr. Reames and Ms. Drehobl pointed out, very timely. But more 
attention must be paid to how policies designed to address 
climate change are resulting in higher energy prices for low-
income ratepayers and consumers.
    I will talk about three issues this morning: Renewable 
energy mandates, natural gas restrictions, and electric 
vehicles.
    California has mandated the State's electric utilities 
procure at least 60 percent of the electricity they sell from 
renewables by 2030 and to be selling 100 percent zero carbon 
electricity by 2045. The imposition of these mandates over the 
last 12 years has coincided with a dramatic increase in our 
electricity prices. Between 2011 and 2019, according to the 
Energy Information Administration, the average price of 
electricity in California for all users has jumped by nearly 30 
percent. That is more than seven times the rate of increase in 
the rest of the U.S. California now has the highest electricity 
prices in the Continental U.S. outside of the Northeast.
    In Ontario, Canada, after the province introduced the Green 
Energy Act and shuttered traditional generation plants and 
began providing big subsidies for renewables, electricity 
prices soared. Between 2008 and 2016, residential electric 
rates in the province jumped by 71 percent, which was more than 
double the average seen in the rest of Canada over that time 
period.
    Germany, which has pledged to slash its greenhouse gas 
emissions by 95 percent by 2050, has seen its electric rates 
also increase dramatically. Between 2007 and 2018, according to 
the think tank Agora Energiewende, residential electric rates 
in Germany jumped by 50--50--percent. German residential 
customers now pay the highest rates in Europe, about 37 cents 
per kilowatt hour, which is three times the average residential 
rate here in the United States.
    So why are these renewable mandates pushing up prices? Last 
year, Michael Greenstone and Ishan Nath of the University of 
Chicago published a study which concluded that renewable energy 
mandates lead to--I am quoting--substantial increases in 
electricity prices that mirror the programs' increasing 
stringency over time.
    The report said the intermittent nature of renewables meant 
that backup capacity must be added and that, by mandating an 
increase in renewable power, base load generation is 
prematurely displaced and some of the cost is passed to 
consumers.
    Bans and restrictions on natural gas will also mean higher 
prices. As I noted in a recent report for the Foundation for 
Research on Equal Opportunity, more than 30 local governments 
in California have passed bans or restrictions on the use of 
natural gas in buildings. These restrictions are being done, of 
course, in the name of climate change, but they are in practice 
a form of energy taxation. By banning the direct use of natural 
gas, these regulations will force homeowners and renters to use 
electricity instead, which costs four times as much per joule 
of energy delivered as natural gas. These higher energy costs 
could amount to hundreds of dollars per year for each 
household.
    Finally, electric vehicles, these aren't--the subsidies and 
mandates are, in fact, a form of regressive taxation. As 
pointed out by Assemblyman Jim Cooper from California, one 
California Senate district in the Bay Area has collected EV 
rebates from the State totaling more than $55 million. That is 
more than has been collected by seven other senate districts in 
the State combined so that you have residences and homeowners, 
families in low- and middle-income senate districts subsidizing 
luxury electric vehicle purchases by wealthy individuals in the 
Bay Area. This makes no sense.
    Subsidies are only part of the cost. Consumers are also 
facing dramatic--potentially dramatic increases in electricity 
prices to pay for public charging stations needed to refuel the 
costs for those cars. I have calculated, in California alone, 
the increase in electricity use due to electrification of that 
State's electric transportation could result in an increase in 
electricity demand in California of 50 percent. This is in a 
State that is already experiencing blackouts.
    In summary, these efforts to increase access to clean 
energy are laudable, but policymakers must be paying attention. 
If we want to decrease inequality, policymakers have to be 
attentive so that the costs of decarbonizing America's enormous 
energy and power sector is not borne by low- and middle-income 
American families.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Bryce follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    And the Chair now recognizes Ms. Wyatt for 5 minutes for an 
opening statement.

                STATEMENT OF ALEXANDRA M. WYATT

    Ms. Wyatt. Thank you very much. Chairman Rush, Ranking 
Member Upton, Chairman Pallone, distinguished members of the 
subcommittee, thank you.
    My name is Alexandra Wyatt, and I am here on behalf of GRID 
Alternatives, where I am policy and regulatory manager. GRID is 
the Nation's largest nonprofit solar installer and a leader in 
helping low-income communities, communities of color, and 
Tribal communities nationwide get clean, affordable solar power 
and solar jobs.
    Since 2004, we have served more than 16,000 families, all 
low-income households and tenants of affordable housing, with 
residential, multifamily, and community solar systems that have 
brought them more than $400 million in lifetime savings. We 
administer a number of equity-focused solar, clean mobility, 
and workforce training programs.
    There are few more urgently needed and high return 
investments our society can make than mitigating climate change 
through eliminating greenhouse gas emissions, preventing 
needless death and suffering by reducing toxic pollution, and 
reducing high energy burdens that contribute to economic 
insecurity and worse, crises that all result largely from our 
traditional energy system and that all disproportionately hurt 
low-income communities and communities of color.
    The dollar value of addressing these problems is in the 
trillions, and their importance in matters of racial and 
economic justice is invaluable. Undervaluing and externalizing 
these problems has stacked the deck in favor of fossil fuels 
artificially and unfairly. Yet, luckily, the clean energy 
transition already underway can help solve all of these 
problems at once, while spurring economic development. Policy 
choices will determine whether and how well it does. GRID's 
work shows that it is possible.
    Through policies that get pollution sources out of 
underserved communities and clean healthy zero-carbon resilient 
local energy solutions into them while protecting communities 
that have depended on fossil fuels for their livelihoods, 
Congress can seize the opportunity to leverage the clean energy 
transition as a solution to some of our country's highest 
needs, including equity and racial justice.
    GRID has seen firsthand how expanding access to clean 
energy can solve multiple problems. When families, like our 
clients, struggling with high energy burdens, particularly now 
in the pandemic, have access to bill savings from solar, they 
get significant, long-term financial relief. That then leads to 
social stability, economic development, and community health. 
When clean energy solutions are combined for underserved 
communities, like solar plus efficiency, weatherization, 
electrification, electric bikes or cars and chargers, and 
storage, their benefits multiply.
    When a more diverse range of communities sees clean energy 
technology as viable solution, markets can move beyond early 
adopter phases and scale faster. When communities have control 
and ownership over their energy, their energy systems better 
meet their needs and their energy dollars stay local. When 
there are accessible and inclusive on-ramps to well-paying jobs 
in the fast-growing clean energy industries, industries get the 
skilled and diverse work force they need, and more Americans 
can support their families.
    Last but far from least, when communities at the front 
lines of the climate crisis have energy storage and resilience, 
devastation from such is reduced. And when pollution from 
traditional energy sources no longer poisons the 
disproportionately low-income Black and Brown communities 
outside their fence lines, those communities won't suffer and 
die from the health problems, neighborhood disinvestment, and 
other effects resulting from that environmental injustice. They 
can breathe.
    Despite all of these benefits, low-income households face a 
number of barriers to clean energy even though they often 
benefit the most.
    On top of threshold financial hurdles of lack of access to 
capital and credit, lower income households may be shut out of 
incentives like the Federal investment tax credit. Other 
obstacles may include language, education, mistrust, home 
ownership status and housing conditions more often in these 
communities. Well-designed community solar programs can 
overcome some of those barriers, but they are not available 
everywhere. All together, these barriers contribute to market 
disinterest in the absence of targeted intentional policies and 
investments.
    My written testimony makes a number of specific policy 
recommendations to address these barriers. They are drawn from 
GRID's years of direct on-the-ground-and-roof experience 
working exclusively with low- and moderate-income households 
and underserved communities. They are also informed by our 
partnerships with community-based organization; though, to be 
clear, we don't purport to speak for the communities we serve 
or substitute for their own input.
    To summarize, first, equitable and just processes are 
necessary for success. Frontline communities aren't just 
experts on equity issues. They are experts, period. People 
closest to the problem are closest to the solution; however, 
they are often not actively included in decisions early on.
    Second, financial hurdles are threshold barriers for low-
income and low-wealth families. Policy and investments 
recognize this and cite incentives to enable clean energy with 
no upfront or variable costs. The investments can be made in a 
number of means, including careful coordination with existing 
energy assistance programs. The ITC should be extended with a 
direct pay option to make it available to low-income 
households, as well as nonprofits and Tribes, as ineligibility 
puts them at a competitive disadvantage. Well-designed policies 
won't shift any additional costs on to low-income taxpayers or 
ratepayers.
    Third, policies must comprehensively account for the many 
wide-ranging and intertwined benefits of clean energy access, 
including racial equity and work force development. GRID's work 
shows that models combining these benefits work.
    Finally, it is not just electric power that people need, 
but also political power, powers in their communities, and 
power over their own futures. Policymakers can use a number of 
strategies to promote local community-level ownership and 
control over energy systems.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I 
look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Wyatt follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr. Rush. The Chair wants to thank all of the witnesses for 
their opening statements, and we have concluded the opening 
statements.
    And now we will move to member questions. Each member will 
have 5 minutes to ask questions of the various witnesses.
    I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    The ongoing coronavirus pandemic continues to demonstrate 
the importance of affordable energy and its relevance to our 
most vital and basic needs.
    Dr. Reames, you are the founder and director of the 
University of Michigan's Urban Energy Justice Lab. Given your 
energy justice research, would you describe the importance of 
viewing energy-related topics and airing of topical discussion 
through what we would call a justice lens?
    Dr. Reames. Yes, Chairman. Thank you for that question.
    The whole idea behind energy justice is that a just energy 
system fairly disseminates both the benefits and costs of 
energy services and is also representative and impartial in 
energy decisionmaking.
    I started this work during our last crisis, the economic 
recession, and was really impressed by a policy that or a 
program that Congressman Cleaver proposed in Kansas City called 
the Green Impact Zone. And this project looked at concentrating 
Federal dollars from the stimulus in one area, recognizing the 
disproportionate challenges that disinvested urban communities, 
African-American communities experience. And a big component of 
that was focusing on energy, whether it was access to 
renewable, access to clean energy technology such as energy 
efficiency. And in studying that and looking at this issue 
across the country, again, you see that, you know, vulnerable 
communities are living in less efficient housing, have less 
access to energy-efficient technology and appliances, and if 
those things are available, they are more expensive and so they 
can't afford them.
    So this idea that if we want to transition to a cleaner 
energy future, we can't disregard the vulnerability that 
communities already face, and that is across race. That is 
across income groups. There are gender disparities in energy 
access participation. And so a justice idea not only recognizes 
existing vulnerabilities but ensures that decisionmaking 
doesn't focus on just equality but actually equity.
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Dr. Reames.
    Ms. Drehobl, under this current administration, DOE has 
failed to update or even rolls back essential energy-efficiency 
standards. How does this impact the availability and the 
affordability of these energy technologies within vulnerable 
communities?
    Ms. Drehobl. Thank you for the question.
    DOE has already missed the legal deadlines to update 
product standards. A recent report from ACEEE has found that 
updates to existing standards could save $43 billion per year 
on utility bills U.S. families by 2035. Because low-income 
households already spend three times more of their income than 
other households, the loss of these savings will hit them 
harder. Low-income households are often renters or live in 
multifamily housing, and they don't always have direct control 
over what appliances are in their homes, and landlords 
frequently buy the cheapest or the least efficient models. But 
standards can ensure that they are replaced with more efficient 
versions when the time arises for replacement. Failure to 
update standards breaks this cycle and leaves less efficient 
appliances in place as they are being replaced for low-income 
households.
    So, you know, not updating standards definitely has an 
impact on low-income households in this way and doing so could 
save a lot of money for U.S. families on their energy bills.
    Mr. Rush. Ms. Wyatt, in the statute, FERC has established 
Federal energy capacity marketing rules that can come at a cost 
to consumers that hinder marketing access for clean energy 
sources. In what ways will these rules impact clean energy 
accessibility and affordability within vulnerable communities?
    Ms. Wyatt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As you say, these types of Federal decisions absolutely 
impact vulnerable communities, in this particular decision that 
you are referencing, negatively.
    First, it is key that State support for clean energy 
correct market distortions without, you know, an economywide 
carbon price or something like that, that forces polluting 
resources to internalize this whole cost escalation, which are 
enormous and unjust, the resource mix is inefficiently weighted 
towards these resources, not a level playing field. But FERC 
has failed to recognize that. And how the decision works, you 
know, even as distributed clean energy growers--and to be 
clear, distributed energy is GRID's area of work--utilities 
still have to source wholesale energy in much of the mid-
Atlantic and Northeast and Midwest.
    This happens through the PJM regional transmission 
organization and their auction mechanism. Unfortunately, this 
mechanism is indifferent to resources, environmental and equity 
profiles. And the recent decision from FERC further overrides 
State support for clean energy. So the minimum offered price 
rule, or MOPR, prevents wholesale energy sellers from 
recognizing State support in their offers, pushing bids higher 
than what they would otherwise be. And if that sounds like it 
directly raises prices for utility ratepayers, including those 
like our clients who can least afford it, it does.
    It also slows climate action again with inequitable impacts 
on vulnerable communities because some renewable resources 
won't be able to clear it in that market.
    Mr. Rush. And my time is--it is the end of my time. So 
would you conclude your answer, please?
    Ms. Wyatt. Sure, thank you.
    Yes, the long and short of it is that, you know, the FERC 
decision forces States to provide greater support to clean 
energy resources, making them more expensive, or cut back on 
climate policy. And it is worth taking a fundamental look at 
FERC's role in including climate and equity in their mandate.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you very much.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Upton, the subcommittee 
ranking member, for 5 minutes for purposes of asking questions 
of the witnesses.
    Mr. Upton. Well, thanks again, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to 
our witnesses for their testimony.
    I would say I have always been a huge supporter of clean 
energy, but, obviously, issues like reliability and 
affordability are critical. In Michigan, we have had a clean 
energy standard. It was passed by our State legislature, I 
don't know, 80 years ago or so. It has helped spur utility 
investments, keeps prices relatively low and stable, and that 
is in large part because we have a pretty diverse fuel mix.
    And I would note that, a couple of weeks ago, I was down in 
Niles, Michigan, which is just north of South Bend on the State 
line, and literally they are building a new gas turbine 
electric facility, natural gas for electricity, and it is going 
to be the most efficient natural gas facility probably within 
300 or 400 miles of that spot. So they are encouraged. And, of 
course, in Michigan we will see the closing of a number of coal 
plants as we meet the renewable standards, which are going to, 
frankly, probably double in terms of the percentage over the 
next 10 or 15 years.
    I want to see us continue to lead the Nation, but I am 
worried about going the same route as California, imposing a 
national clean energy standard. They have rushed ahead with 
some pretty strong renewable mandates, natural gas bans, which, 
of course, would impact this new facility in Niles, a billion-
dollar facility in a relatively small town. EV subsidies, a new 
ban on gasoline cars, obviously, would impact Michigan in a 
pretty big way. And, of course, we know that California's 
utility bills are among the highest in the Nation, rapidly 
rising. The grid has been unstable. We have seen that 
particularly with the fires. And as you said, Mr. Bryce, they 
would expect perhaps a 50-percent increase in the electricity 
demand.
    Mr. Bryce, where are they going to the get that electricity 
knowing this path that they are on?
    Mr. Bryce. Well, Mr. Upton, I have no idea, and it doesn't 
appear that California has a plan. They relied heavily--have 
been relying heavily on imports, and that was what led to the 
rolling blackouts that occurred in August. I would point out 
that California has these mandates for renewables, but it is a 
State where it is extraordinarily difficult to build new 
renewable energy capacity. In fact, the amount of wind energy 
capacity in California has been flat essentially since 2013. 
Since last December, two major wind projects have been rejected 
in the State of California, one in Humboldt County and one, I 
think it was just in April, near Lompac. So California--in 
fact, they recently rescinded moves to prematurely close some 
of their gas-fired generation because they realized that they 
couldn't afford to keep that--they needed those plants to stay 
on line to ensure grid reliability.
    So I think California provides a case study on a lot of 
different fronts. But, first and foremost, is the land use 
question because these discussions about moving the entire 
economy and they--you know, the people that are pushing for 
these kinds of policies to have economywide renewables are 
completely ignoring the land use challenge. And I have 
documented this.
    Over the last six years, over 280 communities or local 
governments from Maine to California have rejected or 
restricted wind energy projects. We are seeing increasing 
resistance to solar energy projects. If you can't build it in 
California, where do they think they are going to put it? Well, 
somewhere else? You can't build it in Vermont. There are no 
wind projects being built in Bernie Sanders' home State.
    The same thing applies to high-voltage transmission, which 
is other critical part of this discussion, which is not being 
included. But the best renewable sources are outside of cities. 
I have rooftop solar. I believe in the growth of solar. It is 
going to continue growing. But the challenge in siting the 
scale of the renewable capacity that will be needed in 
California or any other State is just enormous.
    Mr. Upton. Well, didn't they have problems years ago when 
they were looking at doing a major solar farm there and they 
were sued because they weren't able to get access to the grid 
to be able to send that renewable solar power to parts of the 
State?
    Mr. Bryce. Mr. Upton, I don't know. I can't answer that 
question. I do know that the siting of the large thermal solar 
projects in the State have been very controversial because of 
their impacts on desert communities. And, you know, I think one 
of the--the key challenges there for California, this is a 
State that has the highest poverty rate in America, and yet 
their electricity rates are continuing to rise, and this is bad 
for low- and middle-income consumers, and I think these 
problems are going to be even worse in the years to come in 
California, unfortunately.
    One last point, San Bernardino County, the largest county 
by area in America, last year banned all large-scale 
renewables. So if you can't build them in San Bernardino County 
in California, again, where are you going to put it? These land 
use issues are key to this entire discussion and almost 
completely ignored.
    Mr. Upton. I know my time has expired. Thank you very much. 
Thank you all.
    Mr. Bryce. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, the full committee 
chairman, for 5 minutes for the purposes of asking questions.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush. As we have heard, 
the ongoing COVID-19--excuse me. I will just turn my phone off 
here. We have heard over and over again that the ongoing COVID-
19 pandemic has led to an increasing number of unpaid 
electricity bills, and some utilities are reporting more than 
20 percent of their customers are falling behind.
    Recent figures estimate there will be between $19 and $25 
billion in unpaid electricity bills by the end of the year. So 
let me ask Ms. Drehobl. In light of these mounting unpaid 
bills, what can be done to ensure that the system remains 
operational, and homeowners are not left in the dark? What more 
can the Federal Government do to be helpful.
    Ms. Drehobl. Thank you for your question. I think the 
Federal Government can provide guidance on this issue. Right 
now, it is up to States to decide if they will have moratoriums 
in place to keep people's lights on. And as you stated, you 
know, as of today, only 21 States and the District of Columbia 
still have connection bans in place for electricity, gas, and 
water.
    And as we move into the winter months, a lot of people are 
going to be in danger of losing their electricity. This is 
going to place a massive burden on families and will have wide 
ramifications for the economy as we work towards recovering 
from the public health crisis. I think more funding for LIHEAP 
could definitely help in the short term, and I think energy 
efficiency investments can also act as a long-term solution to 
help people afford their energy bills in the long term.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, as I mentioned earlier, the House is 
expected to debate today an updated version of the HEROES Act, 
and that provides an additional $4.5 billion for LIHEAP. It 
includes a moratorium on energy and water shutoffs.
    You know, let me ask. Let me go back to you, Ms. Drehobl, 
and I will ask Dr. Reames. You know, in light of these mounting 
unpaid electricity bills, I mean, would you say that this is a 
good thing to do, that we need these shutoff moratoriums and 
this additional funding for LIHEAP?
    Let me start with you, and then I will go to Dr. Reames.
    Ms. Drehobl. I would say definitely, we do. We definitely 
need more support to help people keep their lights on as we 
move into the winter months and as the pandemic continues.
    Mr. Pallone. And then, Dr. Reames, in light of these 
mounting unpaid electricity bills, what do we do to ensure that 
lights stay on for vulnerable committees and that system has 
enough resources to remain operational?
    So on the one hand, you know, do you support what we are 
doing in this updated HEROES Act with additional LIHEAP money 
and a moratorium on energy and water shutoffs? But at the same 
time, what do you think we should be doing to make sure that 
there are enough resources in the industry to remain 
operational? I will ask you both things.
    Mr. Reames. Yes. Thank you for that. I do think the 
additional funds for LIHEAP are definitely very important. I 
think this also allows us a time for there to be greater 
coordination between this idea of the long-term strategies of 
weatherization and the short-term benefits of LIHEAP. It is 
also a time to discuss with utilities and State regulatory 
bodies on, one, how we are tracking this mounting debt that 
people are having, what parts of the community are experiencing 
this at greater proportions, and then to think about long-term 
strategies to reduce energy burdens and energy debt. There 
needs to be a really serious conversation about what do we do 
on the other side of this pandemic with all the debt that 
people are accumulating and may not be in an economic position 
to pay, and then how can LIHEAP be distributed more effectively 
to pay off some of that debt.
    Mr. Pallone. I mean, I really believe that without the 
moratorium on shutoffs, because there are just too many people 
that will be shut off and won't have power, won't have water, 
et cetera, and obviously, you both agree with that. But I also 
think in addition to helping people with the LIHEAP, we have to 
figure out how the system remains operational, and I think that 
probably means some kind of Federal assistance as well.
    But, again, I am going to reiterate that, you know, this is 
an updated bill that the House is going to pass, but the most 
important thing is that we get Leader McConnell and President 
Trump to come to a consensus bill that we can pass, you know, 
in the next few weeks, and hopefully we are moving in that 
direction.
    So I thank you both, and I yield back, Chairman Rush.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full 
committee, Mr. Walden, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walden. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
thanks again to all our witnesses. Your testimony has been most 
helpful.
    It is unfortunate that the HEROES Act 1 and HEROES Act 2, 
Republicans were completely excluded from the discussions on 
this. When we did do the CARES Act, we were involved, and those 
bills passed nearly unanimously, I think, and we came together 
as a country and as two parties with different views to stand 
up and work for the American people.
    Sadly, in both of these initiatives, HEROES 1, HEROES 2, it 
is just a proffer for the Senate, and we have not been included 
in those discussions. It is a one-way communication strategy 
that is doomed to fail unless things change. It didn't have to 
be that way.
    I would like to enter into the record two recent advocacy 
ads in the Los Angeles Times, one from the Sierra Club and 
another in response by the United Latinos Vote, a low-income 
advocacy group in California. The reaction to the Sierra Club 
ad pushing for gas bans and electric vehicles underscores the 
poor and working-class concerns about California policy very 
well. I would encourage members to read this.
    Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would ask that those be 
entered into the record.
    Mr. Rush. So ordered. So ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Walden. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Bryce, you raise a point that I think we should all 
bear in mind, and that is transitioning to clean energy carries 
costs that are not always discussed thoroughly to the people 
that have to pay those costs. And we have talked today about 
affordability, especially during the pandemic.
    You enlightened us about what is happening in Germany, what 
is happening in other States. Oregon is a big renewable energy 
State with hydroelectricity. My district has thousands of 
megawatts of wind energy generation capacity as well as big 
solar fields and great potential for geothermal.
    Last week, California's governor, though, called to 
eliminate sales in the State of light duty gasoline-powered 
vehicles. In your analysis, what impact will that have on 
communities that benefit from the ban on gas-fueled vehicles? 
Is this going to hurt low income communities?
    Mr. Bryce. I think there is simply no doubt, sir, that this 
ban on internal combustion engines which, in my view, is 
remarkable after the auto cycle engine was designed in the 
1880s. It has been over the past 140 years continually 
improved. The technology has gotten cleaner. The power density 
has increased, and gasoline prices have been flat for over 40 
years, according to the EIA.
    The fact is, sir, and I was at Costco the other day. There 
was a Chevy Volt out in front, a brand new electric vehicle. 
The sticker price was $46,000.
    Mr. Walden. Right.
    Mr. Bryce. Tradesmen, the working class Americans, working 
class Californians are not going to be able to afford electric 
vehicles. And that was some of the--the United Latino vote made 
this point. Assemblyman Jim Cooper in California has made this 
point, that these alternative fuel vehicles are simply out of 
reach for most Americans, and it is unfortunate, and I think it 
is a misguided policy.
    Mr. Walden. Well, and I know--I think you mentioned rolling 
blackouts and capacity issues on the grid in California with 
the existing system. I believe that it was energy from Snake 
River dams in the northwest, 50,000 megawatt hours, a 25 
percent output increase ship power to California that kept the 
lights on.
    Many of these same groups that are pushing these policies 
also want to pull out those dams and eliminate that carbon-free 
hydro power. What impact does that have, do you think, if that 
happens?
    Mr. Bryce. Well, sir, I am no expert on the hydropower 
politics and the situation in the northeast. I will answer the 
question, maybe, that I think is more critical to the low 
carbon electricity grid nationally is the ongoing shutdown of 
nuclear power plants. We have seen that at the Indian Point 
nuclear plant in New York. I am not a partisan. I am not a 
Democrat. I am not a Republican. But the Democratic States--in 
New York, they are closing Indian Point. The San Onofre nuclear 
plant in California has been closed. They are closing Diablo 
Canyon.
    Exelon just announced they are going to close two nuclear 
power plants in Illinois. This is the wrong direction to be 
going if we are serious about pursuing low and no carbon 
electricity.
    Mr. Walden. Mr. Bryce, I have had people tell me that we 
should stop talking about the need for firm baseload power, 
that is unnecessary in today's marketplace, and it is a 
complete red herring. Do you agree with that?
    Mr. Bryce. I do not.
    Mr. Walden. Why?
    Mr. Bryce. Well, we live in an as-needed electric grid, not 
an as-wanted grid. You know, solar and wind energy are growing. 
They are getting very significant subsidies, but these are 
intermittent sources of energy. You can't count on them, and 
that was what we learned just most recently in California.
    So the cost--as the University of Chicago study showed, the 
cost of making intermittent electricity sources firm is large 
because you need that standby generation or potentially in the 
future very large batteries. Well, consumers are going to have 
to pay the cost of all of those.
    So baseload electricity, the idea that these plants aren't 
needed anymore, is simply not true.
    Mr. Walden. All right. I have used up my time, Mr. 
Chairman. You have been most generous.
    Thank you again to all our witnesses as we work on these 
important issues, and I yield back.
    Mr. Bryce. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Peters, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Rush. And I guess since I 
am the first Californian called on, I just have to respond 
briefly to my colleagues who criticize my State's effort to 
lead the country, and frankly, lead the world in climate 
action. We might agree on some land use policies that 
California could improve on, and I am sympathetic to baseload 
power, but when my colleagues cite increased costs of action, 
they pretend that there are no costs to inaction which we all 
know is false.
    Climate change is going to be expensive, but it is going to 
be a lot less expensive if we act now. So I am willing to 
discuss whether what California is doing makes sense because we 
are running the first experiments, and we are going to make 
mistakes. But acting now on climate is not an example--it is 
not a mistake; it is an example;
     Now, to today's topic. We have heard our witnesses talk 
about the importance of targeted policies like energy 
efficiency requirements in buildings and appliances, 
investments in community-based energy efficiency assistance 
programs. We have also heard that policymakers need to do more 
to ensure policies that incentivize clean energy technologies.
    I just want to say that the big picture here is that 
because these disadvantaged communities are disproportionately 
harmed by the effects of climate change, everything we do to 
reduce the rate of climate change helps these communities the 
most, and that is the urgency. I think that is the important 
frame to keep in mind here as we talk about what to do, because 
generally, action would be helpful.
    And we didn't talk about it today, but I wanted to talk 
about another topic that I raised before which is the price on 
carbon. A 2017 DOE energy report showed that continued 
investments in clean energy technologies, coupled with the 
price of carbon, will cut CO2 emissions faster than the sum of 
each approach on its own.
    But I also want to talk about in this context how important 
it is that the price of carbon be designed to offset the energy 
burden on low income housing, on low income households. And I 
call your attention to a 2018 CRS study that was prepared by 
Joseph Rosenberg of Columbia that assessed the household impact 
of a $50 per ton metric--$50 per metric ton carbon tax that was 
designed with a per capita household rebate that generated for 
the lowest income quintile a four percent increase in household 
income in 2025.
    I think it is very important to combine these kinds of 
technologies in terms of private investment with public 
investment and send that incentive to the private sector to do 
the right thing and to make investments. But we have to design 
these things with these disadvantaged communities in mind, and 
I think we can do that.
    I wanted to ask Ms. Drehobl a question about something you 
said. Can you elaborate on how incentives for home energy 
efficiency improvements can aid in reducing carbon emission by 
what I think you said in your testimony was 60 million tons? 
That seems like a benefit not just to these households but to 
the whole effort nationally to fight climate change.
    Ms. Drehobl. Yes. Thank you for your question. Reducing 
household energy use not only helps reduce burdens on 
individual homeowners who are paying those bills, but it also 
reduces the amount of pollution generated from carbon-polluting 
energy facilities which improves public health overall and has 
multiple benefits for communities as well as job benefits which 
I think are really important right now as we work to rebuild 
the economy.
    So from a climate change perspective, energy efficiency and 
weatherization updates not only impact indoor air quality and 
health but also helps with climate change overall.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you.
    Dr. Reames, I believe it was you, and it might have been 
someone else, and so they can chime in as well. I wanted to 
talk a little bit about energy efficient products like light 
bulbs and why they are more expensive and not affordable in 
areas of high poverty.
    Can you explain that to me and talk a little bit also about 
what incentives or aid do you think Congress should provide or 
could provide to help low income communities transition to 
affordable clean energy to combat the climate crisis?
    Mr. Reames. Yes. Thank you for your question. We did a 
study in Detroit looking at store prices of light bulbs. And 
what we found in poor communities, because of the type of 
stores that are there and the partnerships that stores have 
with utilities, that most of the rebates were in big box stores 
which we know are located in the suburbs and not in the urban 
core.
    And the stores also did not carry the most efficient 
appliances either because they, you know, can't afford to stock 
them, or that is just not a part of their inventory.
    And so in places, particularly where transportation access 
is low and people go to local stores in those communities, they 
will not have access to either the most efficient technology or 
the most affordable technology. And so offering rebates from a 
Federal level that also targets those communities would help 
those communities with access.
    Mr. Peters. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 
for the hearing, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Latta for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Latta.
    Mr. Latta. Here we go.
    Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our witnesses for 
appearing before us today.
    Over the past few months, the American people have been 
hard hit by the outbreak of COVID-19. Many have lost their jobs 
and are finding it difficult to continue to pay their bills. We 
have also seen businesses and manufacturing plants shut down or 
curtail production which have caused ripple effects across the 
greater economy. For years, our country has been trying to 
bring back more manufacturing jobs lost to China, Mexico, and 
other countries, and COVID-19 has only made the effort more 
difficult.
    Given all of this, the last thing that working families and 
businesses need to see is rising electric bills. Unfortunately, 
if we were to adopt the energy mandates like those in the Green 
New Deal, that is exactly what would happen.
    My district in northwest and west central Ohio is home to 
over 60,000 manufacturing jobs. Thankfully, in part due to the 
policies implemented by the Trump administration and the 
American energy renaissance, I believe we are seeing growth in 
the manufacturing sector. I have been told by model businesses 
in Ohio that one of the reasons for this is reduced cost of 
energy.
    Companies small, medium, and large, want to pay Americans 
what they deserve in these manufacturing jobs, and they have 
found they can do so by saving on energy and operating costs. 
They can also, in turn, bring these jobs home, build up the 
local tax base, and inject more money into our local towns and 
economies.
    Mr. Bryce, if I could ask, start with you. In your 
testimony, you point out that imposing arbitrary energy 
mandates would actually increase the cost of the electricity to 
rate payers. Wouldn't companies be dissuaded from bringing back 
manufacturing jobs if they are forced to pay higher electricity 
costs?
    Mr. Bryce. Well, I think, yes--sir. Mr. Latta, I think that 
the answer is yes. And I think that it is clear that what we 
have seen, thanks to the shale revolution, since 2005, the U.S. 
has seen the biggest increase in energy production in world 
history. The scale of the increase in U.S. oil and gas is truly 
unprecedented, and that has resulted in a big surge in 
manufacturing jobs in the United States, in particular, due to 
lower cost natural gas, but electricity figures into that as 
well.
    I think it was last year the Council on Economic Advisors 
released a report that said that the shale revolution has saved 
American consumers something on the order of $200 billion a 
year, and most of those savings are occurring because of lower 
cost electricity, and that is a knock on effect on the fact 
that we are using more low cost natural gas to generate power.
    So all of these things are connected, but yes, I think 
there is just simply no doubt the industrial base in the U.S. 
has benefitted greatly from this increase in domestic oil and 
gas production.
    Mr. Latta. Well, if I can continue with another question 
for you because the ranking Republican member from Oregon 
brought this up when you were talking about baseload capacity 
and also volume peaking. And the real question is, really, if 
you could go into more details on the impact on manufacturing 
plants since they would be--you know, you would also be 
required to use the renewable mandates and maintain that 
baseload capacity, those differences there.
    Because, again, you know, I talked to some companies out 
there, again, in my district, and I have got a lot of companies 
that use a lot of electricity. But, you know, what would be 
those differences in cost out there?
    The other would be that you wouldn't even have that ability 
if you didn't have that baseload to have that company there 
because we have got to rely on the baseload to turn the factory 
on in the morning.
    Mr. Bryce. Well, sir, I am not exactly sure how to answer 
your question, but I will answer it this way, that what I know 
and from talking with people that I know, investors here in 
Texas that put money into plants, for instance, in Mexico. They 
have built an electric plant near an auto plant near Monterey, 
and the electric load there is enormous because of the 
heavily--they use a lot of robotics.
    So I think as manufacturing becomes more automated, not 
only is electricity supply more important, but electricity 
reliability is more important.
    So these are key issues and key challenges because we have 
a very diffuse ownership of the grid in the United States, 
incredibly diffuse, partly as a result of the new deal where we 
have about 800, 900 different electric cooperatives, we have a 
lot of investor-owned utilities, locally owned utilities. They 
all have to coordinate. But the key here is reliability and low 
cost, and those are the key challenges that I think that the 
United States is facing now in trying to talk about going to 
cleaner energy and power systems is how is all of this going to 
be coordinated while assuring lower prices and reliability?
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time 
is about to expire, and I yield back.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. Bryce. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Upton, for holding this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses 
for being online with us.
    It is a disgrace that so many people in this country have 
energy bills they can't afford. We have to attack this issue 
aggressively so that no families have to choose between food or 
electricity or face having their power shut off because they 
can't make a payment. It is clear that we must invest in 
solutions like weatherizing homes and deploying cheap, clean 
energy systems, and right now is the time for us to be making 
those investments.
    We have the technical capability, we have many people 
looking for good-paying jobs that can be done safely, and the 
government currently can borrow money basically interest free. 
Making the right investments now can help people afford their 
bills, provide a cleaner future, and help dig us out of this 
economic hole created by the pandemic.
    I also believe that as we figure out how to make these 
investments, we must provide people from low income and 
particularly minority communities with access to the education 
and training they need to get good-paying jobs in the 
construction and rehabilitation industry for the clean energy 
industry.
    We must also make sure we are not leaving behind 
communities who have lost fossil fuel jobs as they are also 
struggling and have a skilled workforce that can be deployed to 
build and run clean energy systems.
    I would like to start by asking Ms. Drehobl. Can you please 
expand on how helpful to advancing clean energy systems it 
would be to allow the weatherization assistance program to also 
cover the cost of things like roof repairs so solar could be 
installed or having an attic insulated?
    Ms. Drehobl. Sure. Thank you for your question.
    Often, households who are eligible for weatherization have 
health and safety issues or things that need to be repaired 
before they are able to participate in the program. Including 
additional funding to cover some of those costs such as roof 
repairs, such as addressing mold or other issues, can help many 
more households be able to access the benefits of these 
programs.
    So that was one of our recommendations was including more 
funding for health and safety repairs within the weatherization 
program.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
    Ms. Wyatt, a large percentage of households that face high 
energy costs, these people live in multi-family homes or they 
are renters. The challenge, it seems, is incentivizing 
landlords to install clean energy systems since they don't live 
in the home or pay utilities.
    So how effective would making the solar or solar plus 
storage investment tax credits refundable or providing direct 
pay for be in getting these landlords to install these systems? 
And how do we design such a system so that we don't end up 
simply giving wealthy landlords a larger tax write off for all 
their properties?
    Ms. Wyatt. Thank you very much for your question. You are 
absolutely right to flag the incentive structure difficulties 
with making sure that residents of multi-family housing, 
including affordable housing, can receive the benefits of clean 
energy and that the owners of that housing who are often non-
profit entities are incentivized to go solar even if they are 
not necessarily the ones paying the energy bills.
    Different programs have been pioneered around the country, 
including solar and multi-family affordable housing in 
California, with which GRID Alternatives co-administers. The 
ITC making that--the Federal investment tax credit making that 
refundable for non-profits would, again, enable non-profits, 
including affordable housing providers, to directly access the 
benefits of that incentive for installing clean energy systems.
    And, you know, in terms of tax write-offs for--you know, 
who gets the benefit of the clean energy? One of the strategies 
that we found useful, it pioneered in California which, of 
course, has done a lot of experimenting on clean energy policy 
and how to make it more equitable is, you know, requiring the 
beneficiaries of clean energy incentives that are multi-family 
housing owners and providers to pass on those benefits in 
tangible ways, either in bill savings if the energy bills are 
structured that way, or other tangible benefits like maybe they 
get better internet service or other services for residents.
    Mr. Doyle. I see. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is about to 
expire, so I will yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair understands that Mrs. McMorris Rodgers is not 
available, so the chairman will recognize Mr. Olson for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Olson. I thank my good friend from the south side of 
Chicago, Chairman Bobby Rush. My friend, I am compelled to 
apologize in advance. If your White Sox beat Mr. McNerney's 
Oakland As today, my Houston Astros have bats and brooms. There 
is going to be a big, old sweep in the baseball world.
    Mr. Rush. I choose not to respond to wishful thinking.
    Mr. Olson. Wonderful witnesses. A special howdy to a Texas 
Longhorn, Robert Bryce, who knows what six words come after 
four quick claps; deep in the heart of Texas.
    I have a few questions for you, Mr. Bryce. Like all Texans, 
you understand that we have the best and most competitive 
electric market in the Nation. It is a free market with 
competition. That means lower prices for consumers. We lead the 
Nation in renewables, number one in wind, number four in solar.
    In your testimony, you mentioned that California has, 
quote, ``big mandates with big prices,'' end quote. Do you mind 
discussing how the Texas competitive market keeps prices so low 
while we lead the way in renewables and how California, with 
their hard push for green energy without the means to achieve 
that, is going to pay such a high price for electricity now and 
in the future?
    Mr. Bryce. Well, thank you, sir. I did graduate from the UT 
a long time ago, but I am still from Oklahoma, so I still--you 
know, I still root for the Sooners, so just got a full 
disclosure here. Nevertheless----
    Mr. Olson. Sorry to hear that.
    Mr. Bryce. Nevertheless, sir, there is a contrast, a big 
contrast, between what we see in California and what we see in 
Texas. Texas has had a much lighter hand in terms of 
regulation. You saw Governor Gavin Newsom announcing that he 
wanted to ban hydraulic fracturing in California despite the 
fact that hydraulic fracturing has led to this renaissance in 
the U.S. oil and gas business that has saved every consumer in 
this country an enormous amount of money.
    So as far as the details of the electric markets, those are 
complex. They are very complicated markets. But Texas has been 
successful, but I will--in terms of how it has structured its 
market, California, I was interested in Mr. Peters admitting 
that there had been mistakes in California, but there have been 
20 years of mistakes that have not been corrected.
    So what we have seen in Texas, I think more than anything, 
is that the State has, and particularly the electricity 
consumers, have benefitted due to low cost natural gas.
    Remember, it was about in the mid 2000s the average price 
of gas in the-- natural gas in the United States was as high as 
$7 or $8 on an annual basis. And now we are at $2 and change. 
This is a remarkable reduction, and that reduction is saving 
consumers not just in electricity but in home heating.
    In industry, we see the increased investment in foreign 
direct investment in chemical plants, petrochemicals along the 
Gulf Coast. These are massive investments that are benefitting 
American workers and the American consumers.
    Mr. Olson. You mentioned natural gas. As you know, America 
now is awash in natural gas. We are exporting liquified natural 
gas. It is the cleanest, most versatile, and cheapest source of 
energy for power.
    You also mentioned that three local governments in 
California have passed bans or restrictions on the use of 
natural gas in buildings. You point out that these are being 
done in the name of climate change and decarbonization, but 
they are, in practice, a form of energy taxation that many of 
these people can't afford.
    I think that is a factor why SpaceX moved to Austin, why 
Toyota moved their North American headquarters to Plano, and 
why 90,000 Californians moved to Texas in 2018. Can you 
elaborate on this phenomena about banning natural gas for 
buildings?
    Mr. Bryce. Well, I understand the sentiment. What I think 
is remarkable, though, is when you look at the residential 
sector in terms of natural gas use in the United States, 
consumption in that sector has been effectively flat for 50 
years at about 5 trillion cubic feet per year. And California, 
I think, if memory serves, has a higher percentage of homes, 
has I think about 80 percent of homes in California are 
connected to the natural gas grid.
    So even the California Public Advocates Office has issued a 
report talking about the regressive effects of banning natural 
gas, and particularly for renters and for low income 
households, that if they are forced to give up the direct use 
of natural gas, they will have to use electricity instead.
    And, further, that as the number of customers that are 
connected to the gas grid declines, the cost of maintaining 
that grid will then be spread over fewer and fewer customers, 
and that, again, is a regressive, a knock on effect of these 
bans.
    So it is interesting. I mean, even the Public Advocates 
Office has been looking at this and recognizing the potential 
economic impacts of those bans.
    Mr. Olson. Thank you. I am out of time.
    This is to you, Mr. Bryce, and Markwayne Mullin. Horns up 
and beat OU. Hook 'em, Horns. October 10. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair understands that Mr. Sarbanes is presently not 
present, so the Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman, and I can't help 
but admire Mr. Olson's undying enthusiasm for Texas and that, 
but I get a little tired of hearing such bashing of California 
from all these folks.
    In particular, criticisms of our energy policies and 
blaming rolling blackouts on those policies. But inaction on 
climate is already hurting low income communities more than any 
energy policies.
    Blackouts are caused by extreme heat from climate change, 
and wildfires are related to that, impacting everyone, but 
especially low income communities.
    Dr. Reames, thank you for your testimony this morning. I 
also hear Members from the other side claiming that clean 
energy will rise electricity rates. However, a recent study 
from UC Berkeley showed definitively that the cost of wind, 
solar, and storage are decreasing so quickly that the U.S. can 
reach 90 percent of clean energy by 2035 without raising 
customer cost and may actually decrease wholesale price by ten 
percent.
    Please discuss the decreasing cost of clean energy, the 
relatively high cost of fossil fuel generation, and the 
expensive cost and consequences of climate change and the 
short-sighted claim that clean energy costs more.
    Dr. Reames. Thank you for your question.
    I think it was mentioned by Chairman Rush in his opening 
statement that nearly half of the rooftop solar potential rests 
upon the rooftops of low and moderate income households when it 
comes to solar. And so this idea that solar is available, the 
potential is there, and the costs are going down makes it more 
economical to begin to think about strategies to expand rooftop 
solar access to low and moderate income households.
    In addition, if we look at some of the inconsistencies or 
the burdens on the costs for residential electricity has raised 
substantially for the residential class customer going far 
beyond that for commercial and industrial customers over time. 
And so this idea of equity versus equality, the focus on equity 
would look at rates for residential customers.
    It was mentioned that if we move away from natural gas that 
the cost of that infrastructure will be borne on residential 
customers. But if we actually focus on electrifying the 
residential sector, we could look at equity and pricing for the 
commercial and industrial sector.
    We also know that poor communities who have high energy 
burdens are also bearing the cost of the pollution that is 
related to our fossil fuel energy generation.
    And so, again, higher income households and communities 
that do not have generating plants are using more energy, but 
the cost of the energy and the pollution is borne by low and 
moderate income communities and communities of color.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Dr. Reames.
    Ms. Wyatt, as you noted in your testimony, one way Congress 
can address the economic impacts of the pandemic is through the 
expansion of job training and grant programs, particularly with 
those focused on clean energy, especially in low income and 
underserved communities. While the energy sector saw incredible 
job growth over the past decade, the distribution of that 
growth hasn't been equitable. Specifically, the inclusion of 
women and Black Americans remains a challenge.
    Can you speak more to what can be done to ensure that those 
historically underrepresented groups are not overlooked as 
clean energy jobs are created?
    Ms. Wyatt. Absolutely. And thank you for your important 
question, Congressman.
    Clean energy industries do need to look more like the 
country. And while they are making some worthwhile efforts on 
that front, we have several policy recommendations on how to 
boost inclusion in the industry.
    Many clean energy industry jobs can be made to have 
particularly low barriers to entry and strong career paths if 
the barriers to employment are reduced and the career paths are 
targeted and made accessible to every community through policy 
actions and investments.
    We also recommend, you know, support for clean energy 
entrepreneurship in communities of color as well. Most solar 
companies, for example, are quite small, and it is an industry 
that can and should have a lot more CEOs and executives of 
color, people at all levels and all rules.
    So workforce development programs should emphasize clean 
energy, and clergy energy programs should emphasize workforce 
development, two sides of the same coin.
    GRID has seen the success of this sort of approach. One 
example is our Solar Works DC program in the District of 
Columbia that gets local residents paid training for solar 
careers. Paid training is important to enable more 
participation. We also have women and solar in troops to solar 
program, SolarCorps.
    There are lots of ways to reach out and be inclusive in 
workforce development training.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you for that answer.
    I thank all the witnesses today, and I thank the chairman.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. McKinley of West Virginia.
    Mr. McKinley, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, my friend. I am going to direct my 
questions back to Mr. Bryce, but before I do that, Chairman 
Rush, I would like to ask you if I could get some help, maybe 
from your staff, because in some of your opening remarks in the 
preparation for this document that talked about the impact coal 
has had on low income families and communities of color.
    And I respect that, but I am also saying this as an 
observation, that when I came here in 2010, over 52 percent of 
the power plants in America or the generating plants came from 
coal. There were 700 coal-fired power plants. Now we are down 
to 25, 25 percent, and we only have just over 200 coal-fired 
power plants.
    But what I am not seeing is any measurable decrease 
whatsoever in asthma, in lung disease, cardiovascular disease. 
I am asking can someone show me that doing away with coal 
actually improves the health of all of these communities.
    Now, one thing that actually has happened, Chairman Rush, 
has been in West Virginia. We have seen nearly a 70 percent 
increase in our utility bills, and we are the second lowest 
income in this country.
    So when all of you are talking about concern about low 
income communities, what about low income States that you just 
impacted by doing this?
    So I would like to hear from your staff if they will get 
back to me.
    But let me go to Mr. Bryce, if I could, because I have got 
a series of math issues that I am concerned about, and that is 
one starting with the weatherization program. I have been very 
supportive of it and will continue to work with Peter Welch and 
others to continue this.
    But I am looking at the numbers, that we are spending about 
$300 million, Mr. Bryce, $300 million into the weatherization 
program, and we are doing--just a couple years ago we were 
doing 60,000. Last year we did only 35,000 homes, but let's use 
that 60,000 homes as the number, 60,000 homes we are fixing.
    The average savings, according to the Department of Energy, 
is around $300. So as a result, we are spending $18 million out 
of $300 million. I wonder, maybe, is there sense in it because 
if we just wrote them a check, these constituents, a $300 
check, wouldn't that be beneficial?
    Or maybe what we could do is, Mr. Bryce, would you say, 
what if you gave more families? Because instead of just 
limiting it to 60--60,000, what if we went to 10 times that, to 
600,000 families? We can afford to do that. Just write them a 
check for $300 because that is the savings that we are 
spending.
    So I am wondering. Or Mr. Bryce, would you say, should we 
do research into more weatherization so that the savings that 
we get is more than $300. Should we save $1,000? Should we save 
$1,200? Would that be a better use of our money rather than 
doing the simple weatherization we are doing because we are 
only saving $18 million out of $300 million being spent.
    Or should we switch to energy performance contracts and not 
have to spend any money because energy performance contracts 
across the country, there is no expense on that. The Federal 
Government doesn't have to put out anything. We don't have to 
put $300,000 out. Individual companies would do that.
    So I am just curious, Mr. Bryce, either one of those three: 
Give more families money, increase our research into 
weatherization, or what about switching to performance 
contracts? What say you on that?
    Mr. Bryce. Mr. McKinley, I am going to be honest with you. 
I don't know those programs, and I would be--it would not be my 
place to comment on them because I simply don't know those 
numbers, and I am not familiar with the program.
    So I appreciate the question.
    Mr. McKinley. Well, I appreciate that, and I am jamming you 
a little bit on it, but what I am saying, Mr. Bryce, is that if 
we are only saving--if the energy savings is only $18 million, 
but we are spending $300 million to do that, what if we just 
wrote them a check? What if we just wrote a check, and then we 
don't--then we could save $280 million.
    Mr. Bryce. Well, yes, sir. I understand your point, but I 
think those savings would accrue over many years, and so, you 
know, I am in favor of efficiency. I replaced my refrigerator 
this year, and it uses a third as much electricity as my old 
refrigerator. So I have seen personally the benefits of 
efficiency.
    But, again, as far as the specific programs and the math 
that you are putting forward, I can't tell you any--I can't add 
anything to what you have said.
    Mr. McKinley. I am just wondering whether or not--I would 
love to see more efficiency with it. I agree with you on that.
    But, again, at $300 million to get 18, what if we gave more 
people that are hurting, that are struggling out there, the low 
income families, let's help more of them than just 30,000. What 
if we had 60, 100, or 200,000? Let's do something that has an 
impact, not this program. It needs to be updated significantly.
    So I thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I do hope to hear back 
from your staff. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman.
    The gentleman yields back.
    I just wanted to let the gentleman know, you know, it is 
not my intention, nor has it ever been, to engage in any kind 
of false dichotomy between poor people who reside in West 
Virginia and poor people who reside on the south side of 
Chicago.
    I think that that feeds into an unfortunate narrative that 
has really created so many divisions in our Nation.
    I am for and have been advocating for the poor people in 
West Virginia just as I am an advocate for the poor people on 
south side of Chicago.
    And that said, I fully intend to engage the gentleman with 
staff and any other means in a meaningful, productive 
conversation in the future, and I thank the gentleman for his 
open invitation.
    Mr. McKinley. I look forward to it. Take care Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. And with that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, who has returned.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Chairman Rush, and thank 
you for the hearing today.
    I wanted to speak to a project in Baltimore city that I am 
very proud of that is trying to lift up communities that have 
been under a lot of pressure, particularly recently. It is a 
program called the Baltimore Shines program. It helps increase 
access to solar energy by installing solar panels in 
underserved communities.
    What the City of Baltimore does is it couples that work 
under the weatherization assistance program, the work that they 
do there, with the solar initiative, so they go in, and they do 
all these things at the same time.
    It has a workforce component that trains local individuals 
for jobs in the solar sector which can be very good jobs, high 
quality of life there if you can get one of those jobs.
    And I am glad to see the GRID Alternatives, one of the 
witnesses here today. They were an early partner in the 
Baltimore Shines project, the pilot project that then became 
Baltimore Shines along with the Department of Energy, the U.S. 
Department of Energy a few years back, Morgan State University, 
and others which provided over 30 homes in that area of 
Baltimore with solar systems.
    Ms. Wyatt, I know that your testimony has touched on 
previous projects that GRID Alternatives implemented. You 
understand the value of decreasing barriers and increasing 
access to solar energy for low income and underserved 
communities, and you mentioned the need to build trust there 
with community members.
    Can you explain some of the benefits of working with 
community leaders and local officials on these projects as GRID 
Alternatives did in the Baltimore solar initiative, and how can 
Federal programs help to foster and support these partnerships?
    Ms. Wyatt. Thank you for your questions and your kind 
remarks about GRID Alternatives' work in Baltimore, 
Congressman. We are very proud of the combination of solar 
savings, weatherization, and workforce development that has 
helped so many Baltimore families.
    As you say, trust with community members is crucial. 
Honestly, sometimes the immense benefits of solar can seem too 
good to be true in some of the communities that, frankly, have 
been targeted for scams, low income communities and communities 
of color, have been exploited and are often on guard when they 
hear we can cut your energy bills in half. It sounds too good 
to be true.
    There is also, you know, again, the barriers relating to 
just not seeing solar and clean energy as the sort of thing 
that is for me. Cultural barriers, educational barriers, 
language barriers, of course, in some communities.
    And so working directly in partnership with community 
members and local officials could really bridge gaps and also, 
you know, help shape the program in ways that make it actually 
responsive to community needs so that you are not just dropping 
down in a top down manner and imposing solutions on 
communities.
    Letting the communities, again, lead the solutions is very 
important, and, you know, giving them tools to hold officials 
and programs accountable for how well they are doing.
    Some ways to, you know, try to accomplish that, you can 
enhance participation in the design phase through, you know, 
steps to recognize the barriers that communities face like even 
just needing childcare and working day jobs and participating 
in program design. You can give capacity-enhancing assistance 
to community-based organizations to help them interact with the 
decisionmakers and the program administrators.
    The key is deliberate effort and deliberate outreach.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much. I appreciate that response.
    And I think what you are saying is all of these different 
initiatives that we are speaking about today have the 
opportunity to be empowering for the communities in which they 
are deployed. And building that partnership, creating the 
opportunity for input on the front end, I mean, obviously 
groups like yours bring expertise, but you don't have expertise 
about what a particular community's perspective has been, its 
history has been, the resources it can put together, the 
pipeline it can create.
    So you have to be very--bring humility to that, and it 
seems like when that happens, you get the best results. Again, 
I want to thank you for your efforts in Baltimore. We are going 
to continue to try to be as innovate there as we possibly can.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the great State 
of Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to take a little 
bit of time for a point of personal privilege, just as you did. 
I have served with you now for ten years on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee. This morning, Mr. Doyle was at another 
meeting where he said we have got to stop thinking just because 
we disagree that the other side is evil. I agree with that, and 
I can say as an affirmative to your comments to Mr. McKinley 
that in the entire time I have been here, we have not always 
agreed on how to accomplish it, but you have always advocated 
for poor people, whether they were from Appalachia or the south 
side of Chicago, and I appreciate that about you.
    And even though we may disagree on how we solve these 
problems, I do greatly appreciate your leadership in that area 
and making it clear that this is not about one part of the 
country or another. It is about trying to help poor people 
across the board, and I thank you for that.
    That being said, I will go to questioning Mr. Bryce, if I 
might. But thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that indulgence.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you.
    Mr. Griffith. Well, I do appreciate your leadership in that 
way.
    Mr. Bryce, you point out in your testimony that between 
2011 and 2019, California has seen the average price for 
electricity, industrial, commercial, and residential, increase 
by nearly 30 percent. That is more than seven times what we 
have seen throughout the rest of the country. I am particularly 
concerned with how California's renewable mandates have 
impacted consumers' electricity bills because the same public 
policies that have brought extremely high rates and rolling 
blackouts are now being pushed forward in Virginia.
    In April, Virginia's governor signed the Virginia Clean 
Economy Act, requiring 100 percent carbon-free energy by 2050. 
Now, it is estimated by the largest provider in Virginia, 
Dominion Energy, that that will cause an increase--and they put 
this in their report to the State Corporation Commission of 
Virginia. That will cause--that mandate to build solar and wind 
generation capacity will increase rates for the average 
Virginia household roughly 45 percent or $52.40 to $55 per 
month or $660 a year.
    What advice do you have for the Commonwealth of Virginia if 
the priority is truly to provide affordable and reliable energy 
to all?
    Mr. Bryce. Well, thank you, Mr. Griffith. My policy, or you 
know, I don't come--I am not pushing any particular bill, 
particular policy. But for ten years or more now in my books 
and the things that I have written, I am an advocate for 
natural gas and nuclear. These are the sources of energy that 
are low carbon, affordable, scalable. I think what is 
happening, particularly with the closure of nuclear plants 
across the country, is exactly the wrong direction.
    And I think that, you know, there is no question that 
renewable capacity and renewable generation is growing and 
growing fairly dramatically. But what I see, and I think is 
going to clearly be a problem in Virginia, it is already a 
problem in Maryland with the Dans Mountain Wind Project.
    But across the country in essentially every State, we are 
seeing conflicts over the siting of wind projects, the siting 
of utility scale solar, the siting of high voltage 
transmission. And I think if Virginia is going to push ahead 
with this mandate, which it appears they are, that these land 
use conflicts are going to be very much in the news, especially 
lower income counties.
    What I see, in fact, in New York where the State has 
overridden the power of local zoning for local communities. 
There is a major project, the Alle-Catt wind project, that is 
being pushed on the counties of Allegheny and Cattaraugus. 
These are the fourth and fifth or fifth and sixth poorest 
counties by median household income in the State.
    So if what is happening in other States happens in 
Virginia, you can count on the lowest income counties in 
Virginia being targeted for these large scale projects because 
the local communities don't have the kind of resources to fight 
them in court.
    Mr. Griffith. Well, in representing a congressional 
district that ranks 422nd on median household income of the 435 
in Congress, that is of some concern, although we would welcome 
the jobs in many types of energy production. We currently have 
a lot of coal and natural gas, but we would--we welcome a lot 
of energy because it is a field that we know.
    But I do think it is interesting. You also mentioned that 
you were in favor of efficiency, and I was curious about the 
California electric car situation because as I have interpreted 
that or listened to that, they are only going to ban the sale 
of new cars, new gas-powered cars.
    And so I know exactly what happens in communities that 
don't have money, and that is they will continue to drive those 
gas-powered cars. They will figure out a way to keep them on 
the road, fix them up when they might otherwise trade them in. 
Doesn't that create for less efficiency instead of more 
efficiency?
    Mr. Bryce. Well, I certainly see your point, and I think 
you can clearly argue that. I think what is clear is that the 
automotive fleet is getting more efficient. That is a very 
positive thing, but you know, electric vehicle sales still 
account for a very small fraction of overall vehicle sales. And 
numerous studies have found that it is the very wealthy 
households are the ones that are buying these vehicles, not 
working class, and so I--and not working class households.
    So I think there is definitely--as Dr. Reames has pointed 
out over and over, there are issues of equity here. And 
Assemblyman Jim Cooper wrote an open letter to the big 
environmental groups in California about this very issue of 
equity when it comes to subsidies and mandates around electric 
vehicles. Transportation is essential, especially for working 
class people.
    Mr. Griffith. Let me claim back my time because I only have 
a couple seconds left.
    Mr. Bryce. Sure.
    Mr. Griffith. I do want to recognize the community housing 
partners that not only do weatherization. They are 
headquartered in my district, and they do a lot of great work 
training other people on how to weatherize homes, and that is 
something that is important. And I think that Mr. Rush and I 
would agree--Chairman Rush and I would agree, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair does agree. The gentleman yields back.
    Now the chairman recognizes Mr. Tonko from New York for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Thank you to my friend, Chairman Rush, and just a couple of 
points for the record. While there was talk about incentives in 
the State of New York, let me also place on the record that my 
home State of New York has also passed significant incentives 
to keep our nuclear power plants in upstate continuing to 
operate.
    And, also, when we talk about displacing some of these 
programs or replacing them with an outright check that would be 
drafted for consumers, we better be ready to pay that $300 
check each and every year because these are recurring benefits.
    There is a tremendous need to center equity in our energy 
policy, and DOE's weatherization assistance program is an 
important part of this effort as the largest Federal program 
focused on delivering efficiency services to our low income 
households.
    The weatherization program recognizes that low income 
Americans are paying much more of their paycheck for essential 
utility services, three times what higher income households pay 
as a percentage of their income. These families don't have the 
disposable income to make home improvements even when those 
cost-effective improvements pay back over time.
    And we know the program works. Each weatherization program 
dollar delivers $4.50 in benefits, including energy savings and 
improved health and safety. So homes that receive these 
services save on average $283 every year, each and every year, 
on their utility bills.
    So, Ms. Drehobl. We know it is difficult to get rental and 
multi-family housing units to participate in the weatherization 
program. Many landlords don't see a reason to improve the 
efficiency of their tenants' homes, but obviously, many of us 
have a strong interest in ensuring these services reach 
everyone. Do you have any suggestions for how to increase these 
types of homes in the program, or how else might we incentivize 
weatherization services for these homes beyond the DOE program?
    Ms. Drehobl. Sure. Thank you for your question. That is a 
major challenge. One of the recommendations that we included in 
our testimony is ways that the Federal Government can help 
target affordable multi-family housing which is a very large 
market of households. Right now, there are 1.1 million units of 
occupied public housing, and we estimate that deep retrofits to 
1 million of these units would cost about $4.5 billion and lead 
to many, many benefits for those households and lower bills 
that are being subsidized by the Federal Government.
    There is ways to work with public housing authorities and 
housing finance agencies to address this issue. That is one way 
that this could be done.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. And the reauthorization 
bill that recently passed the House establishes a small, 
competitive grant program for innovative practices which could 
include community-based strategies; for example, a community's 
solar project to complement the weatherization of multiple 
homes in a neighborhood might be an offer.
    Dr. Reames, what do you think about expanding this program 
beyond traditional services of lighting, windows, caulking, and 
insulation? And how might incorporating new technologies and 
strategies be a good modernization of the weatherization 
assistance program?
    Dr. Reames. Thank you for your question, and I think you 
hit on a really important point. We noticed during our effort 
that there were some innovations in actually targeting 
weatherization to certain communities like I mentioned, the 
green impact zone in Kansas City. And that allowed for 
recognition that more than 50 percent of the homes are renter 
occupied, and so we realize that there needed to be a 
relationship with landlords, and that included some community-
based social marketing, allowing landlords and renters to talk 
about the opportunity to weatherize the homes, and what that 
would mean for the tenant to be able to pay their rent and pay 
their utility bills.
    And so this idea that homes are spatially located, built 
around the same time with the same building codes, really 
advocates or really pushes for this idea of community-based 
strategies that are place targeted.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    And, Ms. Drehobl, this innovation program is also intended 
to support pre-weatherization, work like roof repairs and mold 
remediation, as well as other complimentary practices. How 
might this type of work be complimentary to traditional 
weatherization services? And should improving the health and 
safety of homes also be a priority of the program?
    Ms. Drehobl. Thank you for your question.
    Yes, I would say that improving health and safety is really 
important to tie in with weatherization. There are a lot of 
additional benefits that come from improving indoor air quality 
and help with heallth conditions such as improving asthma, 
COPD, school attendance for children, et cetera, a lot of 
benefits that have been monetized by some States, as well such 
as the State of Massachusetts.
    So I think being able to incorporate these estimates into 
the program is really important to access these additional 
benefits.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair, I had a question for Ms. Wyatt, but I have run 
out of time and will get that to her so that she can respond 
within the given days after the hearing.
    So thank you all for appearing before the subcommittee.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now notices that Ms. McMorris Rodgers is 
available for questioning.
    Ms. McMorris Rodgers, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate the subcommittee's focusing on increasing 
affordability and access to clean energy, a goal that we all 
share. I worry, though, that some of the proposals from the 
majority will have the opposite effect by raising cost on 
middle- and low-income families and decreasing access to 
reliable energy.
    Recently, Governor Newsom said California is, quote, 
America fast forward, end quote. Even if unintentional, this is 
a warning about following California's failed policies. 
Nationalizing California's mandates for renewables, like wind 
and solar, at the expense of affordable reliable energy 
sources, like hydropower, nuclear, and natural gas, is a 
mistake. We have all seen the results of these mandates and sky 
high costs in California and recent rolling blackouts over the 
summer.
    Wind and solar have a crucial role to play in our energy 
future, but we need to be realistic about their current 
limitations. And yet California is doubling down on costly 
regulations by mandating that cars sold in the State should be 
100 percent electric by 2035. I am not sure how their grid will 
meet that demand when they can barely keep the lights on as it 
is.
    Our goal should be to increase clean energy access and 
decrease energy costs for all Americans. But we can't do that 
by letting Governor Newsom's prediction come true.
    Mr. Bryce, during California's energy shortage, they relied 
on imported energy sources to meet the demand that California's 
renewables were not able to make on their own. Specifically, 
they relied on 65,000 megawatt hours from BPA and the Federal 
Columbia River Power System.
    Overall, despite being 16 percent of California's energy 
capacity, hydro was providing 33 percent of its energy at their 
peak. Hydro provides 70 percent of the power in my home State 
of Washington, which is why we have some of the lowest 
electricity rates in the world. It is clean. It is reliable. 
And it should also be recognized as a renewable source of 
energy.
    How does California's energy crisis this summer illustrate 
the need for policymakers, both at the State and the Federal 
level, to provide more flexibility on energy source mixes, not 
less, and how sources like hydropower can play an even more 
important role in increasing access and decreasing costs?
    Mr. Bryce. Well, thank you, Ms. Rodgers.
    I feel we are becoming the bash California show today, and 
that is not my purpose today. But I think to answer your 
question regarding hydropower directly, we are not building 
more dams in America, and the Northwest is blessed with 
enormous hydro resources, and that has been a great boon to the 
States in the Northwest.
    I would answer your question by saying, again, that I think 
what--I am a longtime advocate of nuclear energy, and I have 
testified before the Senate on several occasions making these 
very points. Natural gas and nuclear, if we want to continue 
decarbonizing our grid, those are the ways to go. I am not 
saying renewables aren't going to grow. They are. But the 
problem that we are facing in States all across the country, 
including in Washington, where the Benton Public Utility 
District just a few months ago said they don't want any wind 
added to their mix in the State of Washington, are these latest 
conflicts. And to me this is not necessarily about belief. It 
is fundamental math and physics. The power density of wind and 
solar are low, one watt per square meter for wind, ten watts 
per square meter for solar. That is one reason why I think 
solar is going to continue to grow, the greater power density, 
but those don't even come close to the power densities of 
natural gas and nuclear, and that is key because land use 
matters, so--
    Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you. Well, I appreciate that. I 
would also highlight that only three percent of the dams in 
America actually produce electricity. So there is a huge amount 
of infrastructure that could be converted and utilized for new 
hydro moving forward, and hydro is still the largest renewable 
in America.
    Mr. Bryce, on another topic, I wanted just to note in your 
testimony that you note that wealthy electric vehicle drivers 
in California have been directly subsidized through tax credits 
and other incentives at the expense of lower and middle income 
individuals. We have seen more indirect costs levied on 
American consumers by other policies, such as California's Zero 
Emission Vehicle Program, which forces manufacturers and 
dealers to sell EVs regardless of the demand.
    And I see that I am out of time. I just think that this is 
also a very important point, and I will ask my question in a 
followup in a written question. But thank you for being here, 
and thanks for your insight.
    Mr. Bryce. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
    Mrs. Rodgers. You are welcome. OK.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mrs. Rodgers. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, 
Mr. Loebsack, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Loebsack. Well, thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking 
Member Upton, for holding this hearing today, and thank you to 
the witnesses who are joining us as well.
    And I do want to acknowledge Mrs. McMorris Rodgers' 
emphasis on hydropower. I have enjoyed working with her on that 
while I have been on the committee. I think that is very 
important.
    And as we are discussing today, the burden of energy costs 
is felt very differently by households across the country, and 
these disparities can depend on a number of factors, including 
income level, race, regional location, as well as whether 
households are located in an urban or rural setting.
    A significant number of my constituents in my Southeast 
Iowa district reside in rural communities where they generally 
face a higher energy burden, especially compared to their more 
urban counterparts. For example, according to the Department of 
Energy, in the metropolitan area of Iowa City, the average 
energy cost per household is around $1,500 per year whereas in 
the rural small town of Farmington, Iowa, way down in the 
southeast corner of the State, the same average cost per 
household is nearly three times higher at just under $4,400 per 
year. In fact, many of the communities located in the most 
rural counties in my district spend around 5 to 7 percent of 
their income on energy, while our more urban and suburban 
counties are typically around 2 to 3 percent, which is more in 
line with the average for the State.
    Considering the fact that much of the cost-effective 
renewable energy produced in Iowa, particularly from wind, is 
generated in our rural communities, this disparity and cost 
burden is particularly pronounced; I might even say maddening.
    Ms. Drehobl, first to you, thank you for your testimony 
today. And can you expand on what specific and unique 
challenges rural communities face in accessing affordable 
energy?
    Ms. Drehobl. Yes. Thank you for your question.
    I will say ACEEE previously published research in 2018 
measuring rural energy burdens and did find they are higher. I 
would say rural households are often frontline communities 
facing significant climate impacts, economic shocks, and other 
major challenges to daily life, and they also have less 
flexibility to move or change how they get around or how they 
heat their homes, and energy can be more expensive, as you have 
said.
    I think access to energy efficiency and renewable energy is 
an important piece for economic recovery right now in the midst 
of the COVID pandemic in these communities, both in terms of 
lowering people's monthly bills as well as providing training 
and good job opportunities for people living in rural 
communities.
    Mr. Loebsack. Well, thank you.
    And I want to move to Ms. Wyatt now. What is the potential 
for renewable distributed projects, including distributed 
wind--I have been a big champion of that--in rural low-income 
communities? And what benefits specifically related to energy 
burden would these communities see from increased access to 
clean energy, Ms. Wyatt?
    Ms. Wyatt. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
    GRID Alternatives itself doesn't have direct experience 
with distributed wind, but we do work in rural communities, 
including agricultural communities and Tribal communities, like 
Navajo Nation, and distributed energy has immense benefit for 
these communities and the ability to cut their energy bills, as 
we have seen with a number of our projects, including, you 
know--energy burdens are particularly high, as you said, in a 
lot of rural areas around the country, especially Tribal areas 
that may even have energy poverty and lack of access to the 
full modern energy to meet their needs in the first place, 
where micro grids would be of a special help.
    So, yes, as with, you know, other households in 
communities, rural households and communities have barriers 
that it is very much a worthwhile investment to enable them to 
overcome and receive the savings from energy sources like solar 
that can cut their energy bills.
    Mr. Loebsack. And, additionally, we have seen much of this 
Iowa, but can you expand on the role of clean energy in 
stimulating local economies and creating jobs as well?
    Ms. Wyatt. Absolutely, yes. The energy transition is an 
enormous opportunity. The clean energy sector is many times the 
size right now, in terms of work force, of the fossil fuel 
energy sector. It is employs many more workers, well over a 
million. Solar has hundreds of thousands of workers, and they 
are good jobs. They have--there are low-barrier-to-entry jobs 
that can really give opportunities to people who need the most, 
and there are a lot of skilled jobs. It is a whole range with 
diverse roles, as long as, you know, policies enable those kind 
of training programs and everything else to develop, but huge 
economic opportunity in stimulating local economic development 
through clean energy, especially distributed clean energy. 
Those jobs aren't going to be off shored. You can't install a 
solar rooftop system from China.
    Mr. Loebsack. Well, thanks to all of the panelists.
    And, Mr. Chair, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes now the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 
Johnson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking 
Member Upton.
    And I, too, I want to associate myself with the comments 
made by my colleague from Virginia, Mr. Griffith. Mr. Chairman, 
I, too, have enjoyed working with you and appreciate your 
passion for the disadvantaged and poor people, regardless of 
where they live. So I appreciate that about you.
    You know, the energy burden, quote/unquote, energy burden 
defined as the percentage of household income used for energy 
expenses that we are talking about today, it highlights the 
important fact that low- and fixed-income families are much 
more vulnerable to energy price hikes. What is interesting, 
however, is that earlier in this Congress I recall the majority 
hosting hearing after hearing highlighting their plans for a 
zero-carbon recovery while warning about the dangers of fossil 
fuels and advanced nuclear energy.
    So it begs the question, do my friends in the majority 
really support lowering energy costs? Because given their 
attack on fossil fuels in their Green New Deal agenda, 
specifically coal and natural gas that are so essential in 
powering America's energy grid, I think it is a bit 
disingenuous for them to claim that they are concerned about 
keeping energy prices low for consumers. You simply can't work 
to lower energy expenses for low- and fixed-income families 
while simultaneously conducting a full on assault at the local, 
State, and national levels against some of our primary proven 
sources of abundant, reliable, and affordable energy.
    So, Mr. Bryce, as you have stated in your testimony, 
natural gas is commonly used directly by consumers for powering 
their stoves, dryers, water heaters, and furnaces, frequently 
at a lower energy cost than similar electric appliances.
    In my home State of Ohio and across the country, we have 
seen a number of communities whose elected leaders inspired by 
this Green New Deal movement have floated future proposals that 
would actually shut the gas off to their citizens all in the 
name of combating climate change.
    So my question to you: This doesn't sound like reducing the 
energy burden to me, but can you explain the effect on poor and 
disadvantaged families if they were forced to switch to 
electric-only energy to meet all of their household needs?
    Mr. Bryce. Well, thank you, sir.
    As I pointed out in my presentation a moment ago and in my 
written remarks, by outlawing natural gas and forcing consumers 
to use electricity, on a BTU basis, electricity is four times 
as expensive. So I think, on the face of it, that is a problem.
    Now, advocates for beneficial electrification would point 
out, well, heat pumps and some of these other new appliances 
are more efficient. Well, that may well be, but even if they 
are twice as efficient as the existing ones, you still have a 
basic cost of energy per joule or per BTU that is twice that of 
using natural gas directly.
    So I think that the other risk here is that by pushing for 
electrification only, then the system, the grid would be using 
more natural gas indirectly. Instead of using the gas directly 
in the home to, say, heat my water or cook my dinner, I would 
be using an electric appliance that would be fueled by gas 
burned in the power plant, and then in that process, half to 
two-thirds of that heat energy is lost simply because of the 
conversion process.
    So, if you look at it from a basic physics standpoint, that 
is problematic because there is no way to know that that 
electricity would be coming from renewable sources.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, I agree with you because we are talking 
about electric distribution, in your answer for the most part, 
where that electricity comes from. We don't even address the 
issue of the generation and how we are going to generate all 
that energy from renewable or alternative sources.
    So how could this affect their bottom lines if these same 
low and fixed income families happen to be living in a State or 
locality with aggressive renewable energy electricity mandates?
    Mr. Bryce. Well, you know, as I said, I mean, it is going 
to vary by States and by the prices of electricity. But I think 
ultimately the banning of natural gas has a regressive effect.
    Mr. Johnson. All right. Well, thank you very much.
    I will yield back an entire five seconds, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair appreciates the five seconds from the 
gentleman.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Kennedy because I don't see 
Mr. Welch in attendance right now. Mr. Kennedy, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, thank you and thank you all. 
Thanks for calling this important hearing. I want to thank the 
witnesses for their testimony and their presence today and for 
the discussion.
    This is an issue that is important to me, important to my 
constituents across Massachusetts, but across my district as 
well, where we have a variety of economically extraordinarily 
diverse tied into the northern part and high residential 
communities and life sciences sector, medical device sector, 
and a lot of small businesses and small manufacturers where 
energy costs end up being a driving aspect to their ability to 
run a sustainable business, but also folks that are very much 
tied into the economic inequities we are seeing across 
Massachusetts and around our country and the needs to address 
climate change.
    So all of that compounds into a community that before, 
shortly before I was elected eight years ago, had two large 
coal-fired generation power projects, and that is now down to 
zero. And, again, enormous opportunities that come with the 
potential for offshore wind and offshore wind generation--
electricity generation, but trying to make sure that we do 
that, as we catalyze towards that, do that in a way that 
empowers frontline communities like Fall River and helps build 
a new initiative that does not yet exist here in Massachusetts 
and in the country.
    So, Dr. Reames, I wanted to start with you. And thank you 
for your testimony.
    In your statement, you discuss environmental justice, 
communities, and energy burden, and I wanted to see if you 
could talk about the overlapping effects of a high energy 
burden and what we have seen with the effect of COVID-19 
particularly on environmental justice communities.
    Dr. Reames. Thank you for that question, Representative 
Kennedy.
    What you do see is that communities that are reeling from 
COVID-19 are definitely the same communities that have high 
energy burdens. They are hosting the generation pollution from 
the energy sector, and they also have, you know, inefficient 
housing. So you have this kind of combination of disadvantaged, 
where people live in inefficient housing, so they are wasting 
energy. They are hosting the pollution from that energy, and 
the surrounding areas are consuming more energy at a cheaper 
rate. And so this idea that the equity versus equality argument 
really plays into, you know, where these things kind of come 
together.
    Mr. Kennedy. 100 percent. And thank you for articulating 
that and walking us through it.
    And, Ms. Wyatt, I wanted to go to you for the next one 
here, building off that. In your testimony, you talked about 
the impact of traditional generation on environmental justice 
communities. I was hoping that you might be able to expand on 
that a bit, the potential for renewable energy to address some 
of those impacts.
    Ms. Wyatt. Thank you Congressman.
    You know, there has just been a lot of recent conflicting 
science on the detrimental impact on air pollution in 
particular but the water pollution from fossil fuel generating 
sources across the--you know, the fence lines, right outside 
the fence lines of these facilities, the communities. They are 
disproportionately likely to be low income and communities of 
color, and so they face higher rates of asthma, cancer, birth 
defects. It also contributes to COVID mortality.
    And the way--you know, clean energy can remedy this, of 
course, directly by displacing the need for dirty fossil fuel 
energy generation directly one for one. It also, you know, 
empowers the communities to have their own energy that meets 
their needs and is more affordable. As we have said, clean 
energy from the sun and wind is more affordable in the short 
and long run.
    So, by reducing pollutants and increasing access to 
affordable clean energy at the same time, you are really 
reducing racial disparities in a way that our country, you 
know, desperately needs.
    Mr. Kennedy. So I want to build on something you said there 
just really briefly.
    But pollution is a subsidy, right? It is a cost to society 
that those that generate it don't bear. We all do. There is a 
common critique here that clean energy is just too expensive to 
be competitive that, in my mind anyway, doesn't take into 
account, one, the subsidies that many of those existing 
fossil--energy generation infrastructure one receives to the 
pollution, the contamination that comes with it and how we all 
bear that cost.
    You have got about 20 seconds, Ms. Wyatt, but to the extent 
that you can explain all of this in 20 seconds as to why--the 
economic piece of it here. I would love to have you go. Twelve 
seconds, go.
    Ms. Wyatt. Sure. The current--we don't have a free market 
right now. The subsidies of the ability to pollute our 
atmosphere and people's lungs are in the trillions. They are 
not accounted for in energy bills or otherwise, but policy 
needs to account for them as a matter of justice.
    Mr. Kennedy. Well done.
    Thank you. I appreciate it.
    Ms. Wyatt. Thank you, Congressman.
    Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair understands that Mr. Bucshon is unavailable at 
the moment, so the Chair now recognizes Mr. Hudson for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 
this important hearing, and thank you to our panelists for 
being here today as we examine an issue our most economically 
vulnerable constituents face, which affordability of energy.
    Before the coronavirus shut down our energy economy, all 
Americans were benefiting from an energy renaissance. We had 
become the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the 
world, which has lowered to millions of Americans. President 
Donald Trump's aggressive energy initiatives have cut 
regulatory burdens on our energy sector and have saved 
Americans over $200 billion annually through lower energy 
bills.
    At the same time, the United States has cut our emissions 
the last 20 years more than the next 12 countries combined, and 
that is through innovation and private sector technology. 
However, Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for President, who 
described himself the other night as, quote, he is the Democrat 
Party, if you look at his web site to figure out what the 
Democrats' energy plan is, it says he supports the Green New 
Deal.
    The Green New Deal is estimated to raise Americans' energy 
bills by as much as 286 percent. So I find it ironic this 
hearing is about examining ways to lower energy costs for 
people, but the other side's energy plan would dramatically 
increase energy costs for Americans. And as our panelists have 
eloquently explained, that impacts lower income families the 
most.
    I am an all-of-the-above energy supporter. Just this week, 
Duke Energy in North Carolina, announced plans for a 1.1 
megawatt floating solar facility at Fort Bragg, which would be 
the largest floating solar plant in the Southeast. This will 
bring more clean energy to North Carolina, enhance our grid, 
and increase Fort Bragg's energy defense resiliency.
    We can build a cleaner energy economy effectively and 
affordably through innovation and technology. I am proud to 
have worked to lower energy costs and to give my constituents 
more money in their pockets.
    Now, Mr. Bryce, you mentioned in your testimony that 
policymakers must have a frank and transparent discussion about 
how to lighten the energy burden, not increase it. When 
renewable energy policies are proposed, do you think there 
should be more public analysis to estimate what the full cost 
would be? Is that something we should use to better inform our 
own decisions on any plans to decarbonize the economy?
    Mr. Bryce.
    Mr. Bryce. Yes, sir, I think absolutely. But let me be 
clear, this is not an easy assignment. As I mentioned earlier, 
the American electric grid is balkanized. We have State 
regulators. We have the regional transmission operators. We 
have Federal regulators that all have a say in what local 
communities do and what they--how they treat generation 
resources.
    What I think is the other big challenge here is that 
electric--overall electricity demand in the United States has 
been flat for years. Roughly the last ten years electricity 
demand has not grown at all. That is due to greater efficiency, 
which is a very worthy goal, but what we see now is an 
increased effort--or really competition among different 
generators for the remaining--for the share of the pie and who 
gets priority access or distribution on the grid.
    So these are complicated challenges, and I don't have the 
perfect answer to say this is how we should do these price 
analyses. But, yes, these kinds of analyses and knock-on 
effects on ratepayers that would include all of the costs, for 
transmission, for high-voltage transmission, for new 
transformers, poles, wires, synchronous generation, all of 
these things that are needed to augment and offset the 
generation that is being added to the grid.
    So there is no simple answer here, sir. But, yes, getting a 
better handle on these price impacts is essential.
    Mr. Hudson. Well, I appreciate that, and I agree with you. 
You know, I think Republicans and Democrats agree we have got 
to find ways to reduce emissions, and I think we all care about 
our consumers, particularly the most vulnerable.
    Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleagues that we recognize 
that you have been a champion for those folks all around the 
country. But I think the difference is Republicans want to 
continue to reduce the emissions through innovation, through 
private sector technology, developments and advancements. And 
we have a role to play in that, but we don't have to cripple 
our society. We don't have to double or triple the costs on our 
lowest income families to achieve these goals.
    So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, on 
that. And, with that, I will yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire, 
Ms. Kuster, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this 
important hearing.
    This committee has worked tirelessly to address the public 
health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and 
I appreciate today's hearing, which touches on the 
affordability of energy and electricity, a topic that is top of 
mind in New Hampshire as we head into another winter season.
    While our economic recovery has begun and businesses begin 
to navigate this new normal, we cannot lose sight of the 
reality that millions of Americans and tens of thousands of 
Granite Staters are still out of work. As a result of the 
pandemic, New Hampshire's August 2020 unemployment rate was 
triple that of August 2019, and it has caused more Granite 
Staters to struggle with their energy bills.
    According to data from Eversource, one of the largest 
utility companies in my State, the number of individuals and 
small business ratepayers who are more than $125 behind on 
their energy bills has nearly doubled, from 21,000 in September 
of 2019 to 38,000 in September of 2020. The New Hampshire 
Electric Co-op reported that the number of customers who were 
more than 90 days in arrears on their bills have tripled from 
August 2019 to August 2020.
    And with the expiration of the pandemic unemployment 
compensation and lost wage assistance program, I fear that more 
Americans will soon fall behind on their energy bills. 
Thankfully, in New Hampshire, individuals who are struggling 
with utility bills will not have their service cut until at 
least April of 2021 if they certify that they are experiencing 
financial hardship. But after that point, I fear that Granite 
Staters who already were paying too much for their energy bills 
might not be able to pay off larger bills that have accrued 
during the pandemic even with good-faith efforts by utility 
companies to put ratepayers into gradual repayment plans.
    Dr. Reames and Ms. Drehobl, do you think Congress should 
consider setting aside dedicated funds to help Americans pay 
off unaffordable energy bills that accrued during the pandemic?
    Dr. Reames. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman.
    I do think that the increased funds for LIHEAP is a perfect 
way to use those funds to pay off accrued debt. There was a 
pilot in Michigan that did direct payments, so working with the 
utility company to identify households that were behind on 
their utility bills and actually made those direct payments on 
those customers' behalf.
    So I think this is an opportunity for utilities, 
regulators, and the Congress to work together.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you.
    Ms. Drehobl, anything to add?
    Ms. Drehobl. I agree with Professor Reames, and I think 
utilizing LIHEAP would be a good suggestion.
    Ms. Kuster. Great.
    So let me switch gears and touch on the importance of the 
Weatherization Assistance Program that provides funding to 
local governments and nonprofits to help low-income families 
make their homes more energy efficient.
    Again, for the two of you, should Congress increase funding 
for the Weatherization Assistance Program? And what would be an 
ideal funding level?
    Dr. Reames. I will comment really quickly. If you look at 
funding for LIHEAP and weatherization, we spend about seven 
times the amount on LIHEAP, which I view as a temporary 
solution. So we should increase the funding for weatherization. 
If we think 35 million households qualify and we have only 
weatherized about seven million, like Ms. Drehobl has said, it 
would take, you know, several decades to weatherize all of the 
homes that qualify.
    Ms. Kuster. Anything, Ms. Drehobl, before my time is up?
    Ms. Drehobl. Sure. Yes, I would add that ACEEE supports 
increasing funding for LIHEAP at a consistent rate to move 
towards the funding levels that we had during the ARRA time, 
and that could help weatherize many more homes than we are 
currently weatherizing. So I think ramping up this program 
would be helpful.
    Ms. Kuster. Great. Thank you so much for your testimony.
    And, with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Walberg for 5 minutes. If you can turn on your--unmute, Mr. 
Walberg.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Thanks for reminding me. And, 
Chairman Rush, it is much appreciated that you have this 
hearing today. Having been born and started my raising life in 
your district, I know exactly where you are coming from and 
appreciate your commitment.
    Also, it is good to have the representative from the 
University of Michigan here today, Dr. Reames. I started out at 
that little university on the banks of the Red Cedar just the 
beginning this week as we dedicated the facility for 
radioactive isotope beams, which was exciting, and so it is 
good to end the week here as well discussing the issue of 
energy as it touches people's lives. So thank you for being 
with us.
    On the issue of energy affordability in colder climates 
like my home State of Michigan, 75 percent of our residents 
rely on natural gas for home heating because it is efficient, 
it is dependable, and it is affordable. In fact, the Michigan 
Public Service Commission has found that natural gas saves the 
average Michigander over $1,000 annually compared to an all-
electric home.
    And so, Mr. Bryce, could I ask you to elaborate on what 
your research has found about the role natural gas can play in 
keeping customer bills affordable, especially in the climates 
like we have in Michigan, the northern climes where significant 
cold weather remains and we have a very, very plentiful source 
of natural gas?
    Mr. Bryce. Sure. Thank you, sir.
    Yes, just one quick comment, which is that the effort to 
electrify all residential use sounds good, but particularly in 
colder States like Michigan--my wife is from Ann Arbor. My 
father-in-law taught at the University of Michigan. It gets 
cold there, really cold, and heat pumps don't work in very cold 
weather. You need resistance heaters, which then adds more 
demand to the electric grid, which then has knock-on effects in 
terms of the cost of upgrading the grid to accommodate all of 
that energy use that was being provided by natural gas.
    So I think particularly the effort to take gas out of 
residential use and out of commercial and industrial use, for 
heating in particular, heat bumps simply are not a solution, a 
viable economic solution in colder climates.
    Mr. Walberg. Mr. Bryce, going on from that, our Governor, 
Governor Whitmer, recently issued an executive order making 
Michigan carbon-neutral by 2050. Many energy companies in my 
State were already undertaking aggressive steps to install more 
renewables. I know that full well having the energy district of 
the State of Michigan where over 35 percent of all the energy 
is produced right in the Seventh District with DTE and 
Consumers Energy headquartered in my district.
    Their aggressive steps with renewables has, like wind and 
solar, may require substantial new transmission build out, and 
it already is. However, energy providers must also ensure the 
grid is reliable and can meet demand on days when the wind 
isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining, and we have a lot of 
those days in Michigan. Natural gas, as well as nuclear, are 
24/7 power sources to help provide certainty to the grid. 
Having a nuclear plant in my district as well, we recognize the 
value of that, and yet we are moving away.
    How should we think about the future of our energy mix and 
the role natural gas and nuclear can play in generating 
electricity most cost-effectively for consumers?
    Mr. Bryce. Well, thank you, sir. That is a very good 
question.
    And let me be clear that the challenges facing the nuclear 
plants across the country are formidable. The low price natural 
gas is undercutting the wholesale price--or is lowering the 
wholesale price and, in some cases, making these big nuclear 
plants, which have high fixed costs, very low fuel costs but 
high fixed costs, particularly in terms of labor, so the 
utilities are saying, well, we will shut them down unless we 
get some--effectively some kind of consideration; call it a 
subsidy because that is what it is.
    But I am in favor of a diverse portfolio. And what I fear--
I am adamantly pro-natural gas, but what I fear is happening in 
the United States is that, with the shuttering of all of these 
coal plants and the shuttering of these nuclear plants, the 
U.S. grid is going to be too reliant on a single fuel, which is 
natural gas. And I think that potentially is a liability, 
particularly during--as we have seen during the--what was it, 
not the cold bomb or the--you know, the Arctic cold fronts that 
we have had where natural gas supplies are strained, and those 
are just-in-time deliveries through pipelines.
    So I think this issue has to be looked at in the entirety 
around the country because I do fear that we are becoming too 
reliant on gas on the grid as a whole.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman, Mr. Walberg, is the last member on the 
minority side that is present right now. So we will go straight 
through the members on the majority side.
    Ms. Barragan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you, Chair Rush, for holding this 
hearing on energy equity.
    Whether it is cost, pollution, or jobs, our energy system's 
dependence on fossil fuels doesn't work for communities of 
color. Our transition to a clean energy economy offers a unique 
opportunity to reverse the injustices in the current system. It 
is critical that we don't leave behind Black, Latino, and 
indigenous communities behind in these efforts.
    I want to start by responding to the ad by a group, United 
Latinos Vote, that Ranking Member Walden filed for the record 
to imply that Latinos in California are concerned about moving 
from fossil fuels to clean energy.
    United Latinos Vote is an industry front group, funded in 
part by a $15,000 donation by Pacific Gas and Electric. One 
recent campaign they were involved in was in response to a gas 
ban proposed by the small city of San Luis Obispo. There 
hasn't--there wasn't opposition from local minority groups, so 
the fossil fuel industry manufactured opposition through United 
Latinos Vote, which is based 230 miles away from San Luis 
Obispo in Oakland.
    California Environmental Justice Alliance, an environmental 
justice group representing communities of color, called the 
actions by United Latinos Vote, quote, gas lighting aimed to 
manipulate the public and decisionmakers on a just transition 
away from fossil fuel based economy that most hurts people of 
color, end quote.
    I think it is an important principle of equity and energy 
justice that we allow communities of color to speak for 
themselves, make their own decisions without this outside 
political influence and money into the community.
    And so, with that, Ms. Wyatt, I want to start with you 
first. I want to thank you for all of the work that you have 
done. GRID Alternatives has done amazing work, especially in my 
district in South Los Angeles. With communities in my district, 
they have gone out and done the work on the rooftops. Now, 
recently, you installed solar and battery storage in 
Wilmington's Harbor City Community Job Center and individual 
homeowners' solar systems in Watts.
    Now, these projects create green jobs while reducing energy 
costs and pollution. Many of these clean energy projects are 
supported by grants from California's climate programs. I want 
to see more of these community-led projects in my district and 
in Black, Latino, and indigenous communities across the 
country.
    What climate programs can Congress enact to help achieve 
this?
    Ms. Wyatt. Thank you very much for your question, 
Congresswoman, and your kind words about the great work that 
our construction teams and others are doing in California.
    California has pioneered a lot of great programs, and a lot 
of them have had a lot of success and could be scaled up. The 
combination of subsidies that get the--just bridge the gap to 
enable institutions serving low-income people and low-income 
households themselves directly on their own rooftops to get the 
benefits of clean energy. Those could come from the Federal 
Government, as well as the State government. They could go 
through State and local governments or other institutions, and 
we have made a number of recommendations in our written 
comments on some suggestions for how to do that. There have 
been a number of legislative proposals in recent years. These 
could be coordinated, in addition, through weatherization 
assistance and energy assistance. Again, we don't want to set 
up clean energy to compete with those very important programs, 
but by fully funding those and, in addition, including 
renewable energy, low-income renewable energy with those 
programs, you could really multiply the beneficial impacts.
    You know, we also leverage the investment tax credit 
wherever we can, making that directly accessible to low-income 
communities and Tribes, and nonprofits would really enhance its 
utility and level the playing field for investments in 
renewable systems for those beneficiaries.
    Congress has a lot of room for creativity to get clean 
energy to where it is going to have the most benefit.
    Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you so much.
    Dr. Reames, in the short time I have left, in 2017, you 
released a study on energy efficiency investments by Michigan's 
utilities which showed that most of the dollars and energy 
savings went to wealthier ratepayers.
    Can you talk about how State laws led to this inequity and 
whether this is a problem in other States?
    Dr. Reames. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman.
    I think we need to look at how we promote and push equity 
investments, particularly focusing on what partnerships are 
made between utilities and State regulators to reduce the cost 
of energy-efficient technology, how we market to low-income 
communities, how we allow community groups as trusted members 
in that community to promote these programs as well. So there 
are knowledge gaps, there are cost gaps, and participation gaps 
that lead to those disparities.
    Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you.
    With my time expired, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Bucshon, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I will be brief, a couple of questions real quickly.
    Ms. Wyatt, do we have a national plan for recycling solar 
panels?
    Ms. Wyatt. We do not have a national mandate. There is a 
lot of work being done in the industry regarding recycling and 
reuse of solar panels after multiple decade lifetimes.
    Mr. Bucshon. Yes, because, I mean, you are looking at, 
what, 20- to 30-year life expectancy.
    What do we do with the ones that are end of lifecycle right 
now?
    Ms. Wyatt. Some of the early solar systems are approaching 
the end of their lifecycle, not GRIDs, and so I will get back 
to you with some additional information.
    Mr. Bucshon. Yes, sure. I will tell you what we do with 
them. First of all, I am an all-of-the-above energy supporter, 
so I support solar energy. But I am concerned about we are not 
looking at the entire lifecycle of that form of energy source. 
What we do now is put them in landfills. So, you know, as we 
expand our solar energy and the solar energy space, 20, 25 
years from now, we are going to have landfills full of these 
things, which have heavy metals, all kinds of other things. So 
we need to work on that, which I am.
    So I do find it frustrating sometimes when we talk about 
different forms of energy, we don't talk about the entire 
lifecycle of an energy source, and that is one of the big ones 
there.
    Ms. Wyatt. I agree. We also don't talk about the full 
impacts of the fossil fuel energy sources and their life cycle 
impacts the climate.
    Mr. Bucshon. Fair enough, fair enough.
    Dr. Reames, have you studied rural America with the issues 
that you have been talking about? Because I represent southwest 
Indiana. It is all rural. And I can tell you some of the 
challenges that rural America faces are very similar to urban 
challenges, with low-income individuals, with problems with 
accessing affordable energy. And also, you know, a lot of their 
homes and businesses lack, what I would say, improvements and 
weatherization and other things. Have you studied rural 
America?
    Dr. Reames. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
    I have not studied rural America as much as I have studied 
urban America.
    Mr. Bucshon. Sure.
    Dr. Reames. But I think a lot of those studies I do, 
particularly like food insecurities studies, when we did the 
lightbulb study, we did find that there were replicate studies 
in rural areas that found the same challenges of lack of access 
to LED lightbulbs or more expensive LED lightbulbs.
    Mr. Bucshon. Yes, I mean, I think it would be good to 
expand out, you know, to look at the challenges we face in 
rural America as also the ones that we face in urban America.
    So, with that, Mr. Chairman--go ahead. Do you have another 
comment, Mr. Reames?
    Dr. Reames. No, sir, I agree with you.
    Mr. Bucshon. OK. Great.
    So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 
O'Halleran, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Upton, for holding today's hearing, and thank you to the 
panelists for being here.
    As we enter into the final weeks of the 116th Congress, I 
would like to briefly summarize some of the key actions the 
House has voted on, passed, and sent to the Senate to promote 
clean energy for Americans: the Climate Action Now Act, to 
reenter the United States into the first climate accord; the 
Moving Forward, H.R. 2, to revitalize our Nation's crumbling 
infrastructure and invest in the renewable energy and storage 
projects; and the Clean Energy Jobs and Innovation Act just 
recently to modernize our Nation's energy and environment and 
address some of the climate change issues.
    While there are many more decisive actions to highlight, 
including many taken by the Energy and Commerce Committee this 
Congress, as lawmakers, we must ensure clean, affordable, and 
reliable energy is truly available to everyone as the energy 
economy continues to evolve.
    As many of you know, I am proud to represent 12 Native 
American Tribes in my district, including the Navajo Nation. 
Since today's discussion is focused on the energy burdens many 
Americans face, I would like to highlight an energy burden many 
may not be aware of. Arizona's First Congressional District has 
a high level of seniors who are on fixed incomes and below the 
poverty line. Additionally, many people in our work force have 
not seen a wage hike that has kept them up with inflation for 
some time. On top of that, my district has a tremendous amount, 
on a per capita basis, of people on Medicare and Medicaid, that 
are on those types of fixed incomes.
    Every winter, thousands of Navajos drive miles from their 
homes to load up their trucks from community coal heaps. For 
many Navajo, these coal heaps are the only source of light and 
heating for their homes.
    For many thousands of families, including members of the 
Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe throughout Northern Arizona, 
energy burdens are compounded by unemployment rates between 50 
and 80 percent, and that was pre-virus I will say, following 
the recent closure of the Navajo Generating Station, which 
provided many of the good-paying jobs to provide for their 
families. In addition to the policy incentives for promoting 
energy efficiency and renewable energy, I believe the strength 
of the work force plays a factor in the energy burdens a family 
may face.
    I look forward to assisting communities in my district, 
help them navigate the energy transition, and lessen their 
burden on energy.
    Ms. Drehobl, I got that right, I hope, and, Ms. Wyatt, for 
communities disconnected from the electric grid or on the front 
lines of the energy transition, how can employment 
opportunities in the renewable energy sector, which requires 
specialized skills and training, be made more available for 
low-income and minority households?
    Ms. Wyatt. If you don't mind me jumping in first. GRID 
Alternatives and our Tribal program have pioneered a lot of 
programs to train Tribal members. Recently we just had a Tribal 
training program for some members, and they were trained at a 
centralized location, and they are taking that knowledge and 
that on-the-ground experience back to their Tribes with them, 
that technical training. So it is really invaluable.
    Again, it just takes deliberate programmatic support to 
combine the benefits of work force training with establishing 
the clean energy availability where it is needed on Tribal 
areas.
    Mr. O'Halleran. And, Ms. Wyatt----
    Ms. Drehobl. Sure. I will add to that.
    From an energy-efficiency perspective, there is also major 
job opportunities for training of work force in rural areas in 
similar ways.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Oh, I am sorry. I got the names mixed up 
here with the faces. Thank you.
    Ms. Wyatt. That is quite all right. Thank you.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Dr. Reames, I am sure you know the energy 
transition may lead to excess transmission line capacity in 
communities where previous power generation has been retired. I 
have three more coal generation plants in my area that will 
eventually be closed.
    Could you comment on whether your research has examined how 
rural and remote communities replace retired power generation 
with renewable energy?
    Dr. Reames. Just really quickly, I have not studied it 
intently, but I have looked at how rural communities--just a 
couple of pilot studies in Michigan are looking at adding 
community solar for rural communities and partnering with 
weatherization to ensure that the homes are more efficient and 
that they have equitable access to renewable energy.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Does somebody else want to speak?
    Mr. Rush. No. The gentleman's time has ended. The gentlemen 
yields back his time.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Duncan, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, I want to thank the panelists for being here. 
I want to thank especially Robert Bryce for being here. I have 
read your book ``Power Hungry.'' You can see we have read it 
quite a bit and referenced it. I recommend it for everyone on 
the committee, but I don't think my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle will like it too much because you clearly 
point out the true costs of green energy and show what works. I 
want to thank you especially for your sections on how the 
American energy renaissance has created an opportunity for us 
to export energy sources, like clean-burning natural gas, to 
other parts of the world to improve the quality of lives of so 
many people so that they have better air in their homes, the 
ability to keep food fresh, the ability to heat and cool, keep 
mosquitos out, all of the other things that are quality-of-life 
issues that you point out in this book that are really good.
    I would like to switch gears to talk about nuclear for just 
a minute. My State of South Carolina, we get 56 percent of all 
of our electricity from nuclear power. That is 95 percent of at 
all of our clean carbon-free electricity. Renewables, hydro, 
wind, and solar, make up less than five percent of the carbon-
free sources in our State.
    As you know, wind and solar require huge swaths of land, 
and their power density is weak compared to nuclear. You 
mentioned that earlier just briefly. To match the power 
produced by one nuclear reactor would require 2,077 megawatt 
wind turbines. So, you know, you have mentioned California's 
climate goals would be better served by keeping the Diablo 
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant online and by encouraging the 
deployment of next generation reactors. That is something I 
agree with.
    Could you talk about what it would mean to replace closing 
nuclear units with wind and solar, especially in a State like 
South Carolina? And would it be even possible in the terms of 
land use and economics?
    Mr. Bryce.
    Mr. Bryce. Well, thank you, Mr. Duncan.
    I have done the calculations in both my new documentary 
``Juice''--you didn't plug this one, so I am going to plug it. 
``Juice: How Electricity Explains the World'' came out in June. 
We visited the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York, and the 
calculations are very straightforward. That plant covers 1 
square kilometer, produces about 16 terawatt hours of 
electricity per year. To produce that volume of electricity, 
that quantity of energy with wind turbines would require a land 
area of 1,300 square kilometers. So roughly 1,300 times more 
land would be required to replace that one nuclear plant. And, 
unfortunately, that plant, which provides about 25 percent of 
New York City's electricity, is being shuttered prematurely. 
That plant could run for many more decades, but there was no 
political support for it, so it is, unfortunately, being 
closed.
    One other point is that the land use conflicts in New York 
State, as I mentioned earlier, are as pitched as in any other 
State in America. You have numerous small towns and counties 
who have declared themselves saying, ``We don't want more wind 
capacity in our counties,'' and has led to the Governor now 
essentially saying, ``Well, we are going to override local 
zoning,'' which is really unprecedented, the overruling of home 
rule because the State is in a rush to build more renewables.
    So these kinds of land use conflicts are going to become 
much more common and, as I already mentioned, over 280 
rejections or restrictions already in the United States since 
2015.
    Mr. Duncan. No doubt, no doubt. Is that an Ohio State 
Buckeye on your lapel pen there?
    Mr. Bryce. Oh, well, no. Since we are talking about 
electricity, this is ready kilowatts.
    Mr. Duncan. I don't care. I just wanted to make sure 
because I am a Clemson guy.
    Real quickly, the fact is that exporting oil and gas to 
energy poor nations will help save thousands, if not hundreds 
of thousands of lives. I want to give you an opportunity to 
talk to you about how America can play a role in the 
geopolitical arena to improve the quality of lives of so many 
people around the world.
    Mr. Bryce. I think it is obvious, in terms of geopolitics, 
the U.S. becoming an LNG exporter has had significant 
ramifications in Europe. Poland signed a long-term LNG supply 
deal with Cheniere Energy about two years ago because Poland 
doesn't want to rely on Russia for their gas. They have a long 
history with Russia. It is all bad.
    But I think--you didn't ask this question, but it is clear 
to me that in terms of geopolitics, natural gas is becoming the 
energy form that is driving a lot of changes in geopolitics, 
with Israel sending gas to Egypt, the Egyptians and the--now 
supplying on a 30-year deal through the Power of Siberia 
Pipeline gas to China. These are significant and long-term 
deals that are going to affect geopolitics for decades to come.
    Mr. Duncan. Absolutely. I think you are spot on with that. 
Again, I will recommend your book, if folks want to really see 
a true picture of energy.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the remaining 
ten seconds. Thanks.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Delaware, Ms. 
Blunt Rochester, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. I join my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, in 
thanking you for calling this important and timely hearing, and 
I thank all of the witnesses for testifying today.
    In my State of Delaware, we are suburban, urban, and rural. 
And as is the case throughout our country, we are seeing 
families fall farther behind on their electricity bills. With 
winter approaching, this is a daunting reality for many folks. 
The COVID-19 pandemic has magnified the health, economic, and 
environmental racial disparities in our society. Black and 
Brown communities are seeing higher infection and death rates 
from this disease. Black and Brown communities are more likely 
to spend a larger percentage of their household income on 
energy bills. And Black and Brown communities are being hit the 
hardest with the economic recession we are facing.
    The economic upheaval we are experiencing from this 
pandemic has presented us with an opportunity to correct these 
injustices and rebuild a cleaner and more equitable country.
    One of my passions is the future of work, which is why I 
created a bipartisan caucus to look at solutions for the myriad 
challenges facing our companies and workers, not least of which 
is this pandemic. With clean energy, we have an opportunity to 
accelerate into the jobs of tomorrow.
    The impact of COVID-19 pandemic has caused--has forced us 
to face the future work sooner than we thought, and while this 
certainly feels daunting, I also see it as an opportunity. We 
need high-paying jobs that not only minimize environmental 
impacts and help us fight climate change but ensure that all 
Americans have access to clean and affordable energy.
    So my first question is for Ms. Wyatt. Following up on Mr. 
McNerney's questions about how to increase women and people of 
color in the clean energy industry, I would like you to give--I 
would like to give you some more time to expand on some of the 
programs that you mentioned, how we can in the Federal 
Government continue to incentivize and invest in programs like 
these so that clean energy jobs are accessible to all.
    Ms. Wyatt. Thank you, Congressman.
    Congress can start by expanding existing Federal job 
training programs like the HUD Jobs Plus program and adding an 
emphasis on the clean energy jobs that, as you said, are the 
jobs of the future as well as the jobs of the present. These 
are large and growing industries.
    Congress can also expand existing grants that provide solar 
and renewable energy training, especially focused on low income 
and underserved communities and workers who are displaced from 
fossil fuel industries. GRID particularly supports funding for 
the SolarCorps program supported through Americorps VISTA, one 
of the programs that we benefit from greatly because career 
choices are shaped by experiences and education prior to 
entering the workforce.
    Congress should incentivise resources for HBCUs, travel 
colleges, minority sharing institutions, programs for women, 
high schools, and technical schools to really ensure that we 
are being as inclusive as possible.
    And there is ample opportunity to create new renewable 
energy, storage, and electric vehicle infrastructure-focused 
training programs that provide living wages and benefits during 
training which is very important for ensuring that people who 
otherwise can't afford to just take off time from work to train 
into these new careers are able to access those.
    Again, the SolarWorks DC program is an example of a program 
that combines clean energy access with workforce development 
training, real world experience, and wrap-around services, and 
it is had a lot of great success.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. You know, just to follow up on that, 
with our high unemployment rates right now, we know that we are 
going to have to create new, high-paying jobs with varying 
training requirements. Why is the clean energy industry ideal 
for creating these types of jobs?
    Ms. Wyatt. The clean energy industry has a lot of facets. 
There are low barrier to entry jobs such as solar installation 
that can really form the basis for entire, very rewarding 
career paths.
    Average wages for even entry level jobs of that type are 
higher than the national average, and they allow people to 
support their families while they are growing in these careers 
and learning on the job.
    Again, the different facets of the clean energy revolution 
are interrelated, so people who are exposed to solar 
installation can also be exposed to weatherization and 
efficiency services and really just take advantage of the best 
opportunities where they are and for where they are in their 
lives to be part of this transition.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. And I have 20 seconds left.
    Ms. Drehobl, as we are transitioning our society to 
telework and distance learning, and telehealth, can you talk 
about what low income communities and communities of color can 
do to not be left behind, what we can do as a society?
    Ms. Drehobl. That is a great question. I think more 
investment in efficiency weatherization to help people use less 
energy while they are spending more time at home is really 
needed right now.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much.
    And I have run out of time, and I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Ms. Schakowsky who has waived on 
this subcommittee for the purposes of asking questions of our 
witnesses.
    Ms. Schakowsky of Illinois, you have 5 minutes.
    Please unmute.
    Ms. Schakowsky.
    Ms. Schakowsky, unmute.
    Ms. Schakowsky.
    Ms. Schakowsky. OK. There we go. I am so sorry. I really 
apologize.
    Mr. Rush. Quite all right.
    Ms. Schakowsky. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me 
waive onto this subcommittee.
    I have to tell you. There are times that I get so 
frustrated about this issue about the challenge between and the 
discussion between whether or not it is about jobs or it is 
about the environment because it seems to me that there is no 
contradiction whatsoever.
    And we are hearing about communities that are facing higher 
energy costs around the country. And while I know that is true, 
there are also low income communities, communities of color are 
facing also higher health risks in their communities, and we 
cannot have this kind of division between saving our 
environment and jobs.
    There is, in my view, no contradiction. But it is a 
contradiction to me to find that the permanent tax breaks to 
the fossil fuel industry are seven times larger than those in 
the renewable energy sector.
    And so I did want to ask Ms. Drehobl--is that correct? I 
know I have been listening all day how to say it, and I still 
didn't--probably didn't say it right.
    But how do we reconcile these things? I think this is the 
existential issue of our world right now, that we get a grip on 
carbon emissions in the atmosphere but also that we make sure 
that we address the inequities among communities and the 
disparities that are faced.
    I wonder if you could just talk a little bit more, and I 
know you have talked quite a bit about it already today, about 
that and the frustration I feel in the debates that are going 
on right now, including by the President during whatever you 
call that, the debate.
    Ms. Drehobl. Sure. Thank you for your question.
    I agree with you that I don't think these are separate 
things. I think investing in clean energy leads to more jobs 
being created. It leads to a healthier environment. It leads to 
reduced emissions of greenhouse gases, and all of these things 
can also benefit low income communities if there is an 
environmental justice lens set with these policies as we move 
forward.
    I think it is important to note too that when it comes to 
energy prices and costs that just because prices are low also 
doesn't mean that people are going to have affordable energy. 
If your home is inefficient, then you might need to use a lot 
more energy to keep it at a comfortable level. So I think, you 
know, discussions around prices also need to tie in with the 
reality of the bills that people are paying as well.
    Ms. Schakowsky. So we have what we call the LIHEAP program 
to help people pay their energy bills. I am wondering if you 
know much about that, or if anyone does, whether or not we are 
building into that when we help make homes more energy 
efficient if we are using energy efficiency. Anybody know about 
that?
    Ms. Drehobl. Well, the LIHEAP program does allow for States 
to spend some of that portion of money for weatherization. They 
can have a waiver of 15 to 25 percent.
    So that program not only helps with the immediate need that 
people have to pay their energy bills but also can be leveraged 
for that long-term solution of weatherization.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Let me also ask about the importance, 
because I think there is one, of making sure that communities 
are involved in the solutions that they have--that are offered 
to them and making decisions for their own communities and if 
you think that there is enough of that.
    Ms. Drehobl. Yes. I think that is vitally important. I 
think a lot of policies and programs have been designed without 
the involvement of communities. And I have seen, you know, 
different practices from utilities in States and the Federal 
Government working more directly with communities in the 
process of designing policies and programs. And I think that 
really is key to make sure that we have a just energy system.
    Ms. Schakowsky. Well, thank you so much. And, again, thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Sorry about my inability to promptly unmute myself, but it 
has all been worth it for me, anyway.
    So thank you very, very much, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back, and that concludes 
the witnesses' questions.
    And I want to again thank the witnesses for participation 
in our hearing today. And, again, I want to repeat my apologies 
for the shaky start of this hearing, the technical glitches 
that we were confronted with.
    And I want to remind members that pursuant to committee 
rules, they have ten business days to submit additional 
questions for the record to be answered by the witnesses who 
have appeared. I ask each witness to respond promptly to any 
such questions that you may receive.
    Now, I don't know if we have any unanimous consent 
requests.
    I don't see any, so--we have unanimous consent requests, 
and where are they? Let me see.
    All right. Unanimous consent requests are the January 2019 
Nature and Sustainability article entitled Disparities in 
Rooftop photovoltaics deployment in the United States by Race 
and Ethnicity.
    Also, a letter from the New York Technology Forum. 
Additionally, a letter from the National Energy Assistance 
Directions Association and an Ad in the L.A. Times from the 
Sierra Club, and lastly, an Ad in the L.A. Times from the 
United Latinos Vote.
    Without any objections, the documents are entered into the 
record.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Rush. And without any further objection, at this time, 
the subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:21 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]