[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                   A SMARTER INVESTMENT: PATHWAYS TO A 
                             CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE

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

                            VIRTUAL HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                           FEBRUARY 18, 2021

                               __________

                            Serial No. 117-6
                            
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                            


     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                                __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
45-514 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                        
                        
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              FRED UPTON, Michigan
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          BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California           H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California            MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California                RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice       NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
    Chair                            JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                  NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
                         Subcommittee on Energy

                        BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
                                 Chairman
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania               Ranking Member
JERRY McNERNEY, California           MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York                 ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
KIM SCHRIER, Washington              ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    GREG PENCE, Indiana
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona                  (ex officio)
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.................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of Texas, opening statement..............................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    12

                               Witnesses

Stephen W. Pacala, Ph.D., Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary 
  Biology, Princeton University..................................    13
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   235
Paula R. Glover, President, Alliance to Save Energy..............    38
    Prepared statement...........................................    41
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   241
Craig Gordon, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, 
  Invenergy......................................................    46
    Prepared statement...........................................    48
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   245
Richard J. Powell, Executive Director, ClearPath.................    61
    Prepared statement...........................................    63
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   250
Daniel C. Camp III, Chair, Beaver County Board of Commissioners..    72
    Prepared statement...........................................    74
    Submitted questions\1\.......................................   255

                           Submitted Material

Letter of February 17, 2021, from the National Association of 
  Convenience Stores, et al., to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, 
  submitted by Mr. Rush..........................................   133
Article of February 18, 2021, ``Texas Blackouts Hit Minority 
  Neighborhoods Especially Hard,'' by James Dobbins and Hiroko 
  Tabuchi, The New York Times, submitted by Ms. Barragan.........   138
Letter of February 18, 2021, from Charles T. Driscoll, Jr., 
  University Professor of Environmental Systems Engineering, and 
  Kathleen S. Lambert, Senior Advisor, Harvard T.H. Chan School 
  of Public Health, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. 
  Rush...........................................................   144
Article of February 18, 2021, ``A Plan to Future-Proof the Texas 
  Power Grid,'' by Jesse Jenkins, The New York Times submitted by 
  Ms. Kuster.....................................................   150
Article of February 16, 2021, ``Texas largely relies on natural 
  gas for power. It wasn't ready for the extreme cold.,'' by Erin 
  Douglas, Texas Tribune, submitted by Ms. Kuster................   152

----------

\1\ Mr. Camp did not answer submitted questions for the record by the 
time of publication.
Article of January 8,2020, ``Construction of Shell Chemicals' 
  ethane cracker plant made Beaver County a leader in economic 
  growth two years ago, new data reveals,'' by Chrissy Suttles, 
  Beaver County Times, submitted by Mr. Rush.....................   160
Article of August 9, 2019, ``$6.5 Billion Pa. Cracking Plant Puts 
  a Region to Work,'' IBEW Media Center, submitted by Mr. Rush...   162
Blog post of December 31, 2017, ``Pipelines Are Key to the 
  Keystone State's Future, Let's Not Mess It Up,'' by James T. 
  Kunz, Jr., Natural Gas Now, submitted by Mr. Rush..............   166
Fact sheet, ``Potential Economic Benefits of an Appalachian 
  Petrochemical Industry,'' American Chemistry Council, submitted 
  by Mr. Rush....................................................   168
Report of the Appalachian Storage Hub Conference, ``What is a 
  storage hub?,'' November 5, 2020, submitted by Mr. Rush........   169
Article of September 5, 2016, ``Gas pipelines represent 
  prosperity,'' by David Spigelmyer and James Kunz, Pittsburgh 
  Post-Gazette, submitted by Mr. Rush............................   175
Report of the Department of Energy, ``Ethane Storage and 
  Distribution Hub in the United States,'' November 2018, 
  submitted by Mr. Rush\2\.......................................
Editorial of February 17, 2021, ``Texas Spins Into the Wind,'' 
  Wall Street Journal, submitted by Mr. Duncan...................   180
Editorial of February 15, 2021, ``A Deep Green Freeze,'' Wall 
  Street Journal, submitted by Mr. Rush..........................   184
Report of the Department of Energy, ``Extreme Cold & Winter 
  Weather, Update No. 1,'' February 16, 2021, submitted by Mr. 
  Rush...........................................................   188
Report of the Department of Energy, ``Extreme Cold & Winter 
  Weather, Update No. 2,'' February 17, 2021, submitted by Mr. 
  Rush...........................................................   199
Article of December 6, 2019, ``Can a Coal Town Reinvent 
  Itself?,'' by Eduardo Porter, The New York Times submitted by 
  Mr. Griffith...................................................   211
Article of August 13, 2008, ``The 2003 Northeast Blackout-Five 
  Years Later,'' by JR Minkel, Scientific American, submitted by 
  Mr. Burgess....................................................   222
Article of February 18, 2021, ``EV battery maker: Court ruling 
  threatens Biden climate plan,'' by David Iaconangelo and 
  Timothy Cama, E&E News, submitted by Mr. Rush..................   227
Article of September 22, 2020, ``Petra Nova is closed: What it 
  means for carbon capture,'' by Carlos Anchondo and Edward 
  Klump, E&E News, submitted by Mr. Burgess......................   229

----------

\2\ The report has been retained in committee files and is available at 
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20210218/111210/HHRG-117-IF03-
20210218-SD014.pdf.

 
        A SMARTER INVESTMENT: PATHWAYS TO A CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
                            Subcommittee on Energy,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:30 a.m., 
via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Bobby Rush 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle, 
McNerney, Tonko, Veasey, Schrier, DeGette, Butterfield, Matsui, 
Castor, Welch, Schrader, Kuster, Barragan, Blunt Rochester, 
O'Halleran, Pallone (ex officio), Burgess, Latta, McKinley, 
Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Bucshon, Walberg, Duncan, Palmer, 
Lesko, Pence, Armstrong, and Rodgers (ex officio).
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Waverly 
Gordon, General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff 
Director; Perry Hamilton, Deputy Chief Clerk; Anne Marie 
Hirschberger, FERC Detailee; Zach Kahan, Deputy Director, 
Outreach and Member Services; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and 
Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Mackenzie Kuhl, Press 
Assistant; Jourdan Lewis, Policy Coordinator; Elysa Montfort, 
Press Secretary; Lino Pena-Martinez, Policy Analyst; Kaitlyn 
Peel, Digital Director; Nikki Roy, Policy Coordinator; Medha 
Surampudy, Professional Staff Member; Tuley Wright, Senior 
Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Sarah Burke, Minority 
Deputy Staff Director; Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy Chief 
Counsel for Environment; William Clutterbuck, Minority Staff 
Assistant; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff Director; Peter Kielty, 
Minority General Counsel; Emily King, Minority Member Services 
Director; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and 
Environment; Brandon Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for 
Energy; Brannon Rains, Minority Policy Analyst, Consumer 
Protection and Commerce, Energy, Environment; Peter Spencer, 
Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy; and Michael 
Taggart, Minority Policy Director.
    Mr. Rush. I am going to symbolically gavel the meeting to 
order. The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to order.
    I want to thank all of you all for your presence here. 
Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled ``A 
Smarter Investment: Pathways to a Clean Energy Future.''
    Due to COVID-19 and this pandemic that we are living in, 
the public health emergency, today's hearing is being held 
remotely. Our Members and our witnesses will be participating 
via video conferencing.
    As part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for 
the purposes of eliminating any and--any unnecessary--as part 
of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for the 
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 Lino Pena-Martinez 
in the email address that we provided through staff. All 
documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion of 
the hearing.
    And now, today, in--the Subcommittee on Energy convenes for 
its first hearing in the 117th Congress. Before I proceed to 
beginning the opening statements, I would like to take a moment 
to welcome to the subcommittee's new majority and minority--new 
minority Members. I want to take a moment just to welcome our 
new majority Members, and they include Congresswoman Kim 
Schrier from Washington.
    Welcome, Kim.
    She is new to the Energy and Commerce Committee. And two 
veterans of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Congresswoman 
Doris Matsui of California--wave to us, Doris, that is right; 
she will be joining with us--and Congresswoman Kathy Castor. Is 
Kathy on the line? I don't see her on the line. They will both 
be joining us.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you. I am pleased to have each of our new 
majority Members on the subcommittee for this Congress.
    And we also have returning with us our esteemed ranking 
member, Fred Upton, of the great State of Michigan. And Fred, I 
am also pleased that you also are rejoining us as the leader of 
our minority colleagues.
    And would you at this time like to introduce the minority's 
new Members?
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this is Cathy. Fred 
Upton is not able to be with us today, so we have Dr. Burgess 
that is sitting in to serve as the ranking member on the 
subcommittee. And, as far as our new Members, I can do a little 
wing action here.
    Let's see here: Debbie Lesko from Arizona, new Member to 
the subcommittee; Greg Pence from Indiana, new Member to the 
subcommittee. And the rest of you may need to wave at me here.
    Mr. Rush. I think we have Gary Palmer.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Gary Palmer.
    Mr. Rush. And Debbie Lesko.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Yes.
    Mr. Rush. Greg Pence.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Yes.
    Mr. Rush. And Kelly Armstrong.
    Mrs. Rodgers. There we go, Kelly Armstrong. I did see him, 
too.
    Mr. Rush. Right.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. That is quite all right. Well, I want to thank 
you, Chairman--the ranking member of the full committee. And I 
will now--opening--5 minutes for an opening statement on my 
part. I recognize myself for 5 minutes for a brief opening 
statement.

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

    In October 2018 the IPCC Panel on Climate Change released a 
special report on global warming. This report made several 
things apparent: global emissions are on the rise; changes are 
necessary before 2030; and, to avoid the harshest consequences 
of this climate change, we must reduce global emissions to net 
zero by 2050. Today the subcommittee meets to discuss the 
reinvigoration of our Nation's pathways to a clean energy 
future toward those very ends.
    In the year 2018 the energy sector was the second-largest 
source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This is according to 
the U.S. Energy Information Administration in 2019.
    In the year 2019, approximately 26 percent of the U.S. 
energy-related CO2 emissions came from mining 
petroleum fuels; 33 percent came from natural gas; and 21 
percent came from burning coal. In the same year, 63 percent of 
U.S. electricity generation came from fossil fuels.
    These past trends may seem daunting. However, reports show 
that a clean energy future is more than possible and that our 
progress toward this goal is well underway. For a case in 
point, renewables will account for most of the new electricity 
generating capacity for commercial operations in the year 2021. 
In addition, the cost of clean energy sources like solar power 
has increased by up to 82 percent since 2010, as a result of 
improved technology and expanding market participation.
    This month the National Academies released a report on the 
U.S. energy system. The report emphasizes that achieving net-
zero carbon emissions in our Nation by 2050 is not only 
feasible, but that it would also bolster the economy, increase 
the availability of quality jobs, and help address systemic and 
longstanding social injustices.
    It also concludes that near-term emission reduction may be 
achieved by doubling generation from noncarbon-emitting 
sources, deploying renewables, scaling back coal and some gas, 
and preserving nuclear and hydroelectric plants.
    Representatives of the subcommittee, I humbly submit to you 
that getting the U.S. back in the lead on clean energy is 
essential for all of us. Yet there are severe consequences to 
our inaction. Inaction is not an option.
    Recent manifestation of this includes the disproportionate 
impact of the coronavirus on communities that shoulder the 
burden of energy generation and what is currently happening in 
the great State of Texas, where many of you reside, also where 
at least 4.3 million customers have endured frigid--I must say, 
Chicagolike--temperatures without electricity. This is a 
climate crisis in the State of Texas, and I do intend to have 
hearings in the future around the failure of our energy center 
to protect our American citizens in the State of Texas.
    Members, through our jurisdiction and through our 
membership, you and I have the tools and we are the team to 
address these issues and other issues, as well. We demonstrated 
this same acumen during the 116th Congress by releasing the 
CLEAN Future Act, which was a framework to get the U.S. on a 
path to net zero by 2050.
    This year we are in pursuit of complementary policies that 
would increase our overall transmission capacity to support 
energy security; advance electric vehicle charging; drive 
diversity and inclusion; and increase clean energy usage via 
strategies like a clean electricity standard.
    It has been said that a journey of 1,000 miles begins with 
the first step. Today, my dear colleagues, I urge the 
reinvigoration of our march toward a clean center of gravity, 
and that is to--and that is we must march forward to a clean, 
reliable, and secure energy future.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush

    In October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC) released a special report on global warming. This 
report made several things apparent: global emissions are on 
the rise, changes are necessary before 2030, and, to avoid the 
harshest consequences of climate change, we must reduce global 
emissions down to net zero by 2050. Today, the Subcommittee 
meets to discuss the reinvigoration of our Nation's pathway to 
a clean energy future toward those ends.
    In 2018, the energy sector was the second-largest source of 
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. According to the U.S. Energy 
Information Administration, in 2019, approximately 46 percent 
of U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions came from 
burning petroleum fuels, 33 percent came from natural gas, and 
21 percent came from burning coal. In the same year, 63 percent 
of U.S. electricity generation came from fossil fuels.
    These past trends may seem daunting. However, reports show 
that a clean energy future is more than possible, and that our 
progress towards this goal is well underway. Case in point, 
renewables will account for most of the new U.S. electricity 
generating capacity for commercial operations in 2021. In 
addition, the cost of clean energy sources, like utility-scale 
solar power, has decreased by up to 82 percent since 2010 as a 
result of improved technologies and expanded market 
participation.
    This month, the National Academies released a report on the 
decarbonization of the U.S. energy system. The report 
emphasizes that achieving net-zero carbon emissions in the U.S. 
by 2050 is not only feasible, but that it would also bolster 
the economy, increase the availability of quality jobs, and 
help address systemic and long-stemming social injustices. It 
also concludes that near-term emissions reductions may be 
achieved by doubling generation from non-carbon emitting 
sources, deploying renewables, scaling back coal and some gas, 
and preserving operating nuclear and hydroelectric plants.
    Members of the subcommittee, I submit to you that getting 
the United States back in the lead on the clean energy game is 
essential. There are severe consequences to our inaction. 
Recent manifestations of this include the disproportionate 
impact of the coronavirus on communities that shoulder the 
burden of energy generation and what is currently happening in 
Texas, where 4.3 million customers have endured frigid, 
Chicago-like temperatures without electricity.
    Through our jurisdiction and membership, we have the tools 
and the team to address these issues and other challenges. We 
demonstrated this during the 116th Congress by releasing the 
CLEAN Future Act, a framework to get the U.S. on a path to net 
zero. This year we are in pursuit of complementary policies 
that will increase our overall transmission capacity to support 
energy security, advance electric vehicle charging, drive 
diversity and inclusion, and increase clean energy usage via 
strategies, like a clean electricity standard.
    It has been said that a journey of a thousand miles begins 
with a single step. Today, colleagues, I urge the 
reinvigoration of our march toward a new center of gravity--and 
that is forward to a clean, reliable, and secure energy future. 
And with that, I recognize my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan, Ranking Member Upton.

    Mr. Rush. And with that, I recognize--now recognize my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas, who is the 
acting ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee.
    I recognize you for 5 minutes for an opening statement, 
Representative Burgess.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE 
              IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

    Mr. Burgess. And I thank the Chair. And let me just say, 
starting out, I also want to thank the Denton Independent 
School District that has provided me one of their offices that 
has both heat and Internet. So I knew I needed a reliable 
source of Internet to be a participant in this hearing.
    And Chairman Rush, it is good to be back with you. Of 
course, you and I served for 5 terms on the Energy Subcommittee 
going back to the 119th Congress. I took a brief hiatus, but 
with the retirement of Representatives Olson and Flores, is it 
important to have a Texan back on the subcommittee.
    And your hearing today does occur at a critical time in the 
Nation's history: 5 million American households left without 
electricity across Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas. 
And we had dangerous, record-setting winter weather, which 
ravaged the entire central United States, blasting subfreezing 
Arctic air all the way well south of the Mexican border, and 
many types of power production across all fuel types were 
challenged and went offline. People were left stranded. Power 
outages have lasted for days. Other utility services, 
particularly water, has also been impacted. Tragically, people 
have lost their lives.
    Americans are rightfully angry. Texans are rightfully angry 
and deserve answers. Given these recent events, it is 
important--and I welcome your observation to hold additional 
hearings, but part of today's hearing should focus on ways to 
increase the reliability and resilience of our electric grid. 
This is not a partisan issue. When the temperature drops below 
zero, no one cares which party the electricity comes from. They 
just want the heat to come on, the lights to go on when they 
flip the switch.
    As we know, Texas leads the nation in renewable power. It 
has transitioned faster than any other State. Congress needs to 
gather facts and understand the root causes of this energy 
crisis before speeding ahead with new renewable mandates that 
shift away from more reliable components of the existing energy 
fleet.
    In recent years the energy sector has done a rapid 
transformation and reduced our dependence on foreign energy. 
And that is so critically important, and people forget that. 
And it has helped rescue us from the 2008 economic recession 
and lowered our Nation's emissions. This revolution was not 
produced alone by Federal spending and mandates, but instead 
created by America's spirit of innovation and our Nation's 
dynamic free market economy. Transformation has brought many 
benefits to our Nation, including--but those benefits do not 
eclipse the importance of a stable supply of energy for all 
Americans.
    Investments are made in new energy production and energy 
infrastructure, but the reliability of those systems must 
always be the priority. Unfortunately, some of the early 
actions of this administration canceling pipelines, prohibiting 
new energy production on Federal lands signaled the desire to 
go in the opposite direction.
    And let me just remind my colleagues that America leads the 
world in reducing its carbon emissions. And some of us are 
still around who sat through the markup of the 2009 Waxman-
Markey climate bill. But, in fact, we have reduced emissions 
through market forces greater than what would have been reduced 
if Waxman and Markey's bill had been signed into law. So let's 
not forget the actions that have been produced by the free 
market, and they will reduce our Nation's--they--if we don't 
pay attention to that, we will reduce our Nation's energy 
resiliency and hurt our energy workers without any significant 
impact to global emissions.
    Look, Chairman Rush, you are correct to say that America 
deserves a cleaner energy future, but pursuing a path toward 
that future while ignoring energy reliability may be the wrong 
approach. This subcommittee, this subcommittee should work 
together to prioritize the reliability of our power sector. We 
can pursue methods of expediting clean, American-made energy 
products, but we must remove barriers to slowing down 
innovation and creating jobs to provide affordable energy at 
home for Americans at home. Our energy sector stands ready to 
meet those challenges, but we can't let the heavy hand of 
government become an additional obstacle.
    Look, we have got significant work ahead of this Congress. 
We can look to America's clean energy future, but we cannot 
afford to rapidly transition our energy system without 
assurance of its reliability. We cannot support policies that 
destroy entire industries or increase America's dependence on 
foreign sources of energy and critical minerals. I hope we can 
find a bipartisan consensus and keep those priorities in mind.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael C. Burgess

    Thank you, Chair Rush, I look forward to serving on the 
Energy Subcommittee with you once again in the 117th Congress.
    Today's hearing occurs at a critical time in our Nation's 
history. This week, almost 5 million American households were 
left without electricity across Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana 
as dangerous and record-setting winter weather ravaged the 
Central United States, blasting sub-freezing arctic air all the 
way south to the Mexican border. Many types of power 
production--across all fuel types--went offline.
    People were left stranded, with power outages that lasted 
for days. Other utility services, like water and sewage were 
also impacted. Tragically, people lost their lives. Americans 
are rightfully angry and deserve answers.
    Given these recent events, I intend to use today's hearing 
to focus on ways to increase the reliability and resilience of 
our electric grid. This is not a partisan issue. When the 
temperature drops below zero, nobody cares where the 
electricity comes from--they just need the heat to come on.
    As we know, Texas leads the Nation in renewable power, and 
it transitioned faster than any other State. Congress needs to 
gather the facts and understand the root causes of this energy 
crisis before speeding ahead with new renewable energy mandates 
that shift away from a reliable existing fleet.
    In recent years, the energy sector has undergone a rapid 
transformation that has reduced our dependence on foreign 
energy, helped rescue us from an economic recession, and 
lowered our Nation's emissions. This revolution was not 
produced by Federal spending or mandates, but instead created 
by America's spirit of innovation and our Nation's dynamic, 
free market economy.
    This transformation has brought many benefits to our 
Nation, but those benefits do not eclipse the importance of a 
stable supply of energy for all Americans. As investments are 
made in new energy production and energy infrastructure, the 
reliability of those systems must always be the priority.
    Unfortunately, President Biden's early actions, such as 
canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, rejoining the Paris Climate 
Agreement, and prohibiting new energy production on Federal 
lands, signal a desire to go in the opposite direction.
    Let me remind my colleagues that America leads the world in 
reducing its carbon emissions and that the 2006 Waxman-Markey 
climate bill would have produced worse results for the 
environment than the results produced by the free market. These 
actions will reduce our Nation's energy resiliency and hurt our 
energy workers without any significant impact to global 
emissions.
    We all agree that America deserves a cleaner future, but 
pursuing a path towards that future while ignoring energy 
reliability is the wrong approach.
    This subcommittee should work together to prioritize the 
reliability of our power sector. We can pursue methods of 
expediting clean, American-made energy products. We must remove 
barriers slowing innovation to create jobs and provide 
affordable energy at home. America's energy sector stands ready 
to meet these challenges, but we can't let the heavy hand of 
government become an obstacle.
    Our subcommittee has significant work ahead this Congress. 
We can look to America's clean energy future, but we cannot 
afford to rapidly transition our energy system without 
assurance of its reliability. We cannot support policies that 
destroy entire industries or increase America's dependence on 
foreign sources of energy and critical minerals. I hope we can 
find bipartisan consensus with those priorities in mind.

    Mr. Burgess. And Mr. Rush, I would also ask unanimous 
consent--in my research for this hearing I came across a 
Scientific American article that talked about the 2003 
northeast blackout 5 years later. And interesting in this look-
back article, they referenced the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 
which many of us will remember, that created some additional 
resiliency because of the challenges to the northeast grid that 
happened during that summer. And, of course, we all recall that 
many lives were lost to the extreme heat conditions, and we 
can't forget that heat can be just as deadly as cold if 
Americans are unprepared.
    But again, Mr. Chairman, I will get this--have my staff get 
this to your staff, but I would ask unanimous consent to 
include it as part of the record, and I will yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    Are there any objections?
    Hearing no objections, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Rush. The chairman now recognizes the chairman of the 
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.

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

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Today the Energy Subcommittee begins its work for this 
Congress renewing our efforts to chart a path to a clean energy 
future. Last Congress was particularly productive for the 
subcommittee, culminating in enactment of the Energy Act of 
2020. And I commend Chairman Rush, along with many others from 
both sides of the aisle, for their work on this new law that 
was included in the omnibus.
    Last year Chairmen Rush, Tonko, and I released a draft of 
the CLEAN Future Act, comprehensive climate legislation to get 
us to a 100 percent clean economy by 2050. In the coming weeks 
we plan to introduce an updated version of the CLEAN Future Act 
that will serve as the basis for comprehensive climate action 
this year.
    The CLEAN Future Act touches on the whole energy economy, 
from the power sector to buildings to transportation, all 
aspects we will explore at today's hearing. The bill includes a 
Federal clean electricity standard, or a CES, a policy that has 
long existed in many States. A national CES can play a key role 
in building a clean power sector, which is critical to reducing 
carbon emissions in other economic sectors. And the CLEAN 
Future Act also sets forth policies to drastically reduce 
energy consumption in the building, transportation, and 
industrial sectors, among others.
    Now, President Biden has made the climate crisis a 
centerpiece of his administration and has already taken bold 
actions to address climate change. I stand ready to work with 
him to enact comprehensive climate legislation, and I hope my 
Republican colleagues will join us in that effort.
    Now, as we discuss the climate crisis, it is important to 
also recognize the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Last 
Congress this subcommittee held a hearing on the impacts of the 
pandemic on the energy sector, including job loss, delayed 
projects, and the effect of pandemic restrictions on energy 
demand. Pandemic-related job losses have also resulted in 
millions of households being unable to pay their utility bills, 
and that is why the reconciliation instructions our committee 
marked up last week included additional funding for the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. And LIHEAP 
helps the growing number of qualifying families pay their 
utility bills and is especially crucial during a pandemic.
    And last, it is critical that we discuss the devastating 
toll this week's severe winter weather is taking on our Nation. 
Millions are facing power outages and dangerously cold 
conditions, and these outages are further exacerbated by the 
COVID-19 pandemic.
    Now, earlier this week the energy market in Texas, known as 
ERCOT, was forced to take 34,000 megawatts of electricity 
generation off the system. And since Sunday evening, over 
25,000 megawatts of mostly fossil-fueled energy were offline. 
Of this number, most of those outages are at gas-fired power 
plants.
    Those are the facts, as stated by Texas's own regulator. 
Yet some Republicans and media outlets are suggesting 
alternative realities. They are turning a crisis into an 
antirenewables campaign, and they are conveniently leaving out 
the fact that the majority of the failures have come from 
fossil fuel. So we can't allow the Texas crisis to be used as 
an excuse to discourage movement towards renewables. That will 
not help Texas or the United States.
    What failed here was an energy sector that didn't consider 
fully our changing climate and the extreme weather that comes 
with it. It was a failure to fully recognize that the 100-year-
old storm of yesterday may now be the 10-year storm of today. 
As both the Department of Energy and fossil generation 
companies reported yesterday, gas pipelines, wells, and plants 
all froze because they weren't equipped to handle the cold 
weather.
    But I agree--I heard what Dr. Burgess said, and I agree 
that we need to do more in terms of resiliency. And certainly 
the bill that we are hoping--an infrastructure bill that we are 
hoping we will be doing, similar or maybe even more expansive 
than the Moving Forward Act that we passed last year in the 
Congress and through this committee, will be an opportunity for 
us to address some of these resiliency issues, as well. And 
those things are also included in our CLEAN Future Act.
    But I do think that the severely limited interconnection 
between ERCOT and the rest of the country probably didn't help 
matters either. I think it is sad that we saw these problems 
arise 10 years ago with another major storm that hit Texas and 
the Southwest, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at 
the time issued a report, but nothing really changed. You know, 
the fact that Texas is almost like an island separated from the 
rest of the Nation's energy grids I don't think helps, because 
it is more difficult for us to get power to them in the time of 
crisis. So hopefully we won't ignore this last FERC report, and 
we will follow up on it.
    And I also want to stress that this committee will 
investigate the Texas crisis further, and we will see what 
other actions we have to take based on that oil report as well 
as what we find out now. So, ultimately, this episode 
underscores the importance of prioritizing clean and resilient 
energy infrastructure, which is exactly what we aim to do with 
this.
    So thank you again. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Today the Energy Subcommittee begins its work for this 
Congress, renewing our efforts to chart a path to a clean 
energy future. Last Congress was particularly productive for 
the subcommittee, culminating in enactment of the Energy Act of 
2020. I commend Chairman Rush along with many others from both 
sides of the aisle for their work on the new law.
    Last year, Chairmen Rush, Tonko and I released a draft of 
the CLEAN Future Act, comprehensive climate legislation to get 
us to a 100 percent clean economy by 2050. In the coming weeks, 
we plan to introduce an updated version of the CLEAN Future Act 
that will serve as the basis for comprehensive climate action 
this year.
    The CLEAN Future Act touches on the whole energy economy, 
from the power sector to buildings to transportation--all 
aspects we will explore at today's hearing. The bill includes a 
Federal clean electricity standard, or CES, a policy that has 
long existed in many States. A national CES can play a key role 
in building a clean power sector, which is critical to reducing 
carbon emissions in other economic sectors. And the CLEAN 
Future Act also sets forth policies to drastically reduce 
energy consumption in the building, transportation, and 
industrial sectors, among others.
    President Biden has made the climate crisis a centerpiece 
of his administration and has already taken bold action to 
address climate change. I stand ready to work with him to enact 
comprehensive climate legislation and hope my Republican 
colleagues will join us in that effort.
    As we discuss the climate crisis, it's important to also 
recognize the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Last Congress, 
the subcommittee held a hearing on the impacts of the pandemic 
on the energy sector, including job loss, delayed projects, and 
the effect of pandemic restrictions on energy demand. Pandemic-
related job losses have also resulted in millions of households 
being unable to pay their utility bills. That's why the 
reconciliation instructions our committee marked up last week 
included additional funding for the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program. LIHEAP helps the growing number of 
qualifying families pay their utility bills and is especially 
crucial during a pandemic.
    Finally, it's critical we discuss the devastating toll this 
week's severe winter weather is taking on our Nation. Millions 
are facing power outages in dangerously cold conditions. These 
outages are further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Earlier this week, the energy market in Texas known as ERCOT 
was forced to take 34,000 megawatts of electricity generation 
off its system. Since Sunday evening, over 25,000 megawatts of 
mostly fossil-fueled energy were offline. Of this number, most 
of these outages are at gas-fired power plants.
    Those are the facts as stated by Texas' own grid regulator. 
Yet, some Republicans and conservative media outlets are 
peddling alternate realities. They are shamefully turning a 
crisis into an anti-renewables campaign, and they are 
conveniently leaving out the fact that the majority of the 
failures have come from fossil fuel infrastructure. 
Unfortunately, this misinformation campaign is nothing new.
    The fact is the power outages in Texas and other States 
throughout the Midwest and South are not a failure of any 
single generation technology. Every technology has been 
affected, including nuclear and coal. What failed was a sector 
that didn't consider fully our changing climate and the extreme 
weather that comes with it. It was a failure to fully recognize 
that the 100-year storm of yesterday may now be the every-10-
year storm of today.
    As both the Department of Energy (DOE) and fossil 
generation companies reported yesterday, gas pipelines, wells, 
and plants all froze because they weren't equipped to handle 
the cold weather.
    Furthermore, the severely limited interconnection between 
ERCOT and the rest of the country probably didn't help matters. 
What's truly sad is that we saw these problems arise 10 years 
ago this month with another major storm that hit Texas and the 
Southwest. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) even 
issued a report, but nothing changed. Hopefully, this time it 
will.
    The fact that Texas is an island separated from the rest of 
the Nation's energy grid doesn't help because it's only more 
difficult for us to get power to them in a time of crisis. 
Hopefully, we won't ignore this last FERC report and we'll 
follow up on it. I also want to stress that this committee will 
investigate the Texas crisis further and we'll see what other 
action we have to take based on that report as well as what we 
find out today.
    Ultimately, this episode underscores the importance of 
prioritizing clean and resilient energy infrastructure, which 
is exactly what we aim to do in the CLEAN Future Act.
    These major outages also show that the climate crisis 
doesn't differentiate between red States and blue States: the 
whole Nation is being impacted by the climate crisis. It's time 
to recognize that and join together to enact the best 
comprehensive solutions for keeping Americans safe with 
affordable, reliable, and clean energy.

    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the ranking member, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 5 
minutes.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 
Dr. Burgess for the extra effort to sit in the lead Republican 
chair today. He is certainly at the right place at the right 
time for this hearing. Texas has the lowest energy cost in the 
country, along with the fastest transition to clean energy.
    With that, let's recognize that there are many good ideas 
for developing cleaner energy systems to ensure that we win the 
future. The key is to recognize how we unleash American 
innovation and free enterprise using all our resources to 
protect our economic and energy security. We should build, not 
destroy. We should use our abundant natural resources like 
hydrogen and natural gas, not shutter them. We should enable 
people to deploy, take risks, improve, and create the next 
great advances so America leads a new era of entrepreneurship 
and innovation.
    We can pursue practical policies to innovate a cleaner 
energy future if we work together. We should be clear-eyed 
about what is at stake if we get this wrong.
    The radical environmental left is pushing top-down, one-
size-fits-all mandates and costs on Americans, which will 
threaten our Nation's energy dominance and our national 
security. This is clear in the repeated attacks on our oil and 
natural gas industry and its people, which has provided 
tremendous opportunity and given the advances--has actually 
driven the advances in cleaner energy generation that are 
benefiting all around the globe. Yet the left is rejecting 
fossil energy, while also talking about transforming America's 
electricity system in 14 years, and the entire energy economy 
in 30 years.
    How is that possible? What does this transformation really 
mean for our economy? What does it mean for families and 
workers? We should look beyond the rhetoric to understand what 
this is really about, and we should understand the consequences 
on energy, reliability, household cost, and security.
    The importance of reliability has been on full, heart-
wrenching display this week in Texas, the South, and the 
Midwest. At times available electricity could not meet the 
record-high demand for power from the extreme cold. Wind 
turbines across the State froze. Natural gas production was 
shut in. This ultimately deprived the grid of critical energy 
and power, just as the demand spiked. There wasn't enough 
natural gas supply or baseload generation to close the gap, 
especially because of other weather issues and emergency 
priorities to heat homes and hospitals.
    On Monday, to prevent more widespread power failure, the 
Texas grid operator, ERCOT, directed utilities to implement 
outages that eventually affected an estimated 5 million 
households. The emergency exposed systematic weaknesses 
relating in part to overreliance on intermittent renewables. It 
is a powerful reminder that electricity reliability is a life-
and-death matter.
    The supply of energy also is a serious pocketbook matter, 
especially for low-income households. Low- and middle-income 
families must be top of mind if this discussion turns to new, 
clean energy mandates and taxes. Especially during the pandemic 
recovery, families cannot afford an increase in their 
electricity and gasoline bills.
    According to the Department of Energy, States with the 
highest low-income energy burdens, 10 percent or higher, are in 
the Southeast. For mostly heating and cooling, low-income 
households use about 36 percent more power than the national 
average for low-income households in other regions of our 
country. Fortunately, States like my home state of Washington 
also enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates in the Nation, 
thanks to our hydropower.
    But imagine how families will be squeezed if top-down 
energy policies increase the price of electricity. What happens 
when people in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, or South Carolina 
have to pay the same rates as people in California or 
Connecticut?
    And then there is economic and national security. The rush 
to green seeks to ban fossil energy and its quality jobs for 
millions of people. It will massively increase reliance on 
renewables and electrification of transportation. This domestic 
policy has global implications.
    First, it won't do much to reduce global emissions. The 
global emissions will keep going up as developed nations seek 
access to affordable energy.
    It will also hurt America's security and competitive edge. 
Absent major changes in our domestic mining and manufacturing 
base, increasing reliance on wind, solar, and electric 
batteries trades energy security for energy insecurity. It 
pushes carbon emissions offshore and increases reliance on 
Chinese supply chains. It does nothing meaningful for global 
climate change.
    We can do better, and I hope that we all begin to pay 
attention to what is really at stake: reliability, jobs, 
affordability, and our Nation's economic security.
    I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

    AMERICAN LEADERSHIP
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank Dr. Burgess 
for the extra effort to sit in the lead Republican chair today, 
he certainly is at the right place at the right time for this 
hearing.
    Texas has the lowest energy cost in the country along with 
the fastest transition to clean energy. With that, let's 
recognize there are many good ideas for developing cleaner 
energy systems to ensure we win the future.
    The key is to recognize how we unleash American innovation 
and free enterprise--using all our resources to protect our 
economic and energy security.
    We should build, not destroy.
    We should use our abundant natural resources like hydro and 
natural gas, not shutter them.
    We should enable people to deploy, take risks, improve, and 
create the next great advances so America leads a new era of 
entrepreneurship and innovation.
    We can pursue practical policies to innovate a cleaner 
energy future ... if we work together.
    We should be clear-eyed about what's at stake if we get 
this wrong.
    The radical environmental left is pushing top-down, one-
size-fits-all mandates and costs on Americans, which will 
threaten our Nation's energy dominance and our national 
security.
    This is clear in the repeated attacks on our oil and 
natural gas industry, and its people, which has provided 
tremendous opportunity and driven advances in cleaner energy 
generation that are benefiting the globe.
    Yet the left is rejecting fossil energy, while also talking 
about transforming America's electricity system in 14 years, 
and the entire energy economy in 30 years.
    How is that possible?
    What does this transformation really mean for our economy? 
What does it mean for families and workers?
    We should look beyond the rhetoric to understand what the 
rush to green is really about.
    We should understand the consequences on energy 
reliability, household costs, and security.
    TEXAS
    The importance of reliability has been on full, heart-
wrenching display this week in Texas, the South, and the 
Midwest
    At times, available electricity could not meet the record-
high demand for power from the extreme cold.
    Wind turbines across the State froze.
    Natural gas production was shut in.
    This ultimately deprived the grid of critical energy and 
power, just as demand spiked.
    There wasn't enough natural gas supply or baseload 
generation to close the gap, especially because of other 
weather issues and emergency priorities to heat homes and 
hospitals.
    On Monday--to prevent more widespread power failure--the 
Texas grid operator, ERCOT, directed utilities to implement 
outages that eventually affected an estimated five million 
households.
    The emergency exposed systemic weaknesses relating in part 
to overreliance on intermittent renewables.
    It's a powerful reminder that electricity reliability is a 
life and death matter.
    FAMILIES
    The supply of energy also is a serious pocketbook matter, 
especially for low-income households.
    Low- and middle-income families must be top of mind if this 
discussion turns to new clean energy mandates and taxes.
    Especially during the pandemic recovery, families cannot 
afford an increase in their electricity and gasoline bills.
    According to the Department of Energy, States with the 
highest low-income energy burdens--10 percent or higher--are in 
the Southeast.
    For mostly heating and cooling... Low-income households 
there use about 36 percent more power than the national average 
for low-income households in other regions of the country.
    Fortunately, States--like my home State of Washington--also 
enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates in the Nation thanks 
to our hydropower.
    But imagine how families will be squeezed if top-down 
energy policies increased the price of electricity?
    What happens when people in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, 
or South Carolina have to pay the same rates as people in 
California or Connecticut?
    SECURITY
    And then there is economic and national security.
    The rush to green seeks to ban fossil energy--and its 
quality jobs for millions of people.
    It will massively increase reliance on renewables and 
electrification of transportation.
    This domestic policy has global implications.
    First it won't do much to reduce global emissions.
    Global emissions will keep going up as developing nations 
seek access to affordable energy.
    It will also hurt America's security and competitive edge.
    Absent major changes in our domestic mining and 
manufacturing base, increasing reliance on wind, solar, and 
electric batteries trades energy security for energy 
insecurity.
    It pushes carbon emissions offshore and increases reliance 
on Chinese supply chains. It does nothing meaningful for global 
climate change.
    We can do better. And I hope my colleagues across the aisle 
begin to pay attention to what is really at stake--for 
reliability, jobs, affordability, and our Nation's economic 
security.

    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair would like 
to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all 
Members' written opening statements shall be made part of the 
hearing record.
    Now I would like to welcome our esteemed witnesses for 
today's hearing.
    The first witness is Dr. Stephen Pacala, who is a professor 
of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University.
    Our next witness is Ms. Paula Glover, a friend who is the 
president of the Alliance to Save Energy.
    The next witness is Mr. Craig Gordon, the senior vice 
president of global affairs at Invenergy.
    The next is Mr. Richard Powell, the executive director at 
ClearPath, Incorporated.
    And finally, last but not least, Mr. David [sic] Camp III, 
who is the chairman of the Beaver County Commissioners.
    I want to thank each and every one of our witnesses for 
being with us today. I must say that our witness--we have--one 
of our witnesses have a--1:00, a 2:45 hard stop. So we want to 
be mindful of this hard stop for our witness as we go forward.
    And to all of our witnesses this morning, we look forward 
to your testimony.
    And now we begin with Dr. Pacala.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN W. PACALA, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF ECOLOGY AND 
 EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY; PAULA R. GLOVER, 
 PRESIDENT, ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY; CRAIG GORDON, SENIOR VICE 
 PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INVENERGY; RICHARD J. POWELL, 
    EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLEARPATH; AND DANIEL C. CAMP III, 
             CHAIRMAN, BEAVER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

             STATEMENT OF STEPHEN W. PACALA, Ph.D.

    Dr. Pacala. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this invitation to 
provide testimony. I am here as chairman of the National 
Academies committee that released a report on February 2nd that 
Chairman Rush just mentioned, containing policies that would, 
over the next 10 years, put the U.S. on a 30-year path to net-
zero greenhouse gas emissions.
    The committee was asked to determine how to achieve net 
zero, but importantly, not whether or not the Nation should do 
so. The committee was instructed to provide both the 
technological blueprint for the transition to net zero and a 
portfolio of socioeconomic policies to ensure that the 
transition is fair and just.
    The first of two reports covers CO2 emissions 
from electric power, transportation, industry, buildings, and 
fuels, but not agricultural and forestry carbon sinks, nor non-
CO2 greenhouse gases that will be covered in the 
second. It covers only Federal actions over the first 10 years 
of the 30-year transition.
    Lessons learned in a comprehensive review of existing 
information include, first, that the transition is affordable. 
The Nation would spend a similar or lower fraction of GDP on 
energy during the transition than it has over the past 30 years 
because of the dramatic drop in the cost of wind, solar, and 
lithium ion batteries.
    The transition would save lives. Medical savings during the 
2020s would be larger than the costs.
    The transition would create more than a million new net 
jobs, but fossil jobs would decline.
    The energy system today contains substantial injustice. 
Poor and historically marginalized groups suffer 
disproportionate harm from fossil pollution while receiving 
disproportionately low benefits from fossil energy.
    Past transitions have left legacy workers and 
infrastructure behind. If we do that again, and if we do not 
work to eliminate existing environmental injustice, then 
prohibitive public opposition is likely to develop.
    The report identifies technological goals with quantitative 
targets, including a doubling of the share of net-zero 
electricity, increased electrification of transport and home 
heating, and new infrastructure such as electrical transmission 
lines and CO2 pipelines.
    It also identifies socioeconomic goals, including 
revitalizing the manufacturing sector, cost-effectiveness, 
increasing high-quality jobs, promoting equity, diversity, and 
inclusion, and fair treatment of communities, businesses, and 
workers during the transition.
    The policy recommendations are summarized in a single 
table, which is in the testimony. The table offers the quickest 
way to assimilate and understand what the report recommends. 
Recommendations include an economywide price on emissions 
starting at $40 per ton, a green bank, and standards to ensure 
an on-schedule transition, including zero-emissions electric 
power and vehicle standards.
    The report calls for regulatory reforms in the electricity 
sector, without which net-zero power goals are unlikely to be 
realized.
    It recommends a tripling of Federal net-zero RD&D.
    It is the first report containing a comprehensive policy 
portfolio designed from scratch to address the social 
dimensions of the energy transition. This includes a national 
transition task force to identify workers and communities at 
risk, regional centers where State and local leaders can learn 
about what is coming and how to manage it, community block 
grants for local planning, and an independent national 
transition corporation that would provide funding to address 
social impacts of the transition, and a comprehensive education 
and training program.
    Some might be tempted to view policies targeting deployment 
of net-zero technology as the highest priorities, because the 
social consequences would lag behind deployment. However, this 
view has it backwards, because the technological transition and 
the social disruption that goes with it are already occurring 
and will inevitably continue. The ongoing decline in coal-
sector employment is already hollowing out communities across 
the Nation. The recent announcement by General Motors that it 
will produce only electric cars by 2035 is a harbinger of 
similar inevitable declines in oil and gas employment.
    In conclusion, a transition to a net-zero economy in the 
United States by mid-century is technologically feasible with 
energy system costs that have been manageable in the recent 
past. With appropriate policy, the transition could advance a 
number of national objectives simultaneously: a more fair and 
just energy system; improved international competitiveness; 
revitalized American manufacturing; and enhanced energy 
innovation.
    The transition would also provide new, high-quality jobs, 
but at the cost of lost fossil jobs; eliminate the substantial 
health impacts of fossil fuels; reduce U.S. greenhouse gas 
emissions to zero; and enhance the Nation's leadership in 
climate and energy.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Pacala follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman--opening statement. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Paula Glover, the president of the Alliance to 
Save Energy.
    Paula, it is so good to see you again. And you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF PAULA R. GLOVER

    Ms. Glover. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you and good 
afternoon, Chairman Rush, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member 
McMorris Rodgers, and Dr. Burgess, for holding this hearing.
    A clean energy future that works for everyone is going to 
require careful planning. And we all appreciate your 
leadership. Certainly I do. I want to recognize the members of 
this committee who also serve on the Alliance's honorary board: 
Chairman Rush, Representatives Tonko, Welch, Dr. Burgess, 
Representatives McKinley, and Kinzinger. I started with the 
Alliance just about a month ago, and I am really looking 
forward to working with all of you.
    I also want to just send my thoughts out to those folks in 
Texas, my friends, my colleagues, and all of those individuals 
and members of my family who are really going through a very 
tough time. And just want them to know that we are all thinking 
and praying about them.
    I am going to start by saying, you know, there has been a 
lot of back and forth recently about the risks and 
opportunities of the clean energy transition. And I actually 
believe that it boils down to one essential question: How do we 
handle and tackle the climate crisis in a way that uplifts 
every community?
    How do we avoid leaving future generations the costs and 
life-threatening dangers of climate change while at the same 
time making sure we are not increasing energy costs or leaving 
communities behind?
    We can't make this transition fair unless we are thinking 
of the communities that could be harmed in the process, as well 
as the communities that have already been harmed, communities 
where history tells us we need to do so much better at 
providing clean air, economic opportunity, and more affordable 
energy.
    And, if I leave you with one thought with my testimony 
today, I hope it is that energy efficiency is the most powerful 
answer we have for addressing this challenge. And I would argue 
that energy efficiency should be the starting point in the 
conversation about an equitable, clean energy transition.
    We can start with jobs. Energy efficiency is often 
overlooked as one of the largest employers in the entire energy 
economy. Even after losing more than 300,000 jobs during this--
since this pandemic began, efficiency employs more than 2 
million Americans. That is about 7 times the amount of wind and 
solar industries combined, and more than 10 times the size of 
the coal workforce.
    Energy efficiency jobs are spread all over the country. 
They are construction workers and HVAC contractors who retrofit 
homes and buildings. They are factory workers making windows 
and insulation. They are electricians and plumbers and, 
increasingly, tech workers designing or installing digital 
controls and systems to manage energy demand. These are the 
type of jobs that will be created if we launch a national 
campaign to modernize our infrastructure by retrofitting 
millions of homes and buildings, creating a more efficient 
transportation system, and cleaning up our industrial sector.
    It is an incredible opportunity to create durable, skilled 
trade jobs that pay good wages and that are available in 99 
percent of U.S. counties. And if we do it right, we can ensure 
that those opportunities are available first for the 
communities that need them the most, whether it is a rural town 
in West Virginia or an urban neighborhood in Illinois.
    And at the same time, we have to carefully consider energy 
affordability. I started my career more than 30 years ago 
taking payments in a gas utility. And I know firsthand about 
the energy burden that many families deal with. In fact, 1 in 5 
U.S. households today find themselves making a choice at least 
once a year between paying their energy bill or buying food and 
medicine. And I can't begin to imagine what that must be like.
    I am not here to tell you that energy efficiency is going 
to make that burden disappear. But what it can do is deliver 
hundreds of dollars in lower bills and savings that can make 
the difference for some families. And that cost savings is not 
just for consumers. Energy efficiency improvements can cut 
costs and increase profits for small businesses and 
manufacturing plants, making them more productive and 
competitive.
    Finally, we have a pressing need to address climate change. 
When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency is 
simply the fastest, cheapest, and most effective solution we 
have. The International Energy Agency projects that energy 
efficiency using existing technologies will account for nearly 
half of the emission reductions needed to meet the goals of the 
Paris Agreement.
    So what do we need to do to achieve these goals? I am going 
to highlight several policy solutions under this committee's 
jurisdiction, and we urge you at the Alliance to consider them 
as you develop infrastructure and clean energy legislation this 
year.
    First, we have been working with Representative Welch and 
others--thank you, Congressman--to develop a new program for 
helping small businesses improve their efficiency with an 
emphasis on boosting minority-owned businesses and businesses 
in disadvantaged communities. This plan for Main Street 
efficiency would target Federal grants to match existing 
utility programs to provide low- and no-cost efficiency 
upgrades to small businesses immediately and permanently, 
lowering their operating expenses. Since 80 percent of energy 
efficiency contractors are small businesses themselves, this is 
a small business helping small businesses.
    We also strongly support a proposal championed by 
Representative Blunt Rochester--thank you, Congresswoman--to 
retrofit mission-critical public buildings around the country--
our schools, hospitals, airports, and other facilities--not 
just to be more efficient but also to be safer and more 
resilient in the face of natural disasters and other 
emergencies. This proposal would leverage Federal funding to 
draw billions in private capital through performance 
contracting and other financing and, importantly, ensure that 
at least 40 percent of the projects are in low-income or 
disadvantaged communities.
    We also strongly support expanding core efficiency programs 
at the U.S. Department of Energy, particularly the 
weatherization assistance program.
    I would emphasize that all these proposals, because they 
are so tailored to creating jobs, go hand in hand with improved 
worker training programs. We support Chairman Rush's 
longstanding workforce legislation, the Blue Collar and Green 
Collar Jobs Act, because that ensures that everyone seeking a 
skilled position can get one.
    In addition, while not under your jurisdiction, we also are 
looking at tax incentives that will help us grow our--grow 
efficiency improvements in our homes and buildings.
    I believe efficiency is a foundational solution to the 
challenges that you are trying to address. And we at the 
Alliance are looking forward, and we are eager to working with 
you to find the best solutions for all of our communities. 
Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Glover follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. Thank you, Ms. Glover. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF CRAIG GORDON

    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Subcommittee Chairman Rush, Mr. 
Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Rodgers, and Acting Member 
Burgess for inviting me to participate in today's hearing. My 
name is Craig Gordon, and I am senior vice president of 
government affairs at Invenergy.
    Invenergy is a privately held clean energy company that 
develops, owns, and operates large-scale renewables, gas-fired 
generation, as well as energy storage and electric 
transmission. Starting with just 6 employees in 2001, Invenergy 
will employ more than 1,500 employees by the end of the year. 
Invenergy has developed 175 utility-scale clean energy 
projects, with the capacity of over 27,000 megawatts, and has 
completed more than 40 billion in project financings. We focus 
on renewables because, as our CEO, Michael Polsky, loves to 
say, it just makes sense.
    Before I begin my testimony, I would like to briefly 
address the recent reliability issues in Texas and neighboring 
States. These events underscore the importance of your work to 
ensure a reliable and affordable grid as the realities of 
climate change are hitting us in unexpected ways.
    On behalf of Invenergy I want to say that we are deeply 
troubled and saddened by the events that have unfolded. The 
system failed in Texas for 2 reasons: first, because the market 
and the resources themselves were not designed to sustain such 
extreme cold weather--wind, gas, coal, and nuclear operations 
were all disrupted--no single resource type bears all the 
blame; second, since Texas is electrically isolated from the 
rest of the grid, available generation elsewhere could not be 
imported to address the shortfall.
    Even now, as the crisis in Texas and elsewhere continues, 
the real investigations into what went wrong haven't even 
begun. But the recommendations I made in the file testimony 
already point to the path forward. They were true before the 
disaster hit, and they are painfully true today.
    First, transmission. There is simply no way to achieve the 
ambitions of this administration and the American people 
without more of it. Higher penetrations of renewables 
throughout the country require a massive investment in 
transmission infrastructure. Transmission connecting diverse 
regions of the country and different types of technologies with 
complementary generation profiles is key to solving this 
challenge.
    Second, long-term energy policy. Without a national policy 
to direct the country toward a decarbonized grid, we will only 
make incremental progress. And without a long-term approach, 
the industry will not be able to plan for projects and 
infrastructure across the multiyear development and supply 
chain timelines that are required for these huge investments. A 
patchwork of State policies has filled the void of a Federal 
policy so far, but real progress has been limited because every 
State does it differently. An overarching goal would align all 
States and help address thorny issues.
    Additionally, there are several other policies that aren't 
squarely under the jurisdiction of this committee that are 
critical to meeting these goals.
    First, Congress should consider policies that allow for 
monetization of energy tax credits at 100 percent of their 
value to address the tightening tax equity market.
    Second, Congress should consider Federal incentives like an 
investment tax credit for transmission to unlock renewables and 
improve reliability of the grid.
    Third, Congress should increase resources and develop 
advanced technologies to ensure the long-term compatibility of 
renewable energy and our national security.
    The transition to a decarbonized grid will create 
significant socioeconomic benefits. For example, we create 
good-paying jobs in rural and historically disadvantaged 
communities. Invenergy invests in training and STEM programs to 
produce the next generation of workers in communities we serve. 
Approximately 10 percent of Invenergy's employees are veterans, 
and we continue to recruit from that great talent pool.
    In addition to job benefits, the affordable, emissions-free 
power that our industry generates can help alleviate 
environmental burdens, especially in low-income areas, or those 
most susceptible to harmful environmental impacts. Indeed, a 
thoughtful expansion of clean energy can contribute to a just 
transition in an equitable, clean-energy economy.
    The urgency with which we must all tackle this challenge 
has never been greater. Fortunately, we have the tools to do 
so. The path to achieving our goals is not mysterious. 
Transmission is as core to the economy of the future as the 
highway system is to interstate commerce today. What we have 
before us is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to tackle the 
most existential threat modern mankind has ever faced. And we 
must, because it just makes sense.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to address this 
subcommittee.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank you. Our next witness is Mr. 
Powell.
    Mr. Powell, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF RICHARD J. POWELL

    Mr. Powell. Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairmen Rush 
and Pallone, Dr. Burgess, and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, 
and members of the committee. I lead ClearPath. We advance 
policies that accelerate clean energy and industrial 
innovation. An important note: We receive no industry funding.
    As I stated the last time I had the honor to address this 
committee, climate change is an urgent challenge that merits 
significant policy action at every level of government and the 
private sector. We need look no further than Texas and across 
the Midwest to see the havoc extreme weather can have on the 
energy system. As America creates the grids of the future, we 
must utilize all forms of clean energy to ensure reliability.
    As this committee considers its part in U.S. climate and 
clean energy policies, those solutions should be ambitious, but 
also technology inclusive, politically realistic, and 
pragmatic. Policies must also support U.S. jobs.
    Too often solutions are oversimplified to a set of false 
choices: renewable versus fossil; economy versus environment; 
immediate action versus inaction. The reality is solutions to 
make the global clean energy transition cheaper, faster, and 
more flexible.
    Policy proposals must also reflect the global nature of the 
challenge. A molecule of CO2 emitted in Shanghai has 
the same impact as one released in Chicago. Policies like fuel 
switching, shutting down traditional energy production, or 
simply subsidizing certain technologies will do little to 
impact global emissions and may lead to loss of American jobs. 
A more effective strategy is rooted in American clean energy 
abundance, innovation, and exports.
    Today I will, first, level-set on where we are today; 
second, discuss policy to achieve a clean power future 
affordably and reliably; and third, look at options to reduce 
U.S. industrial emissions.
    So where are we today? Emissions are significantly down. 
Retail electricity prices have been flat, helping manufacturing 
jobs come back to America. Returning these jobs is also leading 
to lower global emissions because our environmental standards 
are tougher than China's. America's largest electric utilities, 
including Southern Company, Xcel Energy, Duke Energy, and DTE, 
have committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. Sixty-
eight percent of the country is now served by a utility with a 
significant carbon goal.
    But these utilities have emphasized that many of the 24/7 
clean technologies required to get them to that zero are not 
commercially available today. Xcel Energy said, even with their 
first-rate access to wind and sun, existing technology is 
sufficient to reach only 80 percent clean. We need policies to 
enable technologies that can eliminate the final 20 to 50 
percent of power sector emissions.
    According to the International Energy Agency, only 2 of 14 
critical power technologies are on track to deploy. We 
recommend that policymakers now work with industry, not against 
them. The Energy Act of 2020 is a perfect example. The most 
significant energy legislation in over a decade, your new law 
lays the foundation for a comprehensive commercialization 
strategy that focuses the world-class American innovation 
engine on these key technologies. It includes more than 20 
major new demonstration programs for long duration storage, 
carbon capture, advanced nuclear, geothermal, and direct air 
capture. It also expands DOE's work in industrial emissions and 
hydrogen.
    We congratulate you on the Energy Act, and now we must look 
to implementation, ensuring accountability at DOE and 
appropriately investing so your legislative success goes from 
letters in law to clean steel in the ground.
    Now, getting it built. We have all heard the Biden 
administration's mission to build back better. But right now we 
can only build new clean energy and reduce CO2 
emissions as fast as we can permit new projects. The mission 
ought to be to build cleaner faster. Currently, the Federal 
permitting process can take 5 to 10 years to complete, and cost 
millions of dollars. The good news: Your colleagues have 
introduced a number of proposals to modernize.
    Lastly, financing. Large-scale energy innovation needs to 
bring together private and public investment to scale up 
deployment and bring down costs. At the end of 2020 and early 
this year, you hit a policy trifecta for carbon capture, new 
aggressive R&D authorizations, a carbon capture tax credit, 45Q 
extension, and final administrative rules on how developers can 
properly claim the credit. While 45Q was a major victory, we 
also need a better structure for helping incentivize big 
investments and driving down costs. The Energy Sector 
Innovation Credit would update the energy portion of the tax 
code by allowing cutting-edge technologies to gain commercial 
viability.
    Now, our power sector work has been that the U.S. will not 
meaningfully reduce emissions without more clean and affordable 
technologies. This is even truer in the industrial sectors. 
More than 10 million hardworking Americans are employed there, 
and ensuring those jobs stay in America must remain a priority. 
Energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries like steelmaking 
absolutely require affordable new technologies to help them 
decarbonize. Without them, we risk not only losing essential 
U.S. jobs but leaking the industrial activity to countries with 
worse emissions, like China, effectively increasing the risks 
of climate change.
    A serious debate on climate solutions must include a dose 
of political and technical realism. Climate change is an urgent 
problem that must be addressed today. It is imperative for all 
sides to agree that building cleaner energy in America will 
rebound our economy from COVID-19, create jobs, and have a 
significant global impact.
    Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to the 
discussion.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Powell follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    [Pause.]
    Voice. You may need to unmute.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Rush. Mr. Camp, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                STATEMENT OF DANIEL C. CAMP III

    Mr. Camp. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman, Majority 
Chairman Rush, Dr. Burgess, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member 
McMorris Rodgers. I want to thank you for having me be part of 
today's important hearing.
    As Chairman Rush said, my name is Daniel Camp. I currently 
serve as the chairman of the Beaver County Board of 
Commissioners.
    Beaver County and most of Pittsburgh Region's affinity and 
strong endorsement for the energy sector isn't tied to a common 
political ideology, because the support crosses political 
boundaries. The energy sector support can't be limited to one 
particular generation, because many Boomers, Millennials, and 
those in between living in Western Pennsylvania are supportive 
of our energy sector in Western PA. In my opinion, our support 
of the energy sector can be, in large part, due to the family-
sustaining jobs they have been providing for many years.
    Therefore, policy--tax through increased taxes, regulation, 
and diverse rhetoric against certain types of producers within 
the energy sector are justifiably seen as personal attacks by 
those working within those specific sectors, as well as the 
businesses benefiting those workers and their families.
    Ultimately, if these attacks are achieved through new 
public policy, they are risking these workers having the 
ability to pay their mortgage and pay their own utility bills. 
Please just think about that when you are considering this. The 
desire for some policymakers to kill a particular industry and 
to invoke punitive policies against that industry alone will 
impact folks in my area in a way that jeopardizes their ability 
to put a roof over their family's heads and continue to keep 
food on their tables.
    The reality of this is that hundreds of thousands of 
people, many working in our trade unions in Western PA, rely on 
the natural gas industry's ability to produce natural gas in 
the Marcellus and Utica shales. And thousands of moms and dads 
rely on Consol Bailey's mine to provide for their children each 
and every month. Combine those jobs with downstream jobs whose 
survival directly depends on those energy sources being readily 
available and affordable--yes, in Beaver County that includes 
Shell's petrochemical multibillion ethylene cracker plant.
    But let's be reminded, Shell is the fourth-largest company 
in the world. I am not going to sit here today and argue that 
they can't afford to pay higher prices for their feedstock. But 
I know small manufacturing companies that can't afford the same 
price increases, nor have the Capex dollars to retrofit their 
plants to an alternative energy source.
    The manufacturing sector has seen a resurgence recently, 
because of the affordability and readily available energy 
resources that we have here. As you know, regulations that 
increase the cost of energy production, even on large companies 
like Shell, EQT, Chevron will certainly be passed down the 
supply chain and ultimately be paid by their vendors, and even 
their customers. That means truck drivers, food workers, local 
union workers, power plants, and even homeowners will incur 
those higher costs too.
    Many of these small regional companies that can't afford 
those increases--the situation in Western Pennsylvania and our 
support for all energy sources can be summarized by looking at 
the employment statistics.
    Now, I am aware that some people and groups will distort 
statistics to fit their agenda. But that is not my reason for 
being here today. I am merely here to give my personal 
observation about reasons behind why so many people that I 
represent support this energy sector in Pennsylvania. That is, 
the natural gas industry supports almost 24,000 production-
related jobs.
    Pennsylvania jobs are specifically attributed to the 
natural gas industry's total 106,000 people, and an outstanding 
323,000 jobs are supported solely by that industry. The 
petroleum and oil industry, almost 24,000 jobs associated with 
production alone. Combine natural gas and oil, $23 billion in 
wages for Pennsylvanians. The coal industry directly supports 
more than 10,000 jobs; nuclear, 5,000-plus indirect jobs. Wind 
and solar combined for 8,000, and hydro 400.
    There may be other others who testify that certain types of 
energy have done wonderful things for their local economies and 
communities. But the reality today is that some have not had 
the same impact as the energy sector. And therefore, the 
support for those others are very proportional.
    I thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering 
any questions. Again, thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Camp follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank the witness. And we have now 
completed all the opening statements for the witnesses, and we 
will now move to Member questions. Each Member will have 5 
minutes to ask questions of our witnesses. And I will start by 
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    A component of the National Academies report on 
decarbonization involves the elimination of inequities in the 
current energy system that already severely disadvantage the 
disenfranchized. In the coming days I intend to introduce a 
bill to establish a Department of Energy office to advance 
principles of energy equity and all the conditions and 
resources to that very end.
    Dr. Pacala, I want to ask you. What else must we do to 
eliminate the inequities of the current energy system, while 
creating, at the same time, a clean energy future?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Rush. Dr. Pacala? Will you unmute, Dr. Pacala? You are 
muted.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Rush. Can you hear me? Dr. Pacala?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Rush. Dr. Pacala?
    [No response.]
    Dr. Pacala. Can you hear me now?
    Mr. Rush. Yes, we hear you now, Dr. Pacala.
    Dr. Pacala. OK, sorry. The system was--we have a big storm 
going here, and I think the wires are blowing around. It would 
not unmute.
    Mr. Rush. All right.
    Dr. Pacala. So our report--the committee included experts 
in environmental justice and experts on the social consequences 
of technological transitions and what to do about it.
    The--as a--for a climate and energy person like me, it was 
a real education to learn how much inequity is built into our 
current energy system, with disproportionate health exposure to 
fossil pollutants in communities of color and low-income 
workers across the country, how much energy prices contribute 
to poverty, how unavailable the kinds of opportunities that we 
afford people, like tax credits for electric cars, are to low-
income communities who lack capital, and how difficult it is 
for low-income communities often to take advantage of Federal 
programs that do exist because, for instance, their homes can 
be noncompliant with codes.
    So we recommended a sort of an integrated portfolio to 
address the ongoing energy injustice, and forward-looking to 
have the transition itself also be fair and just, because 
workers are--some communities and workers would be otherwise 
damaged. This starts with a task force, a national task force 
to map where the energy injustice is in the country. There are 
good sector-specific studies, but nothing comprehensive. So we 
need first a top-down look at this.
    And then we have an integrated program of a White House 
office to coordinate 10 regional centers where representatives 
and mayors and others can get together to learn what can be 
done and to plan a national transition corporation that works 
with a green bank to provide capital, community block grants, 
so that they can plan and then apply for projects; a DOE 
extension service to provide technical know-how; a 
comprehensive education and training program; additional 
funding in LIHEAP and the Weatherization Assistance Program.
    And so, in combination, this package is designed to provide 
workers with multiple options during the transition, and to 
protect communities that would lose a dominant employer, and to 
eliminate the injustice that we have built into the energy 
system to date.
    Mr. Rush. All right, thank you. I have--my time is almost 
out, according to the clock, although I think that the--well, 
let me just yield back the balance of my time.
    And now the Chair recognizes the chairman of the full 
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Rush. Frank, you got to unmute, Frank.
    Mr. Burgess. So, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Rush. Yes?
    Mr. Burgess. This is Burgess.
    Mr. Rush. Oh, Mr. Burgess.
    Mr. Burgess. Sometimes we go to the acting ranking member--
--
    Mr. Rush. Yes, absolutely. My error. Please forgive me.
    Mr. Burgess. Well, don't----
    Mr. Rush. You are now recognized, the acting ranking member 
of the subcommittee, my friend, Dr. Burgess, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
    And Ms. Glover, welcome to you. I have been on your board 
for some time, and I have always believed that energy 
efficiency is the common ground that we probably can find 
between all of the disparate political philosophies that weigh 
in on these energy questions.
    And I will just tell you my own experience with energy 
efficiency has really taught me just exactly what you are 
saying, that you can achieve 40 percent or greater reductions 
in your energy consumption. So if we look at it just from the 
standpoint of the consumer, by making wise choices with energy 
efficiency, whether it be in retrofitting a home, a new build, 
or even just a selection of particular appliances or products, 
your group does bring a wealth of expertise and knowledge and a 
significant voice to the discussion. So I thank you for being 
here today.
    I do an energy efficiency summit every non-COVID year in my 
district, and I find it to be very well attended, and people 
are actually hungry for the type of information that you 
provide.
    Ms. Glover. Thank you, Dr. Burgess.
    Mr. Burgess. And Mr. Rush, I think too, you know, in the 
future, we would do well to include Ms. Glover in future 
discussions because energy efficiency sometimes just kind of 
gets pushed to the side. But it is one of the most readily 
available to the end energy consumer--a way that they have of 
impacting their energy purchases.
    Mr. Powell, thank you for being on our group today. Thanks 
for your testimony. Can you just--you did a very great job in 
your written testimony providing information about grid 
reliability. So the changing of the energy sector--I would 
infer from that that you believe has weakened our energy 
reliability.
    Dr. Pacala. Can you hear me?
    Mr. Burgess. Yes.
    Dr. Pacala. OK, good. Well, so our committee didn't 
investigate whether or not there has been any short-term 
decrease in grid reliability. What we did was to focus on how 
to decarbonize the grid and maintain its high reliability. And 
this is, of course, technologically feasible. The key, of 
course, is to have not just--is to have firm sources of power 
that can be relied upon at any time. As we have seen in Texas, 
when the firm sources of power fail, you are in trouble.
    And also it is important to--transmission, because you can 
interconnect areas from, you know, areas where demand is lower 
than average to areas where demand is higher than average.
    So the--I want to be very clear that it is possible to 
build a net-zero electricity grid that is as reliable as the 
grid we have today, or as the grid that we had 10 years ago.
    Mr. Burgess. So if I may, I got notice over the weekend--I 
believe it was on Saturday--that ERCOT was buying power from 
Mexico and Southwest Power Pool. I presume that that was a 
price phenomenon, rather than a weather phenomenon. But 
obviously, those sources were closed off as soon as it got cold 
in those neighborhoods, as well. But ERCOT is not an entirely 
closed system. There are inputs and there are egresses into 
other parts of the grid.
    Mr. Gordon, I wonder if I might ask you: You operate wind 
turbines in Texas, is that correct?
    Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir, that is correct.
    Mr. Burgess. And you also operate natural gas facilities in 
Texas, is that correct?
    Mr. Gordon. That is correct.
    Mr. Burgess. Can you speak to the overall impact on the 
reliability of both of those as energy sources?
    Mr. Gordon. Yes. So I think, to answer your question, 
Congressman Burgess, we saw an unprecedented weather event hit 
Texas over the last week, which included significant icing on 
wind turbines. Our wind turbines are designed for cold-weather 
operation, so our turbine operations weren't impacted by the 
temperature so much as they were by significant icing. So we 
had icing, you know, for several days, and our technicians had 
worked around the clock to try to, you know, get the icing--so 
they can resume operations.
    On our natural gas facility we have a peaking plant in 
Ector County, and we were unable to procure gas for the plant 
over the sustained time of this event. So our inability to get 
gas prevented us from operating. I think what our experience 
was is consistent with what other gas generators experienced, 
as well. Because our facility did not have dual fuel, we 
weren't able to operate. Had, you know, an ERCOT system been 
designed to pay for capacity as other systems do, our facility 
could have had dual fuel capabilities. But there is just no 
compensating that right now to do that.
    Mr. Burgess. Right. There has actually been a move away 
from dual fuel capabilities for some number of years.
    And although--and I am going to yield back. And I can 
appreciate that it is an unprecedented--but, you know, this 
happened in 2011, the same situation occurred, it just didn't 
last as long. So--and I remember Governor Perry's response to 
that was to recommend the construction of several new coal 
power plants to sort of bolster the energy grid in Texas. He 
was rebuffed in that by the mayors of Dallas and Houston, who 
did not want to see new coal generation built in Texas. Some 
redundancy, clearly, is necessary.
    But thank you, Mr. Rush, I will yield back my time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. And now that we return 
to regular order, I will now yield 5 minutes to the chairman of 
the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for questioning.
    Mr. Pallone, you are recognized.
    Mr. Pallone. I will unmute myself. Thank you, Chairman 
Rush.
    I am trying very hard today and in the future to have us 
move towards a collective, you know, bipartisan response to the 
climate crisis. I mentioned our CLEAN Future Act, which has 
been introduced, but I also want the Republican Members to 
understand that, if at all possible, we would like to see a 
bipartisan response to the climate crisis.
    And I am concerned today, starting with the Governor of 
Texas, that, you know, that somehow renewables are being blamed 
for this, what happened in Texas, or the suggestion is being 
made that we shouldn't move towards--you know, not necessarily 
by members of this committee, but the suggestion is being made 
that this should be some reason for us to stop moving towards a 
clean energy future, or not encouraging renewables.
    And, you know, I really wish that we could avoid that, 
because I do think that renewables have to be a major part of 
this. It is not to say that we are going to rule out fossil 
fuels, or gas, or hydroelectric--which is, actually, a 
renewable, hydro is a renewable. So I don't know. I just--you 
know, I don't want this devastating situation in Texas to be 
blamed on renewables, because I just think that is false. The 
blame lies in the failure to properly consider how climate 
change and extreme weather events impact the grid.
    And the answer, as Dr. Burgess said, is to move towards 
more resiliency with the grid and other--and also resiliency 
for, you know, for power lines and gas lines and everything 
else, as well as looking towards the issue of whether or not it 
may--you know, there should be more interplay between the Texas 
grid and the grids in the other parts of the country.
    So let me just ask Mr. Gordon. Based on recent statements 
from ERCOT, it appears that, although 12,000 megawatts of wind 
and solar did go offline, the region was only expecting to rely 
upon 2,800 megawatts of wind this winter to meet energy demand. 
Meanwhile, ERCOT lost well over 25,000 megawatts of thermal 
generation, much of it natural gas, that it was relying on to 
meet the winter energy demand.
    So, again, I am not trying to get into this, but I think 
that the suggestion is being made that renewables are the cause 
of this power crisis. But it is not--I want you to comment. I 
mean, is it fair to say that the failure to ensure a reliable 
natural gas supply was a major cause of the outages that we are 
now facing, as compared to any failure of renewables, if you 
will?
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Chairman. I guess, to answer your 
question, again, we don't want to cast aspersions on any 
particular type of technology, either. Having said that, wind, 
as everyone knows, is naturally variable, and it goes up and it 
goes down hour by hour, day by day. And, as ERCOT has noted, 
wind, as a portfolio in the system, actually outperformed day-
ahead expectations.
    So, when all things were considered, wind did better than 
ERCOT's own system operators expected it to. And, as for what 
happened to the natural gas supply system, I really don't have 
insight into what happened there, other than I suppose it was 
too cold for gas to flow.
    Mr. Pallone. But I mean, right now, I mean, ERCOT was much 
more dependent on the natural gas generation to meet the winter 
energy demand. I mean, there is no question of that. I mean, 
that is just a fact, correct?
    Mr. Gordon. That is true. I mean, ERCOT has coal and 
nuclear and natural gas and wind, and all work in concert with 
each other. They are economically dispatched, and we don't run 
more gas than we need to when the wind is up, and we expect--
and ERCOT knows that gas will be available when the wind is 
down. It is, you know, how the system has operated pretty much 
flawlessly for a decade.
    Mr. Pallone. Right. But, you know, my concern is--I don't 
know if you want to answer this, but maybe I will just say it--
that, look, the bottom line is that Texas was not prepared for 
this. You know, gas pipelines in Texas are not, you know, 
insulated the way they are in the Northeast. The bottom line is 
that Texas and all of us had to prepare for these extreme 
weather events. And more must be done across the board, whether 
it is--you know, whether it is coal powered, gas, wind, 
whatever it is.
    I just don't think it is fair to suggest that somehow wind 
was the real problem here, or that renewables were a real 
problem here. I mean, they don't even rely on those that much 
in the winter. And--but if you don't want to comment on that, 
you don't have to. If you want to, go ahead, you have got 10 
seconds.
    Mr. Gordon. OK, yes. I mean, I think wind is a--is often 
the whipping boy of the energy industry. So we are kind of used 
to it. But it is unfair, and it is untrue. If we had more 
infrastructure, transmission infrastructure, this could have 
been avoided.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mrs. 
McMorris Rodgers.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to start 
just by saying to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. 
Pallone, that I appreciate you saying that you would like to 
work with us, Republicans and Democrats, to move to the clean 
energy future. We would welcome that. We would love to work 
together on innovation and removing regulatory barriers to more 
clean energy.
    Our concern is really when American energy resources, 
whether it is pipelines like Keystone, are canceled with the 
stroke of a pen or other Executive orders are removing American 
energy resources and fuel sources and really impacting 
America's leadership and our future, that is important to our 
economy as well as our national security.
    But I want you to know we stand ready to work together. And 
I think these are important discussions that we are having.
    I appreciated--Mr. Powell, I liked your theme about build 
cleaner faster. So I would like to explore that a little bit 
more with you, because we had testimony in the Environment 
Subcommittee last week that highlighted a serious problem: 90 
percent of solar panels are imported; 80 percent of the key 
components for wind turbines are imported. Asian companies 
dominate global battery production, and account for 80 percent 
of all planned factories. China also dominates critical 
minerals. It supplies 90 percent of the rare earth minerals. 
And China right now is announcing that they will allow the 
banning of exports of strategic minerals to companies and 
nations that are considered a national security threat. That is 
a problem.
    So today, we--you know, we continue to hear this drumbeat 
of building out the wind and the solar energy and restricting 
the oil and natural gas development. This is on a collision 
course. And what that means is that we are going to be losing 
our hard-earned energy independence and become reliable on 
these vulnerable supply chains from countries like China, or 
will be offshoring our emissions to nations with lower 
standards. So that is no help for the climate, and it will harm 
our own security.
    So, Mr. Powell, I wanted to start--because I don't think 
that this is an acceptable path for American leadership and for 
us to win the future. So would you just comment on how you 
believe the United States should focus on building on our own 
strengths, our--and ensure that we have a secure energy supply, 
and that we are also addressing global emissions?
    Mr. Powell. Absolutely. Thank you so much, Ranking Member 
McMorris Rodgers. Let me congratulate you again on your 
election to the ranking membership of the committee. And thank 
you for your leadership on the Energy Act of 2020, and so much 
of your support for hydropower policy--I know an issue we have 
talked about many times before--and energy innovation, broadly.
    You know, I think that there is a couple of components to 
this, on retaking American leadership on clean energy, both 
domestically, here in the United States and, even more 
importantly, exports. I think that begins with innovation.
    We have fallen behind in domestic ownership and domestic 
manufacturing on a number of key clean energy technologies and 
a number of the components of those technologies. We need to 
focus on a next generation of technologies, where we can retake 
leadership. We still have a chance to lead in advanced nuclear 
energy, and long-duration storage, in carbon capture 
technologies that can use the natural fossil fuel abundance we 
have the United States, but do it in a cleaner and cleaner way 
every year. We can lead on advanced geothermal technology.
    And we can do more to ensure that there are strong and 
robust domestic supply chains for critical minerals. That means 
opening up mining resources for critical minerals here in the 
United States and using innovation to find more earth-abundant 
substitutes for those materials. We don't necessarily have to 
use exactly the same mix of materials and elements that we have 
used so far and that have made us quite dependent on China and 
other nations with very poor labor standards like the 
Democratic Republic of Congo, for example. We can find 
substitutes for a lot of those materials that are more 
available either here in the United States or in our allied 
countries. So I think----
    Mrs. Rodgers. Great.
    Mr. Powell [continuing]. Innovation, opening up 
exploration, and finding alternatives.
    Mrs. Rodgers. In just these last few seconds, would you 
comment on the prospects of nuclear technology--because there 
is some exciting technology being developed in Washington 
State--and if it would help overcome the transmission problem 
that we are seeing even in Texas right now?
    Mr. Powell. Absolutely. As I think everyone has said, no 
technology was unscathed in Texas. But I think nuclear did 
probably a little better than average in Texas. Only one of the 
nuclear units, to my understanding, went down. Nuclear is a 
highly resilient part of any clean energy mix, of any energy 
mix, and I think that we can find even more resilient and even 
more advanced designs for nuclear.
    I am extremely excited about the 2 designs that are likely 
to be piloted and demonstrated in Washington State in the 
coming 5 years. That is part of the Advanced Reactor 
Demonstration Program started in the previous administration at 
the Department of Energy that is going to set up 2 commercial-
scale, fully commercialized--it is like selling electricity to 
the grid, demonstrations of advanced reactor technologies. 
These are the next generation. They don't use water to cool 
them. They have a number of different attributes that make them 
cheaper and more efficient, and potentially offering the same 
safety for a significantly lower cost profile. So I am very 
excited about those developments, and I hope Congress will 
support them.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Peters for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for having this 
fascinating hearing. And I want to start on behalf of the 
residents of San Diego, California, by expressing our concern 
and prayers for the tremendous challenges facing the folks in 
Texas and nearby areas. I commit to working with you to find 
out the facts behind what has gone wrong and honestly figure 
out the ways that the Federal Government can play a role in 
ensuring reliability.
    I also want to acknowledge that the transition to cheap 
natural gas has lowered carbon dioxide emissions. But, because 
this has become a talking point in this committee, I want to 
again remind everyone that, if we don't control fugitive 
methane emissions along the way from production to end use, 
there is no climate benefit.
    And if I had more time, I would also like to explore the 
carbon tax with Dr. Pacala, as his report touts the advantages 
of pairing well-designed carbon tax--and by that I mean one 
that can mitigate the negative distributional impacts on 
society--with other ambitious climate policies. But I will 
defer that for our discussion of how we pay for infrastructure 
investment, because I think that matches that well.
    Today I want to use my time to talk about transmission. It 
is widely acknowledged that the national power grid needs to be 
modernized to make it more secure, resilient, and efficient. It 
also needs to be interstate. The United States has tremendous 
renewable energy resources that have not been--not yet been 
tapped. But often these resources--sun, wind, geothermal, 
hydropower--are in remote or rural areas.
    According to research from the Department of Energy's 
National Renewable Energy Lab, if we connect centers of high 
renewable resources with centers of high electric demand by 
building a macrogrid--that is, an overlay of high voltage DC 
lines--and optimize that grid for the Nation's best wind and 
solar, we can dramatically reduce carbon emissions, while 
improving system resiliency and reducing wholesale power costs. 
A macrogrid will enable more robust and more competitive 
wholesale power markets, which translates to lower costs for 
consumers. One model shows consumers saving $42 billion 
annually by building HVDC transmission, allowing power to flow 
across the seams between electricity regions.
    And one more point about U.S. competitiveness. The Brattle 
Group estimates that the U.S. electric industry needs 200 
gigawatts of new transmission capacity in order to accommodate 
widespread electrification. China has already done this and 
more. By the end of 2021 China will have developed over 250 
gigawatts of new interregional transmission capacity over the 
last 7-year period. In contrast, we, the United States, have 
added 3. We need 200; we have added 3. So clearly the scale of 
the challenge is significant, just as clearly the current 
regulatory environment hampers our collective ability to meet 
this challenge.
    So I want to ask a question first to Ms. Glover. It 
certainly hasn't been for lack of trying. Why is it so 
difficult for us to build large-scale transmission projects 
across State lines? And what role does Congress have to play in 
removing the barriers, once and for all?
    And then--Ms. Glover and then maybe Mr. Gordon.
    Ms. Glover. Thank you, Congressman. I am not sure that I am 
the best person to respond to your question, because my focus 
typically isn't on the building of transmission lines. So I 
will yield that time to someone who is more suited, if you 
don't mind. But I would welcome an opportunity to kind of do 
some research on the Alliance's position and get back to you.
    Mr. Peters. That is great. Mr. Gordon?
    Mr. Gordon. Yes, Congressman, thank you for the question.
    Invenergy historically has been developing wind, solar, 
thermal resources. And right now it sees the need for long-
distance, high-voltage transmission, really, to connect the 
windiest parts of the country that don't have any real electric 
connectivity to deliver the best wind to where the load centers 
are.
    So we stepped into a project that had been in development 
for nearly a decade. And these projects take a long time. It is 
an 800-mile line project from southwest Kansas that would 
ultimately go through Missouri and Illinois and terminate just 
across the Indiana border, and would carry upwards of 4,000 
megawatts of clean, renewable power. The interesting thing 
about this line in the context of the hearing today is it would 
be designed so they could carry power in both directions, as 
needed.
    Mr. Peters. Right, right.
    Mr. Gordon. So if we have an abundance of wind----
    Mr. Peters. Right.
    Mr. Gordon [continuing]. Normally in southwest Kansas, we 
could take it all the way to the eastern part of the grid.
    Mr. Peters. Can I just add Mr. Powell--or from Mr. Powell--
I don't know, I am going to run out of time--but ERCOT itself 
explained in its comments to FERC that many ISOs and RTOs said 
that large-scale transmission is the key to resilience: ``One 
of the most critical elements''--this is ERCOT--- ``of system 
resilience is ensuring that the transmission system is planned 
in a way to ensure continued operations following an unexpected 
outage of one or more generators or transmission elements.''
    Mr. Powell, you have 5 seconds to react to that.
    Mr. Powell. Well, thank you very much, Congressman Peters. 
Thank you for your leadership on all these issues.
    In that short amount of time I will--you know, I will--as 
Dr. Burgess noted, ERCOT is not entirely an island. There is 
transmission that interconnects it with the rest of the grid. I 
think every observer of this, you know, would note that more 
transmission probably would be helpful here, if there were 
larger, better interconnections to--particularly on the east 
and west, there may have been an opportunity to bring in more 
resources.
    Obviously, there are cost implications to that. And it has 
been, as you noted, devilishly difficult to site and permit 
those new wires. So I think we need to figure out both the 
regulatory and permitting issues that would enable that, and 
figure out how to pay for those and maintain a--you know, 
affordability in the local power supply.
    Mr. Peters. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, but I do see 
an opportunity to work with Mrs. Rodgers on regulatory relief 
on this issue, in particular, and I yield back.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes Mr. Latta for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thanks very much 
for holding today's hearing, and thanks for our witnesses for 
being with us today.
    Also, I want to express my thoughts and prayers for the 
folks down in Texas for everything that they are going through 
from this about once-in-a-century winter storm, and that, you 
know, we want to do everything we possibly can. We are 
committed to making sure that we get the assistance to them.
    Mr. Chairman, we can continue to work with the private 
sector to promote job creation, innovation, and emissions 
reduction, and energy security by embracing a diverse portfolio 
of domestic energy sources, or we can pursue a top-down, heavy-
handed government policy that can destroy our economy, put 
millions of Americans out of work, and stifle innovation 
through onerous bureaucratic red tape. And, unfortunately, what 
we have been seeing so far is that the Biden-Harris 
administration is going to take that second path.
    If I could start with Commissioner Camp, and as a former 
county commissioner myself here in Wood County, you know, you 
have spoken previously to the committee about the benefits that 
your county has experienced because of these energy projects. 
Could you go into more detail? I know you did some in your 
opening statement about that, but could you go into more detail 
about the types of program investments that Beaver County has 
made--been able to make because of this revenue stream that you 
have gotten?
    Mr. Camp. Thank you, Congressman. Absolutely. I had the 
honor to testify in 2019 to the Subcommittee on Environment and 
Climate Change to discuss the petrochemical plant that we were 
able to land here in Beaver County in 2016. We are--on the 
process, they are still at the time to be finished here very 
soon.
    We have seen tremendous investments from not only Shell 
Petrochemical but the downstream organizations who are here in 
Beaver County and the southwestern Pennsylvania region through 
the infrastructure, the highways, center township. My home 
community has been granted a new water treatment facility with 
100-year span. Our community college has been donated millions 
of dollars for a process technology lab, where--we have these 
companies who are starting to invest into our community because 
they are going to be calling it their home.
    Not only are they investing in our higher education, they 
are also investing in our minority communities, who are not 
capable of the technology--through their investments, because 
of the global pandemic here, we are capable of having these 
schools now have classes online.
    So we are seeing a great deal of investment, not only 
through Shell but through all the other companies who are 
downstream jobs of Shell, who are now planting their feet in 
the ground.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thanks very much, Commissioner, for your 
leadership in the county.
    Mr. Powell, if I could go to a follow-up on some questions 
that our Republican leader was talking about on the nuclear 
side, how can Congress and the new administration build on the 
achievements of the Energy Act of 2020 to accelerate the 
development and deployment of the domestic fuel supply for 
advanced nuclear companies?
    Mr. Powell. Thank you very much, Congressman Latta. Thank 
you for your leadership on this issue and your legislation 
around creating a reserve of HALEU fuel.
    Just to take a step back, on advanced nuclear there are a 
couple of components to getting this up and running.
    Component one is to demonstrate the technologies, to 
actually show the world, show utilities, show potential 
industrial users that it is real, that it could actually work.
    Step two is making sure that we have the fuel to run the 
things, because they run on higher-test fuel, or high-assay, 
low-enriched uranium. Currently we don't have a supply of HALEU 
fuel in the United States, and we need to establish a reserve 
for one of those.
    And then we need to start actually building a robust supply 
chain for that HALEU fuel here in the country.
    And then last, we probably need some deployment incentives 
to provide the early financing, which would bring those 
technologies into the market, just as so many other 
technologies have had those early incentives.
    And so I think we can work on all of those things. There 
could be appropriations and oversight of the Department of 
Energy to make sure those demonstrations work. There can be 
legislation like yours, to establish programs to set up a HALEU 
reserve and a robust supply of this fuel. And there could be 
new incentives created like the Energy Sector Innovation Credit 
that would provide incentives to pull these things into the 
market.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. Let me ask real quick in my few 
seconds remaining, just to follow up, because, again, I am 
really worried about rare earth minerals. And you were also 
talking about finding other elements that could be a 
substitute. Can we do that on our own in this country, without 
having to rely on countries that don't like us?
    Mr. Powell. I sure hope so, because, as was noted 
previously, I worry that those countries may shut off the 
supply to these technologies, or threaten to shut off the 
supply to these minerals and resources whenever we get into 
areas of geopolitical tension. I think this needs to be a top 
priority for both our private sector and for our innovators at 
the national labs and other research institutions, and finding 
ways to get around this.
    I am very excited about some of the developments in earth-
abundant battery chemicals, even an organic battery chemical, 
so it would basically take things like organic chemicals--think 
like sugars and fats--and be using those as the way that we 
would store huge amounts of energy in new batteries and storage 
systems. So I think that there is a lot of potential here, but 
it needs to be adequately resourced at the research stage.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield back. Thank 
you very much.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Doyle. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 
thank you and the acting ranking member for holding this 
hearing today. I want to thank all the witnesses for their 
testimony, and give a special shout out to Commissioner Camp, a 
fellow Western Pennsylvanian. It is good to have you here on 
the panel.
    The commissioner knows in Western Pennsylvania we are an 
all-of-the-above region. We do fossil fuels, we do nuclear, we 
do renewables. And the people that work in those industries 
don't love one better than the other. What they love is to feed 
their families. And that is what we are talking about.
    So we know that, over time, there is going to be a 
transition as we take renewables and put more on the grid and 
deal with their intermittency by using things like advanced 
nuclear and storage so that we can lessen the need on fossil 
fuels. But when we make this transition over time, the key is 
to make sure that we don't leave people behind, that we don't 
leave families behind, that if we are going to create new 
manufacturing and a clean economy, that we build those plants 
in areas where people may be displaced because they are working 
in industries that we are going to be less reliant on. I think 
that is going to be the key to success.
    But we are glad to have all the panelists here.
    Mr. Gordon, we have all heard about the struggle of 
utilities getting past that 80 percent figure. Everyone I have 
talked to is saying, you know, we can reduce 80 percent, but it 
is that last 20--you know, to get us to net-zero carbon by 
2050--that is the tough part. How important will energy storage 
and reducing its costs be to expanding renewable energy?
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman Doyle, for your 
question. And, as it happens, I was born in Indiana, 
Pennsylvania, and lived there for 11 years, so I am also a 
Western Pennsylvania native.
    I think, to your question directly, you know, energy 
storage is going to be a critical component to the future of 
the generation stack, and reducing those costs will be 
imperative, of course. I think what we are largely looking 
forward to is, you know, additional cost reductions over time, 
different types of batteries being designed, and ultimately 
working with new technologies like hydrogen to see how hydrogen 
can play a role with battery storage, as well. So I think we 
are very optimistic.
    But you are right, the last 20 percent, that last mile, is 
going to be more expensive than the first 80. And we just need 
to put our heads together. And I think, as a country, we have 
got some pretty bright minds. And if we are committed to it, I 
think we can make it happen.
    Mr. Doyle. Thanks.
    Mr. Powell, you mentioned how important driving down 
emissions in the industrial sector will be. Improvements at 
industrial facilities, they are big, capital-intensive 
projects. And outside of tax credits for carbon capture, how 
would you suggest we create a long-term structure for 
cofinancing big emission-reducing investments?
    Mr. Powell. Thanks for the question, Congressman. Thanks as 
well for your leadership on so many of the innovation 
provisions that landed in the Energy Act of 2020, a very 
important sector, and your support for all of these different 
technologies.
    Carbon capture and incentives for carbon capture are 
actually--are absolutely an excellent place to start for 
industrial emissions. So probably the fastest way we can bring 
those emissions down is simply capturing them before they leave 
the plant, and using the same underlying process.
    We can also do two other major things. One is to find 
alternative ways to supply some of the heat that go into 
industrial processes. That is the largest single source of 
those emissions. And so that would be providing clean heat in 
those facilities. So that would be with an advanced nuclear 
reactor that could provide a lot of that heat, with hydrogen or 
renewable fuels, those sorts of things, or the fuels themselves 
with carbon capture.
    The other thing we can do is provide different processes in 
the first place. So, for example, think about a steel plant 
that doesn't use coking coal to do that reduction of steel but 
instead does electrochemical reduction. There is a company up 
in Boston called Boston Metals that is pioneering new 
technology around that and would use direct electrical current 
to do that reduction of the iron ore.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Powell. I want to get this 
question to Dr. Pacala, too, because I think it is important.
    All of you have testified that ensuring we don't leave 
communities behind as we move to a cleaner economy is crucial. 
And I believe that fervently. What policies do you see as 
critical to ensuring that future energy development or the 
manufacturing of energy equipment is done in those areas who 
have historically been affected by pollution or losing their 
jobs, their fossil fuel jobs? What do you say to that, Dr. 
Pacala? What do we need to do to ensure that?
    Dr. Pacala. Well, the package that we proposed is designed 
to do exactly that, right? So the idea is that--let's suppose 
that you are a town and we are in middle America with a 
dominant employer that is going to be lost. And the wind and 
solar jobs are great, but they don't compensate for this highly 
concentrated employment in your town. It is worthwhile 
understanding that more towns gain resources than lose them. 
Where they lose them, they lose them in a way that would 
otherwise be catastrophic.
    And so what could be done? Well, the idea first is that you 
have to anticipate the loss and plan for it in advance because, 
if it catches you by surprise, that is it, right?
    And so the idea is to have a bunch of regional centers, 
together with State offices that work together, where 
Representatives of Congress, and mayors, and Governors, and 
other officials can meet to understand what regionally is 
likely to happen, and to serve as a conduit for planning grants 
to towns and to counties. And there, the idea is to anticipate 
what is going to happen and when, with technical assistance 
that other programs would provide.
    Having discovered that something was going to happen----
    Mr. Doyle. I see we are way over our time, and I want to be 
polite to my fellow colleagues, but we will talk more about 
this. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Chairman, I apologize, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West 
Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Chairman. And as a good friend, it 
is always good to see you.
    I thought the premise of this hearing was going to be about 
the decarbonization, accelerating the decarbonization in the 
United States. And I have been functioning for years now on the 
fact that climate change is a global issue and requires a 
global solution.
    So we have heard from previous panels, including Gina 
McCarthy, when they said that, if America alone decarbonizes, 
the impact on the global environment would be virtually 
immeasurable. And then they went on to say that, as long as 
countries like China and India are expanding their dependence 
on fossil fuels, America will still experience wildfires on the 
West Coast, droughts and floods in the Midwest, and hurricanes 
in the East.
    So I guess the issue is, can America decarbonize? 
Absolutely. I would agree it can. But at--what is the cost to 
families, communities, and businesses that are reliant on 
fossil fuels?
    This report that everyone is referring to was silent about 
Hazard, Kentucky; Gillette, Wyoming; Cadiz, Ohio. There are no 
transitional employment opportunities in those areas.
    So to Rich Powell, let me ask a couple of questions of you. 
First, I say, Rich, I agree with your testimony where you said 
serious Federal policy proposals must also reflect the global 
nature of the challenge. Let me ask, Rich, have you read the 
National Academy report?
    Mr. Powell. I have.
    Mr. McKinley. OK. Do you think that there were--maybe there 
was--given that there were no representatives who were not 
academics among the authors, and based on their tweets and 
papers that they have published, do you believe that the 
authors may have had a bias against fossil fuels?
    Mr. Powell. It certainly seemed like an objective was first 
to think first about decarbonization, and maybe secondarily 
about the transmission impacts.
    Mr. McKinley. OK. Do you agree that one of the authors who 
tweeted out that--and his quote was in his tweet, showing--
these are the people that put this--that ``America can 
eradicate poverty by decarbonization.'' Do you agree with that?
    Mr. Powell. I don't think it is the first way we would 
eradicate poverty.
    Mr. McKinley. But that was the statement, that 
decarbonization is going to eradicate poverty.
    And then, also, part of the study was, quote, it was to 
``build an energy system without social injustices that 
permeate the current system.'' Do you think it does permeate 
the current system?
    Mr. Powell. I don't. I believe that there can be----
    Mr. McKinley. OK, let me get back on point, through, Rich, 
because I have got some more questions I would like to get with 
you. So back on point, were the policies outlined in this 
study--because it was very comprehensive, and very thoughtfully 
put together from white papers that they published. But will it 
encourage other nations like China and India to actually follow 
our lead and reduce their emissions?
    Mr. Powell. It focuses on U.S. emissions reductions.
    Mr. McKinley. Yes.
    Mr. Powell. The one piece that might have a global impact 
is the R&D section, and that could reduce the cost of global 
emissions. But beyond that, it is largely silent on the global 
question.
    Mr. McKinley. Now, since the anti-fossil-fuel zealots that 
we deal with in Washington are agitating for America to choose 
this simplistic route, just--in other words, discontinue fossil 
fuels. That is one way to do it. You can. That is a fork in the 
road, you can take that, and we can not use fossil fuels. But 
wouldn't America be better off, better advised if they adopted 
a more pragmatic approach to capturing carbon through advanced 
innovation and deployment?
    Mr. Powell. We should. We should be focusing on reducing 
emissions, not eliminating fossil fuels.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you. So wouldn't that approach protect 
the economy, reduce carbon emissions, and develop a technology 
that we can export around the world for other nations that are 
offensive in their emissions? Wouldn't that be the better 
approach, rather than just doing away with fossil fuels?
    Mr. Powell. Prioritizing carbon capture so that we can make 
the breakthroughs that the rest of the world can then use to 
decarbonize should really be at the top of the list of our 
energy innovation priorities.
    Mr. McKinley. So, Rich, would you think that--would you 
concur that the global environment will not improve measurably 
if America alone decarbonizes?
    Mr. Powell. I would.
    Mr. McKinley. OK. Is there--what policies--in the remaining 
few seconds here, what else would you be saying for us that we 
should be adapting?
    Mr. Powell. Well, I think, if you look back at the Energy 
Act of 2020, the technology that received the most bipartisan 
support in that very bipartisan bill was carbon capture. That 
bill now calls for a massive demonstration program for carbon 
capture technologies. But a lot of work remains to actually 
implement that. And so I would encourage this committee and all 
of Congress to focus now on implementation.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you very much, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Mr. Rush. My friend yields back. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman for the hearing, 
and the ranking members.
    Your witnesses--your testimony has been very important and 
useful, so thank you for coming out, or appearing today. Like 
all of my colleagues, I am extremely concerned about what is 
taking place in Texas. Millions are suffering in the cold with 
no immediate end in sight.
    Dr. Pacala, we have heard from Mr. Gordon about what 
happened to cause the blackouts in Texas. Would you walk us 
through your understanding of what happened?
    Dr. Pacala. Yes. I am not an expert, but I have consulted 
experts on it, and my understanding is just about what has been 
said, predominantly. There was, in fact, a failure of some of 
the generating capacity across the board, and it was across all 
types of generating capacity. So the thermal units--that is, 
natural gas and coal plants and nuclear plants--all had a 
failure rate. And the cause was primarily, you know, different 
routes in which the cold can prevent the plant from operating. 
So that, for example, if you have got a pipeline from a 
production field to a power plant, when the production field 
goes down because of cold, the fuel stops.
    There was also some loss of wind capacity. The wind 
capacity that went down was a little bit less in sort of 
percentage terms than the thermal capacity. But it is not 
really a meaningful difference, right? So--and those were 
primarily due to pipes freezing.
    And beyond that, I think that what has been said about the 
interconnectivity of the Texas grid is right, right? If you had 
more interstate transmission, you had high voltage lines that 
could bring power in, they would have been better off.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. At last week's markup in 
this committee, we heard a lot from Republicans about 
California blackouts. And now we are seeing the same thing 
happen in Texas.
    Republicans again are blaming renewable energy this time 
for Texas' problems. This is ludicrous. This is ludicrous 
because--and both States are similar: extreme weather related 
to climate change, together with underinvestment in our 
electric utility and infrastructure and resilience. Reducing 
renewables will just accelerate climate change and increase the 
suffering of our constituents.
    So, moving on, as we continue to confront the severe 
impacts of climate change, it is critical to prepare by 
hardening the grid. The issue is front and center to me, since 
California has its share of natural disasters and extreme 
weathers.
    Mr. Gordon, should the Federal Government have a role in 
grid hardening for extreme weather events?
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman. I do think that the 
Government should have a role in hardening the grid for extreme 
weather events, yes.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, do you have any recommendations for 
resilience improvements that are also clean?
    Mr. Gordon. Well, I think, going back to the infrastructure 
question, getting more transmission built, connecting to 
renewable resources would be by definition a clean way of doing 
that, while hardening the grid for reliability and resiliency 
for when these events happen.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Dr. Pacala, same question. Is there a role for the Federal 
Government in grid hardening with respect to clean weather, and 
how do we make sure that that is done in a way that produces 
clean energy?
    Dr. Pacala. So there is absolutely a role. And the report 
that we released has very specific recommendations for 
regulatory reforms that are critical to get the grid reforms in 
place, certainly in time to do a rapid decarbonization of the 
U.S. grid.
    And there are two difficult actions in Congress that we 
think are essential. One is a clarification of the Federal 
Power Act, so that it is understood that it does not limit the 
ability of States to use policies to support the entry of zero-
carbon resources into electric utility portfolios and wholesale 
power markets. And the second is an amendment of the Energy 
Policy Act to assign FERC the responsibility to design the 
national interest electricity corridors.
    And then there are a whole host of other recommendations 
that are very specific and that you can find in the--mostly in 
the footnotes to that table I talked about.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I am going to ask, in my remaining 
time, Ms. Glover, do you think there is a role for 
electrification as a part of the effort to improve resilience?
    Ms. Glover. I think there probably is a role for 
electrification, but I think there is also a much larger role 
for energy efficiency in improving resilience. Right? The less 
that we use opens up capacity, and it helps utility companies 
and others not to have to invest in some infrastructure if we 
do energy efficiency right and make those kinds of investments.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Let's get back to efficiency.
    All right, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Griffith for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me say 
first I look forward to seeing the science on what caused this 
cold snap in Texas. I know it is easy to go and say this is a 
part of climate change, and that may be a contributing factor. 
But apparently there was a similar weather pattern in Texas in 
1928, which is why one of our earlier folks talked about this 
happening about once a century in Texas, because apparently it 
has happened before. So I don't know that we can put all of the 
cold weather in Texas at the feet of climate change or global 
warming.
    Ms. Glover, thank you so much for talking about energy 
efficiency. I do have some good-paying jobs in my district with 
that, in a coal district, but I do appreciate you highlighting 
that very much.
    And some have called for the complete elimination of using 
our fossil fuels, and I was pleased to hear Chairman Pallone 
say that, while we may shift and transition and lower that 
number, that he didn't see it being eliminated from part of our 
mix. And it is interesting, because one of my professors, a 
science researcher at Virginia Tech working on fossil fuels, 
has lamented in the past that never before have we eliminated 
or tried to eliminate an energy source, whether we started with 
wood, et cetera. With the exception of whale oil, we have never 
eliminated one. We have reduced it, depending on market 
conditions, and it improved efficiencies, but we have never 
eliminated one of our potential energy sources. And I think 
that is important to keep in mind.
    Mr. Powell, I appreciate you mentioning that we are trying 
to make false choices, that you have to choose one or the 
other. I am an all-of-the-above kind of guy. I like your 
concepts of using more innovation. You talked with my 
colleague, Mr. McKinley, about reducing emissions, and that 
that ought to be at the top of our list, and doing the research 
to reduce that.
    I would point out that, in my district--and they are all 
over the country, but one in my district, MOVA Technologies, 
has been working on panel bed filtration systems that not only 
eliminate CO2, but eliminates, depending on what 
panel you have and what industry you are dealing with, it 
eliminates all kinds of other pollutions. It is already out of 
the test phase and is now into the--in the small-test phase--
and it is now going to the next level. And these are the kinds 
of things that I think we need to be working on, as well.
    Now, we can invest all the money we want to in research and 
innovation, but if industry is disincentivized to install new 
technologies, it will be for naught. Last week I had a meeting 
with the pulp and paper workers--challenges associated with the 
New Source Review permitting program. And we have learned that 
the NSR often discourages new investments at facilities like 
paper mills, a furniture factory in my district, other 
manufacturing plants and power plants. It discourages them from 
making small bites of the apple. They are told if you take a 
small bite, you have got to swallow the whole apple.
    I have reintroduced the New Source Review Permitting 
Improvement Act, H.R. 245, which would reform the program so 
that we can upgrade U.S. facilities with new pollution control 
technology. But not having [audio malfunction] all at one time. 
Is New Source Review a barrier to reducing emissions, Mr. 
Powell?
    Mr. Powell. Yes, sorry, you froze there for a second, but I 
think I heard the question. Thanks so much for the question. 
Thank you for your leadership on this vital issue for carbon 
capture technologies, really for all technologies which would 
help reduce the emissions from existing facilities.
    It absolutely is a barrier in its current form. I do not 
think that the original drafters of the Clean Air Act 
understood this kind of scenario. I think they would have 
probably framed New Source Review in a different way, had they 
been thinking about things like carbon dioxide emissions at the 
time. I think reforming that so that we don't have NSR as a 
barrier, and so that you don't enter an entirely different 
regulatory regime if you simply bolt one thing on to a facility 
which significantly helps reduce the emissions. That actually 
has the exact opposite effect of, I think, what folks would 
have been trying to accomplish with the original New Source 
Review revisions.
    And so I think reforms are urgently needed, and I think 
your proposal is an excellent step in that direction.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much. I mean, look, a lot of 
times people characterize it as just trying to get rid of the 
rules. No, what we are trying to do is make the rules so that 
they can be used effectively. And, if you take one bite at the 
apple every 3 or 4 years, a factory can make its facility a 
whole lot better. If you have to do the whole thing at one 
time, they are never going to do it, and it slows down our 
ability to control emissions.
    I was pleased to hear, you know, discussion, and I know the 
intent is good about, you know, being prepared and planning--
and this would have been Mr. Pacala--being prepared and 
planning. I come from an area where there is a lot of coal 
production and a lot of lost jobs already. But I will tell you 
that there is a December 6, 2019, New York Times article, which 
I forwarded to committee staff because I would like to have it 
introduced into the record.
    This article talks about a town--10 years has been spending 
money trying to reinvent their economy. They have created a law 
school with some of their money. They have created a 
pharmaceutical school, or a pharmacy school in their community. 
And they have spent--according to that article, they have spent 
approximately $170 million over this 20-year period trying to, 
you know, reinvent themselves.
    Now, there are all kinds of other issues--road access --
that we are working on. But I will tell you that----
    Mr. Rush. Will the gentleman----
    Mr. Griffith. Give me just one second, thank you. But I 
will tell you that 1 in 6 jobs is still coal-related, and the 
county is getting hit hard.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman----
    Mr. Griffith. I yield back, I apologize. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I apologize.
    Mr. Rush. That is quite all right. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and this is a great 
hearing, and there is so much to cover. I will try to get 
through as much as I can.
    I don't think we should overlook the importance of energy 
efficiency and decarbonizing our energy system. There are many 
widely available, cost-effective measures that can be done to 
improve the energy efficiency as well as the health and safety 
of homes. But we need to recognize that many low-income people 
aren't going to take advantage of a tax credit. And for this 
category of individuals, often they pay a much higher 
percentage of their incomes on energy bills.
    So, Ms. Glover, what is the role for a program like DOE's 
Weatherization Assistance Program to improve energy efficiency 
of low-income homes?
    Ms. Glover. Thank you so much, Congressman, for that 
question. You know, WAP program, the weatherization program, is 
an important program for low-income consumers. And certainly, I 
would say even middle-income consumers would, if they could 
take advantage of it, would want to. It certainly needs to be 
funded more, and there have been some requests to add more 
funding to that program.
    But I would also say that, as you as you all in--as Members 
of Congress have been thinking about how do we direct that 
funding to the right families. And so part of that thinking has 
to be what are the communities that we are going to start with 
first. Is weatherization, in and of itself, that program, going 
to be enough of an investment for some communities in rural and 
urban communities around this country? Their homes are not 
ready for even basic weatherization. And so we do have to think 
about what is the proper investment, and do we need to build on 
top of existing programs to make those communities more 
resilient, in terms of energy efficiency.
    Mr. Tonko. OK, thank you. And do you believe this program 
helps promote more equitable energy policy?
    Ms. Glover. I do think that it does. I just--I think that 
it is--you know, look, we--there are so many things we need to 
invest in. And I think that weatherization--and that program is 
probably one of those programs that needs greater investment.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And last year Congress enacted 
reforms to strengthen the program, and President Biden has 
called for weatherizing 2 million homes. So I think that is a 
great shot in the arm.
    Ms. Glover, do you believe funding for a program like the 
Weatherization Assistance Program should be considered for 
inclusion in a future infrastructure package?
    Ms. Glover. I do. I do believe that funding for that could 
be included in a future infrastructure package.
    But I want to say that, you know, if we are trying to 
impact low- and moderate-income families, it is not just the 
weatherization program that can do that. There are other 
programs, as well, and other proposals out there that also--our 
small business proposal, I think, is a good one. It talks about 
how you bring jobs to these communities and small business 
growth to those communities, as well as ensuring that the 
businesses in those communities are thriving.
    I think Congresswoman Blunt Rochester's bill on mission 
critical and building infrastructure is another important 
program that can help not only those communities in terms of 
making them more resilient, but also in terms of jobs and small 
business opportunity and addressing our equity needs.
    So there are lots of programs that I think have been 
proposed that will get us where we need to be and at the same 
time address our issues around climate change, decarbonizing 
our energy grid, and providing economic opportunity to 
communities around the country, particularly those who are 
suffering the most.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And Dr. Pacala, could you give us a sense of why the NAS 
report recommended increasing funding for weatherization?
    Dr. Pacala. Yes, the--we recommended both an increase in 
funding in the low-income--in LIHEAP and in the Weatherization 
Assistance Program because of the need to upgrade 
infrastructure, which has lagged behind and which 
disproportionately impacts the incomes of low-income Americans 
already.
    And so there are--we did discuss the inefficiencies built 
into some of those programs but on balance thought that we 
ought to put more money into them. So there are specific 
numerical amounts in the recommendations, and it followed a 
review of the performance of both of those programs.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Powell, I am excited to hear that ClearPath is getting 
involved in the industrial sector. Do you believe low-emissions 
hydrogen could play a role in decarbonizing certain 
manufacturing processes?
    Dr. Pacala. Thanks for the question, Ranking Member [sic] 
Tonko, thanks for your leadership on the Energy Act of 2020, as 
well.
    I absolutely believe that hydrogen could be a big part of 
that solution.
    As I mentioned earlier, low-carbon heat is going to be a 
core component to decarbonizing the industrial sector, and low-
emission hydrogen, whether that is produced from natural gas, 
but carbon capture from renewable electrolysis, from nuclear 
electrolysis, or maybe a whole lot of processes that we don't 
even understand or realize yet could be a really significant 
part of that transition.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    Well, Mr. Chair, I think I have exhausted my time, so I 
will yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be really 
brief, so I can get to my questions. But as I listen to my 
colleagues and some of our witnesses today, we keep hearing 
proposals for, I quote, ``deep decarbonization'' that would 
serve, really, only to kill good-paying American jobs while 
simultaneously increasing our supply chain dependency on China, 
embolden Russia, and, ironically, do very little to decrease 
total global carbon emissions.
    I keep thinking, why would we want to go down that road? 
Well, I think we might have found the answer. One of our 
witnesses today, in their prepared testimony, cited a desire to 
achieve a--and I quote--``fundamental economic and social 
transition.''
    So, I am wondering, are decarbonization policies about 
climate or energy at all, or is it more about power and 
control?
    Outside of this Zoom hearing, in the real world, abundant 
American resources are being leveraged to create jobs, 
revitalize communities, and strengthen American manufacturing. 
So I have a question for Commissioner Camp.
    Thank you for joining us, Commissioner. My district is not 
far from Beaver County, just across the State line in eastern 
and southeastern Ohio. We have a site ready for a similar, I 
think, cracker facility. And, just as in Beaver County, it is 
intended to take advantage of the vast natural gas resources 
right below our feet in Ohio and Pennsylvania. It is still 
awaiting a final investment decision, but, God willing, if 
construction begins on this project, we will see our 
communities benefit immediately with thousands of workers 
coming to town. Is that your perspective, will we see those 
thousands of workers coming to town?
    And also, what does it mean for a community with a proud 
but distant industrial past to have heavy manufacturing like 
this return?
    Mr. Camp. Congressman Johnson, thank you very much. I 
worked closely with the previous board in Belmont County, Ohio, 
where that proposed petrochemical plant is being set forth. 
Absolutely, we see right now--in 2019, as I said before, when I 
testified in front of the Subcommittee on Environment and 
Climate Change, we had roughly 3,500 employees on site. Today 
we have 7,950 employees on site; 7,000 are working there during 
the day, 950 in the night turn. We are seeing that.
    But not only are we seeing that at the plant itself, we are 
seeing the effects of them, even through this global pandemic, 
support our community. Our tax base has gone up due to this. 
There is a pilot program in place with Shell Petrochemicals for 
20 years, 25 years. But we are going to see the downstream 
jobs. There are many, many, many options on property up and 
down Interstate 376, which is our headquarter here, where the 
train--rail meets the river and Interstate 376. You can't 
purchase a piece of property in Beaver County right now that is 
an industrial site, because the options are exercised.
    Mr. Johnson. So the bottom line is, it is far from over.
    Mr. Camp. It is far from over. We won't start seeing these 
downstream manufacturing jobs, the companies who utilize the 
rubber pellets that Shell Petrochemical will be making, for 
years. Once they start production, these companies will then 
start to look at building facilities in Beaver County, Western 
Pennsylvania, Allegheny County, Westmoreland, even into Ohio 
and West Virginia in Representative McKinley's district.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, good. Well, good. Well, let me go to Mr. 
Powell now. Thank you, Commissioner.
    Mr. Powell, you made an important point earlier about how a 
molecule of carbon released in Shanghai has the same impact as 
if it was released in Chicago. Well, what I am hearing from my 
Democratic colleagues today is too much of a focus on reducing 
carbon emissions domestically, regardless of the cost to 
American jobs like those in Beaver County, without 
acknowledging that climate change isn't just America's problem 
to confront. In fact, even if America reduced its emissions to 
zero, there wouldn't be a measurable effect on the global 
climate.
    We need to take a step back here and put the American 
people first. Rather than trumpeting gimmicks like the Paris 
Accord, which gives a free pass to huge global emitters such as 
China and India, we have an opportunity to support pragmatic 
policies that can build new and carbon-free technologies like 
nuclear here in the U.S. and enable them to be built 
internationally.
    So, Mr. Powell, do you believe there is room for bipartisan 
consensus on improving advanced nuclear technology?
    And how best can we modernize our export process, which not 
only has clean energy benefits but supports U.S. interests and 
national security?
    Mr. Powell. Thanks for the question, Congressman. Thank you 
for your support for modernizing our nuclear exports 
infrastructure.
    I believe there is bipartisan consensus on advanced nuclear 
energy. It was one of the technologies highlighted in the 
Energy Act passed in December, demonstrating new pieces of 
that.
    I do think that the exports process, both the 810 
agreements and the 123 process, do need to be modernized. We 
have to remember it is not a choice about whether a country is 
going to accept new nuclear technology. It is whether they are 
going to accept U.S. technology or Russian or Chinese 
technology. And our preference would be that it was American 
technology with American safeguards and where America captures 
the economic opportunity and the benefits and the jobs of those 
exports.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Powell.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Veasey for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And of 
course, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we are going through 
catastrophic weather events right now in Texas. And it is--you 
know, it is really bad. I am not going to mince words about it. 
It is as bad as it seems from afar. People don't have heat. 
People haven't had heat for days. We have had a record number 
of people going in to local hospitals because of carbon 
monoxide poisoning, trying to stay warm. It is bad. And I want 
to thank you for hosting this hearing today. And I wanted to 
ask some questions specifically related to this catastrophic 
energy failure that we are having in our State right now.
    The extreme weather events over the last few days have 
caused a massive failure to deliver electricity to those who 
desperately need it, as I just pointed out, and the inability 
of some of these power plants to produce electricity when our 
communities needed it the most meant that people in 254 
counties all across our State are going without power.
    And now we are at a point now, Mr. Chairman, to where there 
are people having to boil water. We have several places here in 
the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex where people are under boil 
alerts, because they don't have fresh water. I even--I have 
heard of at least one hospital that doesn't have fresh--that 
doesn't have adequate clean water.
    And, in the days and weeks to come, we will be examining 
the questions of infrastructure-related causes, looking at what 
measures can be taken to properly weatherize and insulate our 
power plants of all fuel types.
    Another important issue for us to consider is how we can 
better connect Texas to the national grid to allow for 
interregional transmission to bring electricity from other 
areas of the country. And yesterday I sent a letter to FERC 
with a desire to start a conversation on this. There will be 
many benefits and challenges of allowing limited energy 
transfers into ERCOT territory in certain emergency situations. 
There are a number of legal and technical infrastructure 
hurdles that we will need to overcome for greater 
interconnection, and I believe that every option should be 
explored so we can avert any other potential disasters that we 
may have in the future.
    And, as we continue to search for answers, I am glad that 
we have some experts on power generation with us here today. 
And Mr. Craig--and I don't want to get into the silly season of 
comparing things that--that has been too much of the 
conversation, that has been utterly ridiculous, that people are 
comparing these things. We obviously had failures with all of 
our platforms in ERCOT, and we need to figure out how we can 
weatherize these things. And I want to ask you, given that a 
large part of the blame for the Texas grid failure was due to 
some of our more traditional fuels around natural gas and coal 
and nuclear, and not having adequate weatherization and 
insulation, can you speak a little bit about a--what--about 
weatherizing a power plant for cold weather looks like?
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman. I am not sure I am the 
expert on how to weatherize a coal plant or a gas plant. I do 
think there are ways to do so. I think folks at ERCOT and the 
generation owners ought to, you know, consult with folks in the 
Dakotas, and Minnesota, and places like that, where they are 
dealing with these sort of things, you know, year in and year 
out.
    I will say, however, that the way the market is designed 
doesn't encourage additional investments in generation 
technology. For instance, we have peaking plants in Ector 
County. They do not have the capacity to burn fuel oil in a 
situation like this. If the ERCOT market was structured such 
that there was a way to compensate for that additional 
reliability, you would have plenty more generating-owning 
companies invest in the dual fuel capabilities to ensure that, 
when a situation like this comes, that there will be, you know, 
backup fuel to keep the generation going.
    I would also say that additional investments in energy 
storage which don't require water would be a smart investment, 
as well. And again, you know, always going back to more 
transmission to connect different parts of the Texas grid, as 
well as to different parts of----
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Bucshon for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bucshon. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this is a 
great hearing. It is timely.
    Look, I am an all-of-the-above energy believer. I think we 
should continue to pursue innovation and technology advances 
across the energy-generating space. You know, my district is a 
coal district, however, and I just, you know, want to remind 
people that, actually, coal may be the most reliable source of 
energy in this situation, because you have a stockpile at your 
plant, you don't require a pipeline, and--when the wind and 
solar panels don't get frozen up or covered in snow.
    That said, that is why I think we need to continue to 
innovate across the energy space and not forget about fossil 
fuel.
    I also am very happy that part of this conversation has 
been about energy efficiency, because, you know, I grew up in a 
small town, 1,500 people. And I can tell you the homes are 100 
years old, and they are very energy inefficient. That is a very 
big piece of this.
    Mr. Gordon, how did Invenergy wind projects perform in 
Texas, and how many megawatts out of the total system had to be 
shut down due to cold weather and icy conditions?
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. At 
various points of the last several days, many of our wind farms 
were not operational. However, at no point over this period did 
all of our wind projects fail to operate. So it was hit or 
miss. It was really dependent on the location of the facility. 
You know, some facilities were iced over more than others, and 
so some came through, you know, doing very well, better than 
expectations.
    Mr. Bucshon. OK, how did Invenergy's natural gas units 
perform during the same period?
    Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. So we were not able to procure 
natural gas. The transmission pipelines were not available.
    Mr. Bucshon. OK, so--I mean, I am just going along the 
lines of innovation and technological advances that can help 
all aspects of our energy generating system, including natural 
gas, including wind. And, I guess in Texas, we saw a domino 
effect, where the wind started to fail early in the wintery 
conditions, which constrained the system. And then, as natural 
gas, coal, and nuclear facilities--plants began to have 
operational problems and freeze off, the blackouts started.
    Mr. Powell, if Texas were 100 percent wind for power 
generation, what would have happened to the grid?
    Mr. Powell. Well, I don't think Texas or any jurisdiction 
should be 100 percent any generation. You know, I think in 
any--I just don't think it would be technically possible for 
Texas or any State to be 100 percent wind.
    Mr. Bucshon. I think that----
    Mr. Powell. If it was, this would have been a bad event, 
and I don't think----
    Mr. Bucshon. I mean, it is a hypothetical question, I think 
proving my point again, that----
    Mr. Powell. Sure.
    Mr. Bucshon [continuing]. We need to continue to pursue an 
all-of-the-above energy approach, which includes renewables and 
fossil fuels.
    In addition, I guess, homes having no heat, it was reported 
that electric vehicles saw a dramatic loss of charge, and many 
charging stations were unavailable. Mr. Powell, how do you--how 
do we ensure the future of EVs and the reliability of the 
charging stations are not another way we could leave people 
without access to their vehicles?
    Mr. Powell. It is a great question, Congressman. I think 
the unfortunate reality of this and many of the other extreme 
weather events we have seen, and will likely see more of, is 
that all parts of our energy system and our energy-dependent 
systems like transportation are going to have to be hardened 
for more extreme weather on both sides, for more extreme heat 
events and extreme cold events.
    Unfortunately, these extreme events are hard on all energy 
systems. They can be hard on batteries, and they can degrade 
the performance of these vehicles. So we are going to have to 
invest more in insulating these vehicles and improve 
technologies that can operate under a wider range of conditions 
if those are going to be a bigger part of the transportation 
system in the future.
    Unfortunately, it will----
    Mr. Bucshon. I mean, you have probably seen--I think 
everyone has--major automobile companies announcing they are 
going to go completely electric in a short, fairly short period 
of time. And interestingly, you know, I think GM did a 
demonstration I posted on my social media, and they had an 
electric car plugged in, and they asked the GM executive where 
the electricity was coming from. And she replied, ``Well, it is 
coming from the building.'' And then she said, ``Well, it is 
the local power company providing power to the building.'' And 
that wasn't the question. The question was where does the 
electricity come from.
    And it turns out, in this area where they were 
demonstrating the electrical vehicle, 90 percent of the 
electrical power was generated from coal. So I just think we 
need to be open-eyed about this, and all of us, you know, try 
to be as least ideological and more practical as we can and 
recognize that we need to continue to advance innovation and 
technology across the space. You know, wind turbines are going 
to learn from this. They are not going to freeze up any more, 
if we get some technological advances. The same thing is true 
with other forms of power.
    So I would encourage all of us to continue to support 
innovation and technology advances to decrease our carbon 
emissions, as we have more than any other country in the world, 
and work towards a lower carbon future.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Schrier.
    Ms. Schrier, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
witnesses.
    Dr. Pacala, your report covers a wide range of technologies 
that need to all be deployed in rapid fashion in order to reach 
our goals and have diversity and avoid putting all of our eggs 
in one basket. And I want to ask specifically about hydrogen 
cells for energy and their potential applications.
    Washington State's energy portfolio is 80 percent clean, 
mostly because of two-thirds of our energy, our electricity, 
comes from hydropower. And hydropower provides a fantastic, 
reliable baseload. And sometimes there is oversupply, 
especially when you add wind and solar. And spilling more 
water, which, you know, you would like to do, environmentally, 
actually could further harm salmon populations. And so there is 
a lot of interest in capturing and storing that excess, 
including as hydrogen energy.
    And I recently had a really interesting meeting with the 
Douglas County PUD general manager, Gary Ivory, about the 
renewable hydrogen demonstration project happening in my 
district. And last September the Bonneville Environmental 
Foundation partnered with the county to develop the first 
hydrogen fueling station for fuel-cell electric vehicles in 
Washington State. Increasing development of these technologies 
and storing excess electricity in this way could go a long way 
toward building a clean energy economy.
    The White House has also pointed to green or renewable 
hydrogen as an area they are interested in. And I know the 
Department of Energy has been working on this innovation for 
years.
    Your report calls on a rapid scaling of hydrogen 
technology, stating that we need--that this could create 
positive synergies. Now, in parts of my district I can't drive 
2 minutes without seeing a Tesla, but I have yet to see a 
hydrogen-cell-powered vehicle. And so I just want to know, 
where are we with hydrogen innovation? Has it reached a point 
where it can play a serious role in helping the U.S. meet an 
interim goal of net zero by 2050? And can you talk about some 
of these positive synergies?
    Dr. Pacala. So, like Rich Powell, I believe that hydrogen 
is a big piece of the long-term future. But the fact is that 
hydrogen, as an energy storage device, is still expensive. All 
right? And it is still expensive relative to other alternatives 
that we could deploy during the 2020s.
    So, during the 2020s, if we expand our net-zero power 
offerings primarily with wind and solar, while planning for 
other sources, right, while trying to reduce the very high cost 
now of nuclear, and while also preparing for CO2 
transport technology so that we continue to use decarbonized 
fossils--if we, as a species, decide to do so, as a Nation 
decide to do so--then these are ways in which we can reach an 
80 percent decarbonized power grid.
    And then hydrogen comes in probably later. And it depends 
on the combined ingenuity of people in the country. Now, I am a 
real believer in the combined ingenuity. It is one of many 
technologies that we need to double down, on R&D investments. 
Yes.
    Ms. Schrier. Yes, I really appreciate that, because, first, 
it gives me a perspective on time. But second, starting these 
kind of pilot projects now is what will pave the way to the 
2030s, and potentially having this.
    And we have heard a lot about resources, whether they are 
metals, solar panels that are cheaper now from China, and not 
wanting to be dependent, that this is just one of the--sort of 
the layers of redundancy that will help give us that kind of 
security.
    I wanted to ask--and I am not sure which of you is the best 
to ask--just about other ways of storing excess energy. Because 
we will get that from wind and solar too. And I wonder if you 
could just comment--I have got about 40 seconds left--about 
other ways of storing excess energy.
    Dr. Pacala. So I can. Pumped hydro is the way we do it now, 
but we have exhausted a lot of their--a lot of the sites for 
that.
    Long-term batteries that make fuels like hydrogen and store 
it is another way to do it. And there are a number of 
technologies that look for that. There are some exotic, long-
term storage solutions.
    Right now, the center of the action on close to deployment 
or deployable is grid-scale storage in the--sort of the 6-hour 
range, which is one of the sweet spots. And that is a real 
commercial opportunity for U.S. firms.
    Ms. Schrier. Can you tell me more about that, the--oh, we 
are out of time.
    I yield back. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Walberg for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We all agree on the 
need for a clean energy future. What we differ on, as this 
hearing title indicates, is the best path to get there.
    As many of my colleagues have already indicated, this 
administration has dropped an economic bomb onto the Nation's 
energy sector, threatening hundreds of thousands of jobs and 
billions in State tax revenues that go toward supporting public 
schools, fire departments, police stations, and countless other 
community services.
    The Laborers International Union of North America said 
themselves that canceling the Keystone XL pipeline will result 
in the loss of 1,000 jobs immediately, and an additional 10,000 
jobs over time.
    Mr. Powell, in your testimony you state that, according to 
the International Energy Agency, only 2 of 14 critical power-
sector technologies are on track to reduce emissions in the 
timeframe laid out by President Biden's Executive orders. 
Further, you state--and I quote--``Requiring further emissions 
reductions before those technologies are ready poses 
significant risks to the reliability and affordability of our 
energy system, and to the millions of workers whose jobs rely 
on that energy supply.''
    We have already heard demands that President Biden go 
further to ban all fossil fuels, shut down additional 
pipelines, and enact policies inspired by the job-killing Green 
New Deal. And so, Mr. Camp, thank you for talking about the 
vital role natural gas plays in Western Pennsylvania. We know 
natural gas has already played a critical role in reducing 
emissions in the power sector.
    What about heavy industry? Can we continue to meet the 
demands of steel and cement facilities without natural gas?
    Mr. Camp. Natural gas plays an important role in the heavy 
industries. You know, I don't specialize in ``Can we meet the 
demands?,'' but personally, what I see whenever I talk to the 
individuals who are running these facilities, that they need 
the natural gas to meet these demands. You know, that is based 
off their opinion.
    You know, I don't think we can cut the fossil fuels 
completely out. I think we can't abandon them. I think we have 
to clean them up. But I think this committee alone will work 
together to do that. It is important that we continue to use 
those fossil fuels to have that feedstock into these 
facilities.
    You know, as we talk in great lengths about nuclear, you 
know, Beaver County is home to First Energy--is now Energy 
Harbor. We do have a nuclear power plant in Beaver County. We 
had a coal-fired power plant in Beaver County that closed down 
in 2019. So, you know, not--as I speak, not just on the natural 
gas industry, when I say ``all energy sectors,'' that is what I 
am talking about here, in Beaver County, in Southwestern 
Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Walberg. All-of-the-above plan. Thank you.
    Mr. Powell, according to the U.S. Energy Information 
Administration, no power sector technology has been responsible 
for more emission reductions than natural gas over the past 
decade. We have also moved to become a top exporter of 
liquefied natural gas, allowing more counties and countries to 
utilize cleaner fuels. In your testimony you highlight the 
opportunity of exporting clean U.S. technologies and 
commodities. How does restricting fossil fuel development align 
with that line of thinking?
    Mr. Powell. Well, thanks for the question, Congressman. 
Thanks for your leadership on cleaner fossil technologies and 
innovation in this space.
    I do think there is a real tension there. Exporting 
liquefied natural gas, for example, is one of the top ways that 
we can help other economies around the world decarbonize their 
sectors. Often that liquefied natural gas is going in and it is 
displacing, oftentimes, critical coal plants, some of the 
highest emitting plants in the world, or coal for district 
heating. So liquefied natural gas exports can play a huge role 
in that global decarbonizing picture. And I don't think that is 
necessarily being taken into account when folks are talking 
about restricting particular pieces of U.S. fossil extraction.
    Mr. Walberg. And in my home State--in fact, my own 
district--America's largest electric utilities, like DTE in my 
district, have committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 
2050.
    You also mentioned that zero-emission fuels like hydrogen 
should play a role in response to climate change. Has your 
organization looked at how existing infrastructure, such as our 
natural gas pipeline network, can be utilized to deliver 
alternative fuels?
    Mr. Powell. Absolutely. I think we should all remember that 
we have this asset. We have, literally, trillions of dollars of 
natural gas infrastructure in the ground around this country. 
We should be trying to find ways to work with that as part of a 
low-carbon future. And there are so many ways.
    We could use that natural gas. We could create hydrogen 
with it and capture the carbon emissions and put them 
underground. We could partially run hydrogen alongside natural 
gas and other low-carbon fuels through the pipelines along the 
way. We could do a lot with that existing infrastructure. 
Again, we ought to be focusing on reducing the emissions, not 
on eliminating the use of the fossil fuels and certainly not on 
eliminating the use of the fossil fuel infrastructure, which we 
have invested so dearly in, and which could be a real asset in 
decarbonizing.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. DeGette for 5 minutes.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I am so 
delighted to join your subcommittee in this Congress. I think 
that energy policy and, in particular, climate issues are going 
to be the preeminent issue in this Congress.
    And I also--I want to share your concern, the concern of so 
many on this committee, about what has happened in Texas, which 
is really a national tragedy. And I will volunteer to put the 
resources of the Oversight Subcommittee to work in helping us 
make sure that we get to the bottom of what happened in Texas 
and working with you to make sure we can have policies that 
address this.
    I just want to ask some questions of the panel about 
greenhouse gas emissions. And the first thing I want to say--my 
staff actually wrote a question on this, but I don't think we 
need a question on it. I think everybody on this panel would 
agree Americans deserve affordable, reliable electricity. And 
that is becoming more and more of a challenge, something we 
need to deal with.
    I want to ask the panel this question: Does climate science 
tell us we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to net 
zero by no later than 2050, and sooner if possible, to minimize 
the risk of catastrophic climate events like we are seeing 
right now?
    Let's just go down the panel, if we can.
    Ms. Glover?
    [Pause.]
    Ms. DeGette. You have gone on mute. There you go.
    Ms. Glover. I said, ``Congresswoman, I really don't know if 
scientists are telling you that it has to be net zero by 2050. 
I''----
    Ms. DeGette. OK, you don't know.
    Ms. Glover. I don't have that knowledge.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. Dr. Pacala?
    Dr. Pacala. Yes. So the science is extremely clear that, if 
you want to limit global climate change to substantially less 
than 2 degrees, the globe has to get to net zero by 2050.
    Ms. DeGette. OK, all right.
    Dr. Pacala. There is no doubt about that.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
    Mr. Gordon?
    Mr. Gordon. Yes, Congresswoman. Again, I am not qualified 
to answer that question.
    Ms. DeGette. So you don't know, either.
    Mr. Powell?
    Mr. Powell. So I echo Dr. Pacala's point that, globally, we 
need to make an extremely deep reduction in CO2 
emissions if we are to have that impact on the climate.
    Ms. DeGette. Great. And Mr. Camp?
    Mr. Camp. As Mr. Gordon said, I am not qualified to make 
that----
    Ms. DeGette. OK.
    Mr. Camp. But with the--with Dr. Pacala, this hearing we 
mentioned many times, this is a global issue.
    Ms. DeGette. Absolutely.
    Mr. Camp. And if we continue to take our fossil fuels----
    Ms. DeGette. I appreciate that, sir. You are right. The 
2018 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
says that we need to reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions 
to zero no later than 2050, and sooner if possible.
    Dr. Pacala, I want to ask you if we have the technology 
today to achieve an ambitious reduction in carbon emissions by 
2030 while still providing affordable, reliable electricity for 
every American?
    Dr. Pacala. Yes, we absolutely have the technology to do 
that.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. And that is interesting, because what I 
heard, like, from my utilities is that we have most of the 
technology. It is that last 10 to 20 percent we just need to 
incentivize. Would that be accurate, or do you think we could 
just get there today?
    Dr. Pacala. Yes, it is absolutely accurate. So the--most 
net-zero plans by 2050 call for a 75 percent or 80 percent 
decarbonized--de-emissioned grid, electricity grid, by 2030. 
OK?
    Ms. DeGette. Right.
    Dr. Pacala. And so----
    Ms. DeGette. Right.
    Dr. Pacala [continuing]. It is true that the last 20 
percent is way harder.
    Ms. DeGette. Right. But that is why we need to incentivize 
research and development, from----
    Dr. Pacala. Right.
    Ms. DeGette [continuing]. What I have heard, to get there, 
because we can't get there without new technology, is that 
right?
    Dr. Pacala. That is right. And also, right now, we get to 
use, for instance, our abundant natural gas capacity as backup 
generators to provide the firm source of electricity for when 
the wind doesn't blow, when the sun doesn't shine. And that 
gets you down to about 80 percent decarbonized. But then you 
have got to do something with those sources as well, either 
decarbonize them, carbon capture and storage, or build more 
nukes, or build some other--you know, build long-term storage 
or something, some other form source.
    Ms. DeGette. Right. So, just for my colleagues, I have got 
a bill, the Clean Energy Innovation and Deployment Act, which 
is designed to address this issue by setting up a 3-speed 
mechanism where the speed to which we try to get to zero is 
impacted on how fast we can break through with new technology. 
So I will be talking more about that.
    Thanks to our whole panel. I appreciate it.
    Thanks again, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. Let me just say to 
the gentlelady that I want to personally welcome you to the 
subcommittee, and I look forward to working with you over this 
next--so, again, my personal welcome to you to this 
subcommittee.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Duncan for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for this 
hearing. I want to enter into the record an editorial from The 
Wall Street Journal today. It has a lot of facts in it. It is 
entitled, ``Texas Spins into the Wind,'' and I would like to 
enter that into the record.
    Mr. Rush. Hearing no objections, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you. I also want to point out--and Ms. 
DeGette may want to look at this article--but there is a great 
graphic on there, very difficult to see on there. But let me 
just tell you that change in power output in the State of Texas 
from January the 18th until February the 17th, when generation 
reduced by almost 20,000 megawatts, that was a 93 percent 
reduction in wind power output.
    At the same time you saw coal increase by 47 percent, and 
natural gas increase. This is power generation output increased 
by 450 percent. I don't know that it was necessarily the 
transmission to the power plants, other than a diversion of 
some of the natural gas in Texas to meet the needs of powering 
and heating homes and hospitals and other communities.
    You know, Mr. Chairman, in my district we get a lot of our 
power from nuclear power. Nuclear energy produces a lot of the 
electricity in the Carolinas. In fact, Duke Energy in the 
Carolinas has a fleet of 11 nuclear power plants that make up 
more than 50 percent of the power utility in North Carolina and 
South Carolina. That fleet of nuclear power plants are 
responsible for cleaner air where I live. In 2019 alone, this 
same nuclear fleet generated almost 74 billion kilowatt hours 
of electricity and avoided the release of more than 52 million 
tons of carbon dioxide.
    I point that out because nuclear energy is the future if we 
want to lower our carbon emissions in this country. And I am 
all about next-gen nuclear power, I am all about SMRs and 
thorium reactors and anything that we can do, Mr. Chairman.
    But I wanted to ask Mr. Powell, as you stated in testimony, 
in order to reduce CO2 emissions as fast as possible 
we need to modernize the permitting process. Last Congress I 
introduced a bill to modernize the review of our nuclear power 
reactor projects, and I plan to reintroduce this bill again in 
this Congress. I hope some of my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle will join me on that. But could you--what do you 
see as the biggest barrier to rapidly deploying new, clean-
energy projects and--whether it is nuclear and other clean 
technologies, Mr. Powell?
    Mr. Powell. Well, first, thank you, Congressman, for your 
leadership on nuclear innovation and supporting the existing 
nuclear fleet, both extremely important. ClearPath was founded 
in the Carolinas, and we greatly appreciate the remarkable 
clean energy abundance that that nuclear fleet that Duke 
maintains provides, along with the clean air and the tax base 
and all the other great benefits of nuclear.
    You know, going forward with nuclear and continuing that, 
there is a couple of big challenges ahead. The first is 
modernizing the existing nuclear fleet so that those plants 
could all go through the second life extensions, and could go 
from being 60-year plants to 80-year plants.
    In the wholesale power markets, the ones that aren't 
regulated, a lot of those nuclear plants are facing extreme 
economic stress due to subsidized renewables and extremely low-
cost natural gas. There is a number of pieces of legislation 
that have been introduced in the past Congress that I think 
could be looked at again this year that would take a stab at 
preserving those existing nuclear units, using EPA and other 
authorities to keep those generating, keep those online. I 
think that is a really important priority.
    Then, as we think about the future and the next generation 
of reactors, obviously there is a big piece about regulatory 
reform. You have really taken this on at the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. Finding ways to streamline and shorten the 
timelining to permit new nuclear design is absolutely vital 
right now. The fastest the NRC could do is about 40 months. And 
with a lot of licensing activity in front of that to get a new 
nuclear design license, you can't even start building or 
financing it before you get that design license. That is a long 
time----
    Mr. Duncan. Right.
    Mr. Powell [continuing]. Kind of innovator, right, so 
finding ways to shorten that down.
    And then, once we get the plants actually--the designs 
licensed, finding ways to then get the siting and the 
permitting of the specific sites done in a more expeditious 
manner, while not sacrificing in any way safety in that siting 
I think is the next big challenge.
    Mr. Duncan. Absolutely. And I just want to point this out, 
that in my district alone, replacing the Oconee Nuclear 
Station, which is a land use of about 2 square miles with 
solar, would require 107 square miles of land. That is nearly 4 
times the size of the City of Greenville, South Carolina. To 
replace a nuclear power with wind would require over 854 square 
miles of land. That is more land than the entirety of Anderson 
County, which is in my congressional district. So we have got 
to address all these, I believe, in nuclear.
    Mr. Chairman, it is a great hearing, I have enjoyed it. And 
I look forward to continue to listen on the way out. Thanks.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 
convening this very important hearing today. And certainly 
thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. Let me start 
with Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon, you referenced, I believe, a solar project in 
my district, a 75 megawatt solar project called Edgecombe 
Solar. It is in Edgecombe County, North Carolina, which is just 
a few miles from where I am right now. Let me just commend your 
company's decision to base this project in my district. This 
project, along with others across the State, will ensure that 
North Carolina remains a leader in solar energy deployment. So 
thank you so very much.
    Now, my question is, how can we continue to support the 
development of the solar industry? And perhaps you could 
provide some insights into your company's decision to build a 
solar farm in a rural community so we can learn more about what 
constitutes an attractive environment for solar and for 
renewables.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman, for the opportunity to 
answer your question.
    I think, first and foremost, you have got to have the right 
conditions for a solar plant. So, you know, ample sun. But you 
also need interconnection capacity. You need to be able to 
connect to the grid at a cost that is affordable, because, you 
know, high cost to connect can kill a project quickly. And I 
think, you know, underpinning those 2 things, you need the 
customers who are willing to buy it. And what we are seeing 
right now is just a huge interest from Fortune 100 companies to 
invest in renewable energy.
    And so what we are doing is we are trying to work with some 
of these companies to find locations where they have interest 
in--you know, in having renewables nearby to act as an energy 
hedge for them, or to provide renewable attributes to them.
    So I think the answer to your question is, you know, 
complex. There is a lot of things going on. And ultimately, we 
are also looking for landowners who want a project. You know, 
we provide significant financial benefits to the landowners who 
participate. And so it--the whole community is raised.
    Mr. Butterfield. I am glad you are mentioning the land 
ownership aspect of it, because that is so critically 
important. I know it is here in my district.
    The construction of high voltage, long-distance 
transmission facilities is highly necessary to meet the needs 
of the clean-energy transition. Existing utilities, such as 
electric co-ops and municipally owned utilities, will rely on 
these transmission facilities for distribution of renewable 
energy. Mr. Gordon, as high-voltage transmission infrastructure 
is constructed to integrate growing renewable energy 
production, how can we make sure the services of existing 
electric utilities can continue to serve their customers 
uninterrupted?
    Mr. Gordon. So the type of projects that we are proposing 
basically interconnect with the high-voltage grid at the 
various locations. They do not disrupt the local service 
whatsoever. And what they do is, ultimately, provide new 
resources, new low-cost, renewable resources, to be shipped and 
delivered to areas of the country that may not have an 
abundance of geography to site new wind or new solar, such as 
South Carolina.
    Mr. Butterfield. Yes. Let me take my last minute with Ms. 
Glover, if I may.
    Ms. Glover, while climate change affects everyone, our most 
vulnerable communities disproportionately bear the brunt of 
impacts of climate change. This is why environmental justice is 
a critical part of the CLEAN Future Act. Low-income communities 
like my community and communities of color are more likely to 
lack resiliency against the risk of climate change and less 
likely to have access to sustainable and affordable energy. We 
have got to fix this thing.
    Ms. Glover, from your perspective, what can we do to make 
sure that low-income communities, communities of color are 
better prepared for climate change?
    Ms. Glover. Thank you so much for the question, Mr.--
Congressman Butterfield, and for your leadership. You know, I 
am going to keep repeating my song, which is that I believe 
energy efficiency is really one of the starting points for 
this. And it should be the center point of these conversations.
    At the end of the day, we want to be able to get to 
customers, particularly those in low-income, disadvantaged 
communities, frontline communities, and help them to use less 
now, and invest in those communities so that they are using 
less, so that there is more money for them, but also to be able 
to develop their infrastructure so that it is more resilient. 
Those 2 things combined, I think, need to happen in the worst 
of our communities, the communities that are suffering the 
most.
    And I believe that energy efficiency really is an 
opportunity that is sitting right there and something that we 
can pull the trigger on fairly quickly and can have some 
significant impact very quickly, as well.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am right on the 
mark. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mrs. Lesko for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to 
the witnesses and all of the Members.
    I agree with Mr. Pallone that we need to try to work 
together to come up with an energy plan for the future of 
America. I think it needs to be a commonsense, affordable, 
reliable, high-quality energy plan.
    I have to tell you that I don't think it should copy the 
California policies, because my utility companies here in 
Arizona say that at certain times of the year California 
actually pays Arizona utilities to take their energy off of 
their hands. And I don't think that is probably a very good 
plan for the Californians.
    I do, Mr. Chairman, want to ask unanimous consent that an 
article mentioned by Morgan Griffith earlier be entered into 
the record. It is a New York Times December 6, 2019, article 
entitled, ``Can a Coal Town Reinvest Itself?''
    Mr. Rush. I thought I had, by unanimous consent, already 
entered that into the record.
    Mrs. Lesko. Oh, fantastic. Mr. Griffith had texted me and 
didn't know if it was done or not. So thank you.
    Mr. Rush. Will the gentlelady--for a moment? Let me just 
take another stab at it.
    Hearing no objections, so ordered, the lady's request for 
entering into the record of the New York Times article.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for Mr. 
Powell.
    Mr. Powell, the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions at 
Arizona State University is currently working on carbon removal 
technologies, particularly direct air capture, under the 
direction of Klaus Lackner.
    Do you know if--what we can do to increase the efforts and 
research on that technology and use of that technology? Do you 
think it is being financed enough?
    Mr. Powell. Thank you so much for that question, 
Congresswoman, and thank you for your attention to this really 
important, relatively new technology.
    Everyone should remember that, when we say net zero, that 
means that folks might still be emitting as long as they have a 
corresponding offset, or something netting out those emissions, 
and pulling it back out of the atmosphere. And that is what 
these technologies like direct air capture or broader carbon 
dioxide removal technologies could do. They could give us a lot 
of flexibility, and they could also, in the far future, if we 
decide there is just too much CO2 in the atmosphere, 
maybe we might decide to pull more out, just as a public 
service kind of a thing.
    And so it is very, very important. A lot of university-
scale research is done at this stage. I was very excited to see 
in the Energy Act of 2020 a major new program to demonstrate 
these technologies at scale was authorized in that bill. This 
would be the real start of a big Federal program to actually 
demonstrate it. There is a prize concept which would be 
conducted at the Environmental Protection Agency for 
breakthrough technologies in this space. And then there would 
be a more traditional demonstration program at the Department 
of Energy.
    Of course, the authorizing legislation is only the first 
step. And now your colleagues on the Appropriations Committee 
actually have to fund that research at DOE and that prize at 
EPA. And I think significantly more can be done in this space.
    A number of utilities who have made net-zero commitments 
seem to be relying on the existence of a serious amount of this 
technology 30 or 40 years from now. I know Duke Energy, for 
example, in some of their modeling has indicated they might 
like to buy as much as 8 million tons a year. That is a really 
significant market signal to innovators in this space. But that 
is a market signal far in the future. So we need to invest in 
the R&D along the way to make sure that that is actually going 
to be available when they want to start buying that in the 
future.
    Mrs. Lesko. Well, thank you, Mr. Powell. That sounds like 
something maybe the Democrats and Republicans can agree upon as 
part of the energy mix. And so I hope we can.
    Mr. Powell, I have another question for you. My 
understanding is that the Federal Government is required to 
purchase 7.5 percent of its energy from renewable sources. But 
right now hydroelectric power isn't included as a renewable 
energy source. And I know Representative Schrier talked about 
all the hydroelectric power in her State. Why shouldn't 
hydroelectric power be included as a renewable energy source? 
It seems counterintuitive to me. And do you think it should be?
    Mr. Powell. That is a great question. It absolutely should 
be. And, to take a bigger step back, it is unclear to me why 
that requirement is only renewable resources. If what we care 
about is low-carbon energy, I don't see why that wouldn't be a 
low-carbon requirement for Federal purchasing, not a renewable 
requirement.
    I was actually heartened to see, I believe, one of the 
Executive orders from the Biden administration actually 
proposed making that change, that it is going to be a carbon-
free procurement as opposed to a renewable procurement. A long 
way to go, I don't think that has been implemented yet, but I 
think that is a step in the right direction.
    And, absolutely, large and existing hydropower should be 
part of that mix. It is--right now it is the second-largest 
renewable resource in this country, and it is by far the most 
flexible renewable resource in this country. So it certainly 
should be included in procurements like that.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Powell.
    And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am really 
looking forward to being on this subcommittee. And I also want 
to thank the witnesses for being here today. This is such an 
important subject area and I think we can devote a lot of time 
to it, but I am trying to be as quick as possible.
    A clean energy development fueled by California's renewable 
portfolio standard, or as we call it, RPS, has attracted more 
than $2 billion in clean energy investments. And the clean 
energy sector now employs over a half a million workers in the 
State. Now, Federal tax credits for solar and wind energy have 
also made these developments possible. And the recent extension 
of these programs really will continue to fuel investments into 
clean energy and decarbonization.
    Given California's success with RPS, a national clean 
energy standard, or CES, should be a crucial solution for 
decarbonization. Dr. Pacala, I would like to ask you about the 
role a CES can play in driving decarbonization during this 
decade, the 2020s, and what is a realistic, ambitious clean-
energy target for 2030?
    [No response.]
    Dr. Pacala?
    Dr. Pacala. So I should start by representing what is in 
the report that we just released, and that is that we recommend 
a clean energy standard that--particularly for electric power--
that gets us to 75 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2030, and 
also a standard for zero-emissions vehicles that gets us to 50 
percent of sales for light-duty vehicles by 2030, and also a 
zero emissions standard, manufacturing standard, for home 
appliances, particularly home heating but also home cooling.
    I want to also just double down on the point that you made, 
that the position that we are in, where we can do a transition 
at about the same cost as the energy system that we have had 
over the last 30 years--actually, a little less than the energy 
system we have had for the last 30 years--the reason we are in 
that position is a triumph of human ingenuity, backed by public 
policy.
    So it is precisely the creation, for instance, of markets 
in wind and solar before they were ready and also, to some 
extent, the unconventional natural gas by using public policy 
instruments that created these markets before they were ready 
that allowed free-market competition to drive their costs down 
and made them available as alternatives today.
    And the clean--the fuel standard in California has been 
used in exactly that same way. I will note that one of the big 
companies doing direct air capture is making use of that 
subsidy to bring that technology into the marketplace, even 
though it is still pretty commercial otherwise.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Now I want to get into transportation. The 
Diesel Emissions Reductions Act bill that I have championed for 
many years was enacted last Congress. This legislation focused 
on providing millions of dollars in funding to retrofit 
polluting diesel engines in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles 
with cleaner technologies.
    Similarly, my home State adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks 
bill, which requires truck makers to sell cleaner zero-emission 
trucks in the State. Both initiatives will have significant 
consequences on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air 
pollution for frontline communities.
    Dr. Pacala, once again, what are your recommendations for 
actions to reduce emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in this 
decade?
    Dr. Pacala. So there are----
    Ms. Matsui. Go ahead.
    Dr. Pacala. Yes, there are two technologies that can be 
used to decarbonize heavy vehicles, and they are still in 
competition, right?
    There are some developers that think that you can do this 
with batteries, even for long haulers, and that we can get 
charging rates down to low enough levels that you could do long 
hauling, interstate transport with big trucks. Almost everyone 
agrees now that, for routes less than 250 miles, which includes 
a lot of the urban traffic you are talking about that leads to 
local air pollution, that probably can be done with batteries.
    The alternative is hydrogen fuel cells right now. And 
hydrogen fuel cells represent, you know, still--there is a 
horse race. I think that, if I had to guess, I am going to 
guess batteries are going to win, but I wouldn't go to the 
market on that yet.
    Ms. Matsui. OK, well, I am running out of time, so thank 
you very much. I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pence, for 5 
minutes.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Rush. Mr. Pence? Please unmute.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Rush. Mr. Pence, it seems as though you are muted. Mr. 
Pence, it seems as though you are muted.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Burgess. Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could go to Mr. 
Armstrong, and we will try to get Mr. Pence on.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Armstrong for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And Mr. Powell, I actually appreciated some of what you 
talked about, probably because I was the prime sponsor of the 
FAST Act legislation last session and am going to introduce it 
again. And I know Ms. Castor is going after me, and I had the 
ability to serve on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis 
with her. And one thing we heard from witnesses from all across 
the ideological spectrum is the interoperability, and the 
interoperability of our grid is reliant on infrastructure.
    And, regardless of what source of infrastructure that is, 
the permitting process, primarily in Federal areas has become 
so duplicative, burdensome, and just simply takes so long that 
it is very difficult to raise capital for that. So, if you 
could, just talk about that as part of making sure, regardless 
of which energy is getting on the grid, that we actually have 
an ability to do this.
    Because I am in North Dakota right now, and we obviously 
deal with these issues better than Texas. We know winter pretty 
well. But we have rolling blackouts as well right now, because 
of the strain on the grid, as a whole, from the Canadian border 
to the Gulf of Mexico.
    Mr. Powell. Absolutely. So thank you so much for the 
question, Congressman. Thank you for your leadership on this 
really important issue.
    You know, we can only build clean energy as fast as we can 
permit it. And it doesn't really matter what your vision of a 
clean energy future is, whether it is something that is really, 
really highly renewable and requires an enormous amount of new 
transmission, and that kind of linear infrastructure along with 
a lot of really large land area developments, like very large 
wind farms or large solar plants, or if it is a vision of the 
future that has a much more compact, clean energy vision, like 
a lot of carbon capture plants on existing fossil facilities.
    But that probably requires more pipelines running around 
the country, taking that carbon dioxide away from those power 
plants. Or, if it is a vision with a lot of hydrogen, that is 
going to require a lot of new hydrogen pipelines. Like, 
regardless, we are going to need to build a significant amount 
of new linear infrastructure in this country, thousands and 
tens of thousands of miles of this.
    I think the Princeton net-zero study that Dr. Pacala was 
very influential in setting up the meeting has demonstrated 
that, kind of regardless of which clean energy future, we are 
going to need an enormous amount of this going forward. And so 
it just cannot be the case that it takes a decade from the, you 
know, beginning of attempting to site a project to actually 
realizing steel in the ground between the NEPA reviews, the 
environmental impact statements, the traditional air and water 
permitting processes, and the local, State, and Federal 
permitting processes along the way.
    I am not suggesting that we sacrifice the environmental 
reviews or the environmental integrity of any of that, but I 
think we do need to find ways that we can do more things in 
parallel as opposed to in sequence, and that we can get to yes-
and-no answers much more quickly in these processes.
    Mr. Armstrong. Yes, and I think actually, I mean, people 
talk about pipelines, we talk about transmission lines. The 
hardest thing to permit over a Federal waterway is a highway. I 
mean, year in and year out, that is what takes longer than 
everything else.
    So, I mean, I will have plenty of time to fight with my 
colleagues about what sources of energy that are--and we will 
probably go into it in the next minute and 45 seconds. But I 
think, realistically, we have to do a better job of protecting 
the environment, but getting permitting done. Otherwise, first 
of all, private capital is going to be chased away because the 
time constraints just take too long. And secondly, it is--I 
mean, time value of money and energy are really important.
    But one of the other things I just wanted to talk about is 
when we talk about renewables versus other sources of energy, 
we don't talk about the economics of producing energy well 
enough. Because in North Dakota we do--about 29 percent of our 
grid is renewables. But over the last month, when it has been 
20 below, it has dropped under 3 percent. And, for a very windy 
State, it has been unquestionably calm.
    So coal and natural gas, between--part of it--and the other 
thing we don't talk enough about is primacy on the grid, which 
is where--one of the ways where low natural gas prices are an 
advantage against coal, but where they really have an advantage 
against coal is being able to start up and scale down, 
depending on the amount of energy. And you have seen some of 
this in Texas in the last 2 days.
    So, to oversimplify this in any way, shape, or form--but a 
coal plant or a natural gas plant has to be economically viable 
when they are at--when--in North Dakota, they are 70 percent of 
the grid because we need them when they are 97 percent of the 
grid. And we don't spend enough time talking about that.
    And I can just guarantee you, when we introduce a bill that 
somehow harms a wind subsidy in North Dakota, the reason every 
wind lobby is--from across the country flies into North Dakota 
is not because they care about the environment. It is because 
it has become incredibly lucrative. And we have done policies 
where we allow people to sell energy onto the grid for less 
than it costs us to produce. And then, when we get into these 
severe weather actions, we run into resiliency problems and we 
run into reliability problems.
    And with that I will yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, with the 
aspirational background.
    We are all jealous of you, Kathy. You are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chairman Rush. This is a very 
important and timely hearing, and I want to thank our witnesses 
today, as well.
    I am really thinking about all of the folks all across the 
State of Texas and what they are going through. So we really 
have a responsibility to work together to ensure that this kind 
of thing doesn't happen again. The problem is these climate-
fueled disasters are coming faster, and they are costing us 
more. So we have a lot of work to do together on this.
    To the witnesses, I wanted to ask you about some of the 
recommendations that we included last year in the big Select 
Committee on the Climate Crisis, our Solving the Climate Crisis 
report. They relate to resiliency in our electricity system and 
infrastructure.
    We recommended that we develop Federal resilience standards 
for electricity infrastructure, authorizing DOE to identify and 
evaluate climate-related risks to the electric grid, in 
partnership with States and local communities in the private 
sector, and build in the priorities of consumers.
    We recommended that the Department of Energy, FERC, and 
NERC work with the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group to 
develop resiliency standards so that, when we are federally 
funding these infrastructure upgrades, they have to come along 
with appropriate standards.
    We also recommended improving planning and cost allocation 
for transmission lines, something that you all have discussed a 
little bit already, and helping States harden their physical 
grid infrastructure and improve maintenance to make the grid 
more resilient.
    Now, when we are talking about the modernization and 
expansion of the grid, the macrogrid in America, I would think 
that it would be wise, if we are making those kind of Federal 
investments, that they have to be paired with these kind of 
resiliency priorities. I want to ask you all if you agree. And 
do you highlight one over the other?
    First, Dr. Pacala.
    Dr. Pacala. I can be quick. I do believe that we need 
resiliency requirements as we develop the grid. Even if we 
didn't develop the grid to be more decarbonized, we need 
resiliency measures, additional resiliency measures.
    Ms. Castor. Mr. Powell?
    Mr. Powell. Absolutely, Congresswoman. But one thing I will 
note is I think storage could play a big role in this, if we 
thought of storage as a transmission asset alongside a 
distribution asset, and we have more ability to move energy and 
time, as opposed to just in space. I think that could be a 
really powerful part of this, as well, and could increase 
resilience.
    Ms. Castor. Yes, and I think folks agree on that. And when 
we are looking at the economic recovery package, we want to do 
more on storage. I mean, my friends from the natural gas areas, 
remember, it was Federal investments that led to the expansion 
of natural gas. And now it is time to mitigate the damage that 
climate change is doing and help put the R&D into those cleaner 
sources of energy.
    Mr. Gordon, what do you think about these important 
resiliency requirements, having the Congress authorize new 
requirements directing the Federal Department of Energy to do 
so, as we expand and modernize the grid across the country?
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman Castor. I think it is a 
great idea. We are--we would be fully supportive of that.
    And just to clarify, I think you may have said that ``if 
the Federal Government is investing in a lot of the 
transmission infrastructure.'' And I think--I am not sure if 
that was the intent, but the transmission system, by and large, 
is owned by private companies today. And it is a patchwork grid 
that wasn't really designed for the future that we have to plan 
for.
    And so what we do really need to do is make sure that the 
transmission-owning utilities are working in concert with each 
other, both regionally and interregionally, to make sure that 
electrons can flow seamlessly long distances in order to make 
sure that everyone has a higher degree of resiliency in the 
grid.
    Ms. Castor. Well, I think we envisioned significant Federal 
cooperation and investment and modernization and upgrading of 
the grid, and that has got to come in partnership with private 
utilities, public utilities, and the rest. And it would seem 
that we are on the cusp now, coming out of the COVID pandemic--
hopefully, soon--and the economic turmoil that it has wrought, 
that this can be a source of hundreds of thousands of good-
paying jobs in infrastructure and construction.
    And Dr. Pacala, I think the Academies--in your report you 
focused a little bit on this. What is the potential here?
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady's time is up.
    Ms. Castor. We will take that for the record.
    Mr. Rush. All right.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you very much----
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Pence, who has returned on screen.
    Mr. Pence, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pence. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me now? Thank 
you, Chair Rush and Republican Leader Burgess, for holding this 
hearing today. And thanks to the witnesses for your insight on 
decarbonization in the U.S. energy industry.
    Like many of my colleagues on this committee, I support an 
all-of-the-above approach to our energy supply and power 
generation. Access to abundant, reliable energy sources is 
beneficial for the customer, the economy, and for our national 
security and safety, as we are, unfortunately, seeing so 
drastically in Texas in the last few days.
    I agree with my friends across the aisle that renewables 
should play an important role in the future of our energy 
supply. Indiana's sixth district is doing its part to implement 
innovative clean energy technologies.
    North Vernon, Indiana, was the first city government in the 
State to be entirely powered by solar energy. The street 
lights, buildings, traffic signals are all powered by locally 
sourced solar energy.
    Cummins Engine Company--just mentioned the over-the-road 
diesel emissions--is located in my hometown in Columbus, 
Indiana. It is an international leader in heavy-duty electric 
engines. And, in 2020 alone, Cummins won 5 Department of Energy 
awards, the most of any company, to advance production of fuel 
cell technologies. So, Doctor, I hope that one wins out.
    And, in the State of Indiana, wind energy production has 
doubled over the past decade, accounting for 6 percent of 
energy produced in Indiana. Hoosiers do not have a top-down 
Federal mandate to thank for this progress. This progress is 
attributed to improved economic costs and a free-market 
response to the growing demand for diverse energy production.
    It is in our best interest to support both the efforts to 
expand renewable energy capacity and access to fossil fuels 
like natural gas and coal. They provide robust baseload energy 
we need for a regional electric grid.
    As Mr. Camp mentions in his testimony, natural gas plays a 
critical role in local economic development, emissions 
reduction, and lower consumer utility bills. It is also a 
driver for good-paying manufacturing jobs that use natural gas 
for feedstock in the production process of plastics and 
chemicals in everyday consumer goods in the manufacturing, 
which is so important to the State of Indiana. We need a robust 
network of pipelines to extend those benefits to parts of the 
country that do not have locally sourced supplies of natural 
gas.
    Before coming to Congress, I personally shipped through 
pipelines, rail, and trucking companies. I know firsthand that 
nothing is safer for the environment and human lives than the 
pipelines that move reliable sources of energy to every corner 
of our country. If we are serious about maintaining a reliable 
energy source and competitiveness, low prices for consumers, 
then a diverse energy supply is paramount.
    Mr. Powell, running along the Ohio River in Madison, 
Indiana, the Clifty Creek Power Plant burns coal for 
electricity generation, producing enough energy to power a city 
of 1 million people. Since the plant was constructed in the 
1950s, the Clifty Creek Power Plant has invested more than $1 
billion in environmental upgrades and efficiencies.
    Congress passed several provisions in the omnibus bill 
relating to clean coal innovation, including the 45Q tax credit 
extension for carbon capture, as well as demonstration programs 
to explore alternative uses for coal. Mr. Powell, can you speak 
to the importance of these provisions, and how the Biden 
administration can approach the implementation in accordance 
with congressional intent?
    Mr. Powell. Absolutely. Thanks so much, Congressman, thank 
you for your attention to these issues, this important support 
for carbon capture technology.
    For facilities like the one you are discussing, I think the 
important thing now is, first, demonstrating that we can bring 
down the cost of coal carbon capture technology. So that is the 
first thing that DOE needs to do. Right now 45Q isn't quite 
enough to probably justify putting carbon capture on those 
facilities. We need to bring the price down a little further.
    And so the demonstration program set up at DOE will now 
authorize public-private partnerships to do more demonstrations 
on facilities like yours to capture those emissions in cost 
share with private-sector players and with private-sector 
utilities. So I think that is the first thing.
    And then, once we have brought the cost down further to 
where it is more economic, 45Q hopefully will be able to take 
over. We may need to think about further extensions of 45Q in 
the future to continue helping support that technology and that 
deployment.
    Mr. Pence. Thank you, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Pacala, you asked that you be excused at 2:45. Do you 
still need to be excused from the hearing?
    Dr. Pacala. Well, I do have a National Academies webinar 
with 3,000 people signed up that starts at 3:00, and they can 
soldier on without me if I am needed. But if not, then I am 
happy to make that gig.
    Mr. Rush. So if--we would love for you to continue as a 
witness, but you have to make the call. Do you need to be 
excused?
    Dr. Pacala. Yes, that would be best.
    Mr. Rush. Well, we thank you, Mr. Pacala, for your time. 
You have really made this hearing worthwhile, very interesting, 
and we certainly appreciate all your contributions to this 
area.
    Dr. Pacala. I want to thank you, Chairman Rush, and every 
member of the committee for your service in the Nation's 
interest. There is no more important issue today than the one 
that you are in charge of. So thank you.
    Mr. Rush. All right, very good. You are excused. And now 
the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont for 5 minutes 
for questioning.
    Mr. Welch, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, I want to say one of the best experiences I 
had in Congress was going to a coal mine in West-by-God 
Virginia with David McKinley. And Vermont is not coal country, 
but I got to tell you I really admired those hardworking coal 
miners who kept the lights on in our barns and schools for so 
long.
    And I want to say to Mr. Camp I really admire the 
hardworking folks that you are here representing. So whatever 
it is we do, there has to be enormous respect paid to people 
who have been, really, the pioneers and the hard workers in 
keeping our lights on, keeping our economy going.
    But having--there is also something that Mr.--I think Mr. 
Powell said: Disruption is happening. And many of our major 
utilities have adopted zero-emission goals. So whether it is 
market forces, whether it is business changes, whether it is 
the awareness of climate change and carbon emissions playing a 
big role in that, change is here.
    And I think the challenge for us is to come up with 
pragmatic policies that are all-of-the-above approach to 
addressing the changes that we need. But as we do it, never 
forget the people who have contributed. And we have to 
acknowledge that there is some disruption, and we have got to 
mitigate that for communities that are affected.
    One of the approaches that makes a lot of sense for me is 
energy efficiency. And Ms. Glover, I want to ask you--
congratulations on your position, I really appreciate your 
leadership, and--of the Alliance. But we have some bipartisan 
bills in this legislature, in this committee: the Main Street 
Efficiency Act, and the HOPE for HOMES legislation. Could you 
comment on, A, efficiency and, B, why those 2 pieces of 
legislation would be helpful?
    Ms. Glover. Excuse me, I didn't realize I was muted. I 
apologize. Thank you, Congressman, for your leadership and for 
that question.
    You know, the Main Street Efficiency Act is particularly 
important to us, and we really do appreciate, you know, your 
leading on that, because it does allow small businesses to have 
a place in this conversation, and they have a role that they 
can play. And, as we talk about economic recovery for our 
country and the importance of small business, we believe that 
the Main Street Efficiency Act and giving grants not only to 
small businesses and particularly those in distressed 
communities and minority-owned businesses so that they can 
better improve the efficiency of their own spaces, whether that 
is building efficiency and/or maybe even manufacturing 
processes, but at the same time supporting small businesses to 
be able to do that work is a double win.
    Additionally, we also believe that investments in homes and 
retrofits so that they are more efficient is also a double win. 
It is a win in that it allows people to save money, it allows 
us to save energy in our use on the grid and builds resilience, 
but it also can be a really big economic driver. The cost to 
enter the efficiency spaces of small business, it is a low 
barrier. It is not like other areas, other sectors of the 
industry. And so anything that we can do to not only encourage 
small businesses and residents to take advantage of these 
opportunities to participate, as well as take advantage of what 
it provides is a really good----
    Mr. Welch. That is great, thank you. Because that--it is 
local control, business control, homeowner control, community 
control, community jobs.
    Let me ask Mr. Gordon. The administration has a goal of 
clean energy by 2035. Representative Clarke and I have 
introduced a renewable energy standard which would have as a 
goal 55 percent renewable by 2030. We have heard how absolutely 
important it is for our generation folks to have some 
reliability. How would a 10-year renewable energy standard 
combined with a clean energy standard allow for certainty of 
the electrical generator community? And how would that help us 
with a clean energy economy?
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman Welch, for that 
question.
    I think, as you point out, business certainty is huge for 
major infrastructure investments. And so having a 10-year 
program, whether it is a clean energy standard or a renewable 
energy standard, gives us the certainty we need to know that 
customers are going to be buying for that period of time, at a 
minimum.
    And normally what happens, as soon as they start buying a 
little, they start buying a little bit more, because the 
economics are so positive for them and for their customers. And 
so I think just giving a little nudge to the market through 
programs like this really gets the ball moving.
    And I think, you know, what we have seen is massive 
interest, you know, over the last 5 years from, historically, 
the biggest coal utilities in the country: the American 
Electric Powers, for instance, they are going big on wind right 
now. So all it takes is a nudge. You get the policy direction 
set, you give the certainty to the investors and the developers 
because these projects take 5 to 7 years to develop, and you 
have got to get them onto the grid, which can take even more 
time and more money.
    So we need that long horizon in order to make those type of 
investments.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Schrader for 5 minutes. I don't see any 
additional Republican Members--I am sorry.
    Mr. Palmer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sitting way out 
here to your right, so it may have made me hard to see. I yield 
to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, for--may consume.
    Mr. Burgess. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and of 
course Mr. Palmer here to the right of all of us, so that is no 
great surprise.
    So Mr. Powell, you are still here. Let me ask you a 
question. I tried to ask you one earlier, and it got taken by 
another witness. But that is OK. I got a good answer, so it 
gave me something to work on. But you talked about the 45Q tax 
credit. Are you familiar with Petra Nova Coal Plant in Houston, 
and the fact that it has been closed since September because it 
could not meet the operating costs, or the operating costs 
were--exceeded any ability for it to meet those because of the 
reduction in energy prices that occurred with the COVID 
pandemic?
    So could you speak to that issue? Right now it just seems 
criminal that that plant is shuttered with the State so badly 
needing electricity. And granted, it is in the southern part of 
the State, but every little bit helps right now. But could you 
speak to that?
    Mr. Powell. Sure. Absolutely, Congressman. And it certainly 
does seem tragic at the moment that, you know, not just a coal-
fired power plant but a coal-fired power plant operating with 
very low emissions is not running, you know, at this very 
moment of kind of energy scarcity in the State.
    You know, to take a big step back on Petra Nova, I think we 
should all remember that was a demonstration project, and it 
worked as intended, so it clearly demonstrated host combustion 
carbon capture on a coal-fired power plant. [Audio 
malfunction.] It has worked very well at sequestering more than 
2 million tons, it put it safely underground into an--used it 
for--recovery.
    Overall, the economics of the project worked, even in the 
absence of [audio malfunction]. It wasn't able to capture those 
45Q benefits. It was able to capture some of the revenues from 
the enhanced oil recovery project that it was associated with. 
But, unfortunately, when, you know, the COVID pandemic hit, oil 
prices crashed and all gas prices crashed, as well, in Texas, 
and the gas-fired production is so expensive it just no longer 
made sense to run that plant.
    So you know, I think it worked very well as a technical 
demonstration. And now we need to go forward with the next 
generation of combustion capture to bring that price down a 
little bit further. And then, those would also be--45Q--it 
probably would be a lot closer to an economic operation if you 
were to, say, do a Petra Nova----
    Mr. Burgess. Right. Well, when we were working on one of 
the coronavirus response packages last summer that didn't 
actually get passed into law, I worked with Senator Cornyn here 
in Texas to get extension of the 45Q tax credit, and I also 
worked with Mr. Crenshaw to get that extended to natural gas-
generating facilities.
    But it seems to me that, having the stability of that--I 
mean, that credit is going to expire. So it makes it harder to 
plan a big capital-intensive project like that if the tax 
credit is going to evaporate. So it just seems to me--and 
again, maybe we will get a chance to revisit this with one of 
the coronavirus response things. We haven't so far had any 
ability for bipartisan input. But Mr. Cornyn and I--or Senator 
Cornyn and I--our contribution last summer was to extend this 
45Q tax credit to provide perhaps a little bit more stability 
for major projects like this.
    And I just think that is such an important part of this, 
and we can't lose sight of it. We have got the technology. We 
are doing what everyone asked us to do: produce electricity 
with coal with zero--near-zero emissions and, as you correctly 
point out, the enhanced oil field recovery on the other side of 
it. It really was a win-win-win proposition. And again, right 
now, tragically, it is shuttered and not contributing to the 
very necessary baseload of electricity in Texas.
    So just in general, and the question that I had asked 
earlier that kind of got taken up by another witness, but just 
in general, your thoughts on decarbonization, renewables, 
resiliency of the grid--in short, could you summarize that?
    Mr. Powell. Absolutely. I think--let's take the Texas 
example. I think what we have seen very clearly is that we need 
a more resilient grid with a mix of resources.
    I think there are a number of highly resilient, advanced 
technologies that could help in situations like this, and they 
could help companies' grids all over the country when they are 
going to be dealing with situations like this [audio 
malfunction] carbon capture, that is enhanced geothermal, and 
that is energy storage, so that we can take the great low-cost 
energy from wind and solar, and then we can move it around 
through time, right, because that is a more variable energy 
source. So I think technology can be a big answer in all of 
this.
    But the real key is that we need a broad portfolio, a 
really resilient mix. We don't want to have all our eggs in any 
one or a few baskets in this. We need a lot of options, 
especially because, if we are going to have different parts --
we are going to be [audio malfunction] extreme weather.
    Mr. Burgess. Great answer, I appreciate that.
    Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would--I do need to point out 
that one of the hazards of an interconnected grid is that 
problems can spread more rapidly. And we need to bear that in 
mind, as well.
    And I will yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The acting ranking member yields back. The Chair 
now recognizes Mr. Schrader for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really 
appreciate this hearing. It is certainly timely, and I agree 
with folks that this is going to be, hopefully, one of the 
signature efforts of this particular Congress, as we get, 
hopefully, on the other side of this COVID epidemic.
    And my heart goes out to the folks in Texas and that part 
of the Midwest and South that are really getting hit by this 
terrible freezing cold weather. But I will point out to 
everybody my district has also, unfortunately, been in the 
throes of a once-in-a-century ice storm in the mid-Willamette 
Valley here in Oregon, and it has put hundreds of thousands of 
folks out of power. I got my power back yesterday, 5 days 
without heat, water, you know, just the ability to do pretty 
much anything. My fireplace came in handy. But it showcases and 
headlines, I think, some of the problems that we face out here.
    Ours in the Pacific Northwest wasn't the result of frozen 
pipelines, but it was downed power lines with the trees. It 
points out, I think, we need to do a serious vegetative 
management and pursue some of the new Federal policies this 
Congress and previous Congresses have put in place over the 
last several years to effectively harden our grid, if you will, 
just by minimizing some of the power problems that we are going 
to have due to overhead power lines.
    I just would say also--I think it goes for every Member on 
this panel--I want to thank all the line crews. The efforts 
that these men and women have put in going 24/7, 18-hour 
shifts--certainly in my mid-Willamette Valley, and I am sure it 
is true down in Texas, too--that they have done everything they 
can, trying to get Oregonians and Texans back online. So I 
really want to call that out, and appreciate their work.
    I guess I question--well, a comment. I just agree with 
Congressman Welch and the work that Ms. Glover's power alliance 
is doing. I think that is critical. Energy efficiency is 
probably the least expensive, most efficient--no pun intended--
way to get reduction in carbon emissions and compliance with 
all our folks out there.
    But I was going to ask Mr. Gordon if he could talk--with 
the transmission line problems that we are having, the pipeline 
problems--could you talk a little bit about what does it mean 
to harden the grid, how do you have redundancy, what role 
putting power lines underground plays, and how economical all 
that is?
    Everyone wants to talk about building another plant or 
doing more renewable, but there is a certain amount of just 
getting the transmission redundancy, I assume, that needs to 
occur. Could you comment on that?
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman Schrader. Yes, it is 
absolutely the case. What we need to harden the grid will be 
more high-voltage transmission lines so that, if one line trips 
off or is taken out by a tree, that there is redundancy in the 
system, which obviously improves the resiliency of the grid and 
hardens the grid. So, I mean, absolutely, that is imperative.
    As you might know, there is not a lot of public support for 
new transmission lines, so it is a tough one. You know, it is 
going to be the Achilles heel of making this transition happen, 
because what really needs to happen is more of these lines in 
order to harden the grid. Burying the lines is an option in 
some cases. The costs are higher, as well. So that has to be 
taken into consideration, of course.
    So there is no one easy solution, from a cost standpoint. 
But I think the solution from a technical standpoint is fairly 
clear.
    Mr. Schrader. I appreciate that. Maybe a role of Congress 
could be to incentivize some of the landowners to allow some of 
these transmission lines to go over or under their properties.
    Mr. Powell, what is the proper balance? We talked a little 
bit about our role in the United States and other governments, 
about global--you know, globally balancing out, what is 
America's role, and how do we engage others to do their fair 
share?
    Mr. Powell. Thanks very much for the question, Congressman, 
and thanks for your leadership on the energy innovation topic, 
broadly.
    It is a delicate balance. You know, when we think about 
some of these very aggressive goals, even some of the voluntary 
goals that have been made in the United States, the net-zero 
goals, we do have to acknowledge those things are going to come 
with a cost, in all likelihood. And, you know, there may be 
near-term opportunities for cost savings, but it probably will 
mean more cost in the future. And that is why innovation is so 
important, because it can help drive down the costs of 
compliance. So hopefully we don't lose too much to American 
competitiveness and jobs during that period.
    And, of course, if we don't drive down the costs, then we 
are not going to have the things to export to the rest of the 
world that it will take so many other--you know, Nigeria, 
Indonesia, the rapidly developing world, they don't have the 
rich resources that the United States does. They are making 
their decisions about building up their economies almost 
entirely on the basis of the lowest-cost, nearest-term 
opportunities. So, unless we give them better opportunities to 
decarbonize their grids, as well, they are very unlikely to 
take them on.
    So I think it is a delicate balance, and it really 
highlights the need for innovation to drive down costs and 
improve performance.
    Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much. I hope American 
innovation and technology can contribute to that solution.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. I seem to have lost my 
visual, but can you hear me?
    Can you hear me?
    Voice. Yes, Mr. Chairman, loud and clear.
    Mr. Rush. All right, Ms. Kuster, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I wanted 
to, at the outset, insert into the record, if I could, two 
articles: the first from the Texas Tribune, ``Texas largely 
relies on natural gas for power. It wasn't ready for the 
extreme cold''; and the second, the New York Times article 
entitled ``How to Prevent the Next Texas Power Breakdown.'' So 
I would seek permission to insert those into the record.
    Mr. Rush. Hearing no objections, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Acting Ranking 
Member Burgess, for holding this important hearing today. I am 
excited to be returning to the Energy Subcommittee and 
continuing our work across the aisle to advance policies to 
tackle climate change and advance clean energy solutions.
    I believe that the Federal Government must take bold action 
to invest in clean energy to achieve net-zero carbon emissions 
because it is good for our health, it is good for the planet, 
and it will create millions of good-paying green jobs.
    As a recent National Academy of Sciences report found, the 
transition to net zero could provide quality jobs and economic 
benefits for American workers. One form of carbon-free energy 
that is ripe for expansion is hydropower. A 2016 DOE report 
outlined U.S. hydropower production could grow up to 150 
gigawatts in 2050, producing enough carbon-free energy to power 
36 million homes. We don't need to build new dams to achieve 
this goal. The Federal Energy Regulatory Energy Commission has 
already identified hundreds of dams, including 4 in my 
district, that could be safely retrofitted to generate 
hydropower.
    Mr. Gordon, my first question is for you. Would 
retrofitting, rehabilitating, and removing dams create quality 
jobs and help to decarbonize the energy system?
    Mr. Gordon. I am sorry, Congressman Kuster, can you repeat 
the question?
    Ms. Kuster. Sure. Would retrofitting, rehabilitating, and 
removing dams create quality jobs and help to decarbonize the 
energy system?
    Mr. Gordon. So our company does not operate in the hydro 
sector, so I am not sure I am qualified to answer that 
question.
    Ms. Kuster. OK. Is there anyone else on the panel that 
wants to take a crack at that? If not, I will move on.
    Mr. Powell. I would be happy to, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Kuster. Sure.
    Mr. Powell. Thank you for your attention to this issue. We 
have got an enormous potential in retrofitting nonpower dams in 
this country, literally thousands of potential opportunities 
for that. And I think there was just an important announcement 
between the National Hydro Association and American Rivers, 
where basically the conservation community and the hydropower 
community are coming together with some joint proposals about 
places where perhaps older or nonused dams could be removed and 
other nonpower dams could be powered up, and so we could have a 
real win-win on conservation and producing more clean 
electricity. I think that there is an enormous opportunity 
there.
    Ms. Kuster. Terrific. Well, I am a big fan of that 
approach, and I am a--I know well Dan Reicher, formerly of the 
Department of Energy, who was involved in that negotiation. So 
thank you for bringing it up.
    What I am interested in is, while I am a strong supporter 
of taking steps to reach net-zero emissions, I believe we 
should also pursue negative-emission technologies that remove 
carbon directly from the atmosphere. And my time is short, so I 
am going back to Mr. Gordon, but if someone else would like to 
respond, can you speak to the role that negative-emissions 
technologies have to play to help the planet achieve net-zero 
emissions?
    Mr. Gordon. Congressman Kuster, again, I am sorry, I am not 
informed on that topic----
    Ms. Kuster. All right. Anyone else want to take a stab at 
that?
    Mr. Powell. I am happy to also add, Congresswoman Kuster, 
and I apologize for the siren behind me here. But negative-
emission technologies, I think, could play an enormous role in 
this space. Most of the models of the future of decarbonized 
energy systems show that we will need to rely on, you know, 
perhaps around the world, billions of tons of this negative-
emission technology. That could take a number of forms. That 
could take the form of mechanical devices, which capture things 
directly from the atmosphere. That could take the form of 
better forestry and soil management practices, where foresters 
and farmers could be compensated for pulling this out of the 
atmosphere. It could even take the form of ocean approaches, 
where we either grow more plants in the ocean or do things to 
the ocean so that they become more of a sink for carbon 
dioxide.
    A ton of innovation is needed in this space. DOE is just 
getting started, and the broader Federal energy innovation 
apparatus is just getting started. The private sector is also 
leading the way. You have seen major commitments from Microsoft 
and Amazon and a number of other major technology producers 
that are really investing deeply in this space, as well. So I 
think it is a space with a lot of movement.
    It is very early days, and it remains very expensive. 
Currently we need to focus on bringing the cost far, far down 
so it could be a real part of the mix.
    Ms. Kuster. Great. Thank you, Mr. Powell. My time is up, 
and I will yield back. Thank you for your expertise.
    Mr. Rush. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back. The 
Chair's screen is frozen, and my time--my clock is frozen, 
also. So--but the audio is--I can hear you. The audio is 
working fine. So the Chair now recognizes Ms. Barragan for 5 
minutes.
    And Ms. Barragan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Chairman Rush, for this important 
hearing on solutions to reach a 100 percent clean-energy 
economy. We have seen the deadly cost associated with the 
fossil fuel industry through extreme weather events influenced 
by climate change. Whether it is record wildfires in California 
or a polar vortex in Texas, we cannot drill, mine, or frack our 
way out of the climate crisis.
    Instead, we need a massive investment in clean energy, 
energy efficiency, and battery storage combined with 
modernizing our grid for this century's challenges. By 
prioritizing these investments in environmental justice 
communities, we can have a transformational impact on our 
economy and our climate.
    Mr. Chair, I would like to submit for the record a February 
16, 2021 article from The New York Times entitled, ``Texas 
Blackouts Hit Minority Neighborhoods Especially Hard.''
    Mr. Rush. So ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Glover, I would like to start with you. It is critical 
for there to be racial equity in the new jobs created from our 
transition to clean energy. In California, Latinos make up 34.4 
percent of California's workforce yet only 21.8 percent of the 
energy efficiency industry. Black workers are 9.8 percent of 
the workforce yet only make up 7.3 percent of the energy 
efficiency industry. How can the energy efficiency industry do 
more to prioritize minorities for training and support to 
enable them to obtain employment in energy efficiency business?
    Ms. Glover. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question, 
and I appreciate your leadership.
    You know, through the summer the Alliance and the members 
of our coalition really started to talk very deeply about 
equity and the concerns of underrepresented communities, and 
how we could do better. And we adopted a set of principles that 
would guide us not only in our advocacy positions, but also we 
are working to support our companies and those that are part of 
our coalition.
    They are all really focused on trying to figure out how do 
they better attract people of color to their business, how do 
they reach out to them better, do a better job of that, 
identify those types of opportunities that people would be 
interested in and encourage them to participate.
    But additionally, we are looking at who our partners should 
be who are already in these communities, who can really provide 
us the kind of guidance and direction that we need. And I would 
suggest that, you know, the entire industry in some way is 
thinking about these problems and trying to figure it out. But 
we do need the help of leaders as yourself--such as yourself--
as well as others in our communities to help us do the right 
thing the right way.
    And what I mean by that is address the concerns of the 
community in a way that they see them, and also make sure that 
we are encouraging investment in those communities so that, as 
you stated, they are also getting, not just jobs--I think jobs 
and for people to be employed is a great thing--but we have 
lots of entrepreneurial minds in our communities and people who 
have the ability to grow great businesses in terms of energy 
efficiency, and we want them to be a part of this industry and 
use that talent so that we can spread the work that we do 
throughout the country----
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
    Ms. Glover [continuing]. Quite frankly.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you so much, Ms. Glover.
    Mr. Gordon, when I listen to my colleagues on the 
Republican side, they repeatedly talk about electricity prices 
being a consequence of the transition to a cleaner, healthier 
energy future. However, over the past 10 years the cost of wind 
power has dropped by 70 percent, solar power costs are down by 
90 percent, and lithium ion batteries are--for energy storage 
and electric vehicles--are down by 85 percent.
    Is the argument that clean energy is too expensive based in 
reality or outdated?
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman. I 
think that is a very good question, and you are right to state 
the facts. The cost of new wind, new solar, new battery storage 
have declined significantly over the last 10 years. And so, 
when you are comparing, you know, the building of a new gas 
plant versus a new wind plant versus a new solar plant, wind 
and solar are competitive with both of those. And if you look 
at the stats, there is not a single coal plant being built in 
the United States in the contiguous 48 right now.
    On the other hand, you have significant builds in wind and 
solar. It is because the costs have come down so much that the 
utilities who own both renewables, nuclear, coal, gas, they see 
the future is very--that is very clear to them, and it is going 
to be dominated by renewables. And so they are just making that 
move right now because of the costs.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you for that. One thing we don't 
talk enough about is the cost of the impact on health and 
negative health impacts. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. I just want to remind 
Members I am having a technology problem. My screen is frozen, 
my clock is frozen. My audio is working just fine, so I am 
going to ask Members--you know, I can't see the clock, so 
please be mindful of the fact that, when your time is up, bring 
your questions to a conclusion.
    The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. McEachin, for 5 minutes.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Rush. Mr. McEachin?
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 
Delaware, Ms. Blunt Rochester, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for 
calling this important hearing. And I want to thank the 
witnesses, not only for your testimony but for your 
perseverance.
    I hear every day from my constituents in Delaware about the 
impacts of climate change that are--that they are already 
facing, whether it is the rising sea levels that flood our 
beaches, the changing seasons impacting our farmers in 
Delaware, or the extreme heat that endangers our most 
vulnerable citizens.
    This week's extreme weather event in Texas and parts of the 
Midwest has highlighted the importance of investing in energy 
resilience. We need to work together to create a more climate-
resilient energy system. We need to be better prepared for 
future emergencies to better protect our constituents, which is 
why I introduced the Open Back Better Act last year and why I 
plan to reintroduce it in the upcoming weeks.
    As we start to rebuild our economy from the ongoing public 
health pandemic, we need to be intentional. The Open Back 
Better Act invests in retrofits to ensure that our Nation's 
critical infrastructure, such as hospitals, libraries, and 
community centers, are safer, cleaner, more energy efficient, 
and more resilient against future threats while creating good-
paying jobs and prioritizing those communities hardest hit by 
the COVID-19 pandemic. These upgrades are critical to low-
wealth communities and communities of color, which are so often 
disproportionately burdened by the impacts of public health 
emergencies and natural disasters.
    My questions are for Ms. Glover.
    First, Ms. Glover, I want to thank you and the coalition 
for all of your hard work, and also your leadership and support 
for the Open Back Better Act. As you referenced in your written 
testimony, the Open Back Better Act helps to retrofit mission-
critical buildings throughout the country. Can you please 
expand on why these efforts are so important, especially to 
low-wealth communities and communities of color?
    And how do we ensure that resiliency efforts include all 
communities?
    Ms. Glover. Sure. Thank you so much, Congresswoman, for the 
question and for your leadership on this issue.
    You know, I think, as we start to think about buildings in 
particular and the importance that they place, a lot of the 
conversation that we have had over the last 6 months around 
equity is really focused on underinvestment or noninvestment. 
And so it is really important for those communities that are 
the most disadvantaged that we start investing in them first.
    And retrofitting buildings is a great way to do that, and 
an important way to do that, one, for those communities, 
particularly when we are talking about public buildings, being 
able to save money for localities on their energy costs--and 
they can redirect those funds to other things that they have to 
take care of, is one thing that this would do.
    Secondly, as you mentioned, the opportunity for jobs is a 
big one, right? And we are talking about not just a job on one 
building, but we are talking about giving people skills that 
they can carry on to do that work in all kinds of ways. And we 
are not talking about just college education jobs, but also 
blue jobs, green jobs, however you would like to describe them. 
And we are talking about giving people skills that are going to 
allow them to sustain themselves and their family over the long 
haul.
    And thirdly, I think, is an opportunity to give a 
demonstration to the community at large about why efficiency is 
important, what it can do for you. People get to see it in ways 
that they may not--even if they can't see behind the walls, 
they see the effective impact of that work in their schools, in 
their mayor's offices, et cetera, and their hospitals.
    And so I think, you know, for all of those reasons, this 
work is critically important, and we have an opportunity to do 
it now. And if we are going to transition, we need to take care 
of these communities first, and we need to do it now.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Excellent. Can you also tell us how 
Congress can help alleviate any real or even perceived risks 
for businesses and industries as we accelerate transition to a 
clean energy economy?
    Ms. Glover. I think the--what Congress can do is to think 
about what businesses are really needing now and address those 
needs. And that means hearing from people.
    A lot of what we learned with how we were trying to help 
small business, particularly out of the pandemic, what we 
learned sometimes is that the rush to put money out there 
sometimes doesn't hit the people that you want. And so I 
appreciate all of your deliberative efforts to make sure that 
what you are putting out into the market in terms of funding is 
very specific and is going to hit the communities and 
intended--that you intend.
    And I just think that, in terms of energy efficiency, as we 
said, 99 percent of the energy efficiency job--99 percent of 
the jobs--well, no, all the jobs happen in 99 percent of the 
counties across this country. That means we are all impacted by 
it, and we should do something with that.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, and I yield back 
the balance of my time. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the panel, and 
also the Members on the committee for the outstanding 
discussion today. It was a broad view of what the discussion is 
going to be for the next year, number of years.
    The energy industry has changed significantly in the last 
decade, as we all know. Electricity from coal has declined, our 
Nation has become energy independent, and renewable energy 
technologies have put our Nation on the path to continued 
carbon emission restrictions--reductions, I am sorry.
    My district is facing the brunt of the transition away from 
coal. As major plants continue to close, workers are laid off, 
and local economies are hurt. It is essential that new Federal 
policies provide equality and opportunity for rural communities 
that are too often left behind. As the Biden administration 
pursues its robust climate agenda, I look forward to putting 
forward bipartisan climate proposals that support innovation 
and energy security.
    I will soon be introducing comprehensive legislation, the 
New Promise Act, to put impacted coal communities in the 
driver's seat, with economic development support for their 
economies and workers, mitigate the tax revenue losses, major 
plant closures that cost those--cause local economies to have 
impact, empowers workers, and more, including job training.
    Dr. Powell--or Mr. Powell, I am sorry--I appreciate your 
testimony highlighting the need for pragmatic policies to 
support impacted communities and workers in the energy 
transition. Part of my legislation will authorize grant funding 
for communities to respond and repurpose coal-fired facilities 
for new energy production, manufacturing, and other proposal 
purposes. Could you comment on how this and other policy 
solutions could reduce the strain on assets and create real 
employment?
    Mr. Powell. Thank you so much, Congressman. Thank you for 
your support of USE IT Act and so much other legislation that 
has tried to bring forward carbon capture and these other 
important technologies. Thank you for the update in title, as 
well. I didn't get quite that far, but I will take it here.
    You know, I think that policy that tries to take advantage 
again of the existing infrastructure, as we discussed with 
Congressman Armstrong, has a lot of real merit. I mean, it is 
an absolute shame that units like the Navajo Generating Station 
that have all of the interconnects, probably a lot of boilers 
and other potential things that could be put back to use, 
aren't being taken advantage of right now.
    I would say the highest and best use for facilities like 
that are as demonstration sites for carbon capture technology. 
So, you know, continuing the existing use of those sites and 
continuing the existing use of the fossil fuel assets, we know 
we need to crack that technology if we are going to resolve 
global emissions. We know we need to demonstrate that 
somewhere. Why shouldn't we prioritize disadvantaged 
communities?
    And if it is not carbon capture technology, I do think that 
there is a lot of other things that could be done with those 
units and assets. For example, advanced nuclear technologies 
might be one thing that you could put into repower an existing 
fossil generating plant like that. Low-carbon hydrogen also 
might be something that you could bring in, whether that is 
produced from fossil fuels or carbon capture or produced from 
renewable resources, it might be something that you could bring 
in to revitalize those facilities and reuse those assets.
    So I think that prioritizing communities that are facing 
this transition and prioritizing using those existing assets is 
the way to do this that both has the least impact on 
communities and potentially is the most cost-effective way to 
do it, because you are using the existing assets.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Powell.
    Mr. Gordon, a recent report stated that utility-scale 
energy storage installations will exceed 10 gigawatts by 2021. 
I was proud to see my legislation signed into law last year, 
which the committee voted for also, which will provide 
technical assistance, identify barriers and financial resources 
from DOE to utilities serving rural communities.
    Could you discuss the importance of new energy storage 
technology being considered with transmission resource 
planning? Thank you.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Congressman. Yes. And, in fact, in 
your own district we have over 1,000 megawatts of combined 
solar and energy storage projects in development. So we are 
working with utilities in the state to address, you know, the--
their resource adequacy needs after they replace or decide not 
to build new fossil generation. So we are already in your 
district working right now to build significant amounts of 
projects.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you very much. And I yield.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. And with that, this 
concludes the witness questions-and-answers phase of the 
subcommittee.
    And I certainly want to thank each of witnesses for your 
participation in today's hearing. You have made this hearing a 
very, very meaningful and successful hearing. I want to also 
thank all the Members for your fine questions that you asked of 
the witnesses, and the witnesses for your answering these 
questions.
    So, again, I want to thank our witnesses for your 
participation, and the witnesses are excused.
    I want to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, 
that they have 10 business days to submit additional questions 
for the record to be answered by the witnesses who have 
appeared. I ask each witness to respond promptly to any such 
question that you may receive.
    And now I have a unanimous consent request to enter into 
the record the following documents. And the staff has agreed 
that, due to the high volume of documents for the record, the 
minority and the majority staff have come to an agreement on 
the completeness of this list. And I will ask now that we enter 
these records and these documents into the record, rather, en 
bloc.
    And without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the 
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ A Department of Energy report submitted for the record has been 
retained in committee files and is available at https://docs.house.gov/
meetings/IF/IF03/20210218/111210/HHRG-117-IF03-20210218-SD014.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rush. At this time, the subcommittee stands----
    Mr. Burgess. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Wait, this is 
Burgess. Would you yield for another unanimous consent request?
    Mr. Rush. Oh, yes. I yield to Mr. Burgess.
    Mr. Burgess. I just wanted to ask unanimous consent that an 
article from E&E News discussing the Petra Nova plant that I 
talked about in Houston from September of 2020--I will have my 
staff get that to you, and I would ask unanimous consent to 
include that in the documents in the record, as well.
    Mr. Rush. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Rush. We will now--and without objection now, the 
subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                                 [all]