U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

36–849 WASHINGTON : 2019

SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS: DRAWING DOWN 

CARBON AND BUILDING UP THE AMERICAN 

ECONOMY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE 

CLIMATE CRISIS 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 30, 2019 

Serial No. 116–3 

( 

www.govinfo.gov 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida, Chair 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

A. DONALD MCEACHIN, Virginia 

MIKE LEVIN, California 

SEAN CASTEN, Illinois 

JOE NEGUSE, Colorado 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana, Ranking 

Member 

MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BUDDY CARTER, Georgia 

CAROL MILLER, West Virginia 

KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota 

ANA UNRUH COHEN, Majority Staff Director 

climatecrisis.house.gov 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Page 

Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

and Chair, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Garrett Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES

Diana Liverman, Regents Professor of Geography and Development, University of Arizona 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 6 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 8 

Christopher Guith, Acting President and CEO, US Chamber of Commerce, 

Global Energy Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 19 

David Foster, Distinguished Associate, Energy Futures Initiative Activities 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 28 

Hal Harvey, CEO, Energy Innovation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 33 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 35 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Article from the Climate Policy Initiative Report, submitted for the record 

by Mr. Casten ....................................................................................................... 58 

Graphic from Lazards Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis, submitted for the 

record by Mr. Graves ........................................................................................... 97 

APPENDIX

Questions from Hon. Kathy Castor for Diana Liverman ..................................... 102 

Questions from Hon. Garrett Graves for Christopher Guith ............................... 106 

Questions from Hon. Kathy Castor for David Foster ........................................... 109 

Questions from Hon. Kathy Castor for Hal Harvey ............................................. 112 

Questions from Hon. Ben Ray Luja ́n for Hal Harvey ........................................... 117 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
(1) 

SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS: DRAWING 

DOWN CARBON AND BUILDING UP THE 

AMERICAN ECONOMY 

TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2019 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

2247 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Kathy Castor [chairwoman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Castor, Bonamici, Huffman, McEachin, 

Levin, Casten, Neguse, Graves, Griffith, Palmer, Carter, Miller, 

and Armstrong. 

Ms. CASTOR. Good morning. Welcome to the April 30, 2019 meeting of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. The committee 

will come to order. And without objection, the chair is authorized 

to declare a recess of the committee at any time. 

Today, we will set the table for the select committee’s work on 

the biggest challenge before us: how to decarbonize the economy, 

in accordance with climate science, while creating family-sustaining jobs and building a more equitable society. 

For the benefit of the witnesses, I want to note that members 

will be coming in and out of the hearing, Mr. Luja ́n is with the 

Speaker, meeting with the President about infrastructure, and several members are chairing, or trying to fit in multiple hearings. I 

recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

This is the first of many select committee hearings that is focused on solutions to the climate crisis. The need for solutions is 

increasingly urgent. The first major warning Congress received 

about the impending climate crisis was in 1988, but the Congress 

didn’t act then. Today, we know that oil companies’ own scientists 

warned them about climate change too. But instead of action, executives chose to tell Congress and the American people to ignore 

the scientists and that we could afford to wait. 

Well now, the climate science is too unequivocal to deny. What 

is clear from the science and what diverse voices, including many 

young people across America are telling us every day is that if Congress continues to delay, we lose. If Congress chooses the status 

quo, we lose. In fact, scientists have told us that the world needs 

to hit net zero carbon emissions by 2050 to avoid the worst consequences of the climate crisis. Getting there means cutting greenhouse gas pollution 45 percent below 2010 levels by 2030. To get 

there, and to give ourselves a chance of avoiding the most catastrophic consequences of climate change, we have to cut carbon pollution smartly, and soon. Taking action now gives us the best opVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:32 Aug 15, 2019 Jkt 036849 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A849.XXX A849

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
2 

portunity to transition to a clean energy economy, efficiently and 

equitably. 

We still have time to solve the climate crisis, because we have 

made some good choices. Raising fuel economy standards, supporting wind and solar jobs, investing in research and development, 

that is coming to fruition now. America chose to lead the world in 

the Paris Climate Agreement, an agreement vital to the clean energy jobs and innovations underway in America right now. But 

every time Congress and the administration choose delay, American families and businesses are asked to pay a higher price, 

whether it is through climate catastrophes, extreme heat, dirtier 

air, or higher electric bills. But as daunting as the climate crisis 

is, we can make choices and rise to the challenge. 

Many businesses and communities across America have been 

leading the way. More than 3 million Americans work in the clean 

energy economy, existing energy efficiency standards will save consumers and businesses $2 trillion on utility bills by 2030, and fuel 

economy standards will save the average household another $2,800 

a year at the pump. 

Still, there is no substitute for bold Federal policy initiatives that 

meet the scale of the challenge we face. When we choose clear policies with clear goals, businesses innovate; they reduce cost, they 

put clean technology to work. 

Our witnesses today will help us examine and prioritize our policy choices. We are going to look at infrastructure, at deploying 

more wind and solar, at electrifying home heating and transportation, at cutting the most powerful climate pollutants and more. 

We are also going to look at funding research and development, 

and establishing public private partnerships that move technology 

from the lab to the market. We are going to look at capturing and 

storing carbon and pulling it out of the atmosphere. But we have 

to be clear: Technological breakthroughs are not guaranteed. 

Choosing to invest in innovation doesn’t give us an excuse to choose 

the status quo elsewhere. At the end of the day, technology is just 

a tool. It is people who will solve the climate crisis. 

The clean energy economy employs millions of people, and we 

can choose policies that will make those jobs family-sustaining jobs. 

That includes elevating transition for workers in the fossil fuel industry. They deserve a clean energy economy that delivers for them 

in their communities. We need good and patriotic policies for them, 

too, and we need climate solutions that work. We have to pursue 

many options to meet our goals by 2030 and 2050. The one option 

we don’t have anymore is delay. We must choose climate action 

now. 

And at this time, I will yield to my friend and colleague, the 

ranking member, Mr. Graves, for an opening statement. 

Opening Statement (As Prepared for Delivery) 

Rep. Kathy Castor (D–FL) 

Chair, U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis 

Solving the Climate Crisis: Drawing Down Carbon and Building Up the 

American Economy 

April 30, 2019 

This is the first of many Select Committee hearings that is focused on solutions 

to the climate crisis. The need for solutions is increasingly urgent. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
3 

The first major warning Congress received about the impending climate crisis was 

in 1988. But the Congress didn’t act then. Today we know that oil companies’ own 

scientists warned them about climate change, too. But instead of action, executives 

chose to tell Congress and the American people to ignore the scientists . . . and that 

we could afford to wait. 

Now the scientific consensus is too unequivocal to deny. What is clear from the 

science and what diverse voices, including young people across America, are telling 

us every day is that if Congress continues to delay, we lose. If Congress chooses the 

status quo, we lose. 

In fact, scientists have told us that the world needs to hit net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 to avoid the worst consequences of the climate crisis. Getting there 

means cutting greenhouse gas pollution 45 percent below 2010 levels by 2030. 

To get there—and to give ourselves a chance of avoiding the most catastrophic 

consequences of climate change—we have to cut carbon pollution smartly and soon. 

Taking action now gives us the best opportunity to transition to a clean energy economy efficiently and equitably. 

We still have time to solve the climate crisis because we’ve made some good 

choices: raising fuel economy standards, supporting wind and solar jobs, and investing in research and development that is coming to fruition now. America chose to 

lead the world in the Paris Climate Agreement, an agreement vital to the clean energy jobs and innovations underway across America now. 

But every time Congress and the administration choose delay, American families 

and business are asked to pay a higher price whether it’s through climate catastrophes, extreme heat, dirtier air or higher electric bills. 

But as daunting as the climate crisis is, we can make choices and rise to the challenge. 

Many businesses and communities across America have been leading the way. 

More than 3 million Americans work in the clean energy economy. Existing energy 

efficiency standards will save consumers and businesses $2 trillion on utility bills 

by 2030. And fuel economy standards will save the average household another 

$2,800 a year at the pump. Still, there is no substitute for bold federal policy initiatives that meet the scale of the challenge we face. 

When we choose clear policies with clear goals, businesses innovate. They reduce 

costs. They put clean technology to work. 

Our witnesses today will help us examine and prioritize our policy choices. We’re 

going to look at infrastructure, at deploying more wind and solar, at electrifying 

home heating and transportation, at cutting the most powerful climate pollutants 

and more. 

We’re also going to look at funding research and development and establishing 

public-private partnerships that move technology from the lab to the market. We 

are going to look at capturing and storing carbon and pulling it out of the atmosphere. 

But we have to be clear: technological breakthroughs are not guaranteed. Choosing to invest in innovation doesn’t give us an excuse to choose the status quo elsewhere. 

At the end of the day, technology is just a tool. It’s people who will solve the climate crisis. 

The clean energy economy employs millions of people and we can choose policies 

that will make those jobs family-sustaining jobs. 

That includes elevating transition for workers in the fossil fuel industry. They deserve a clean energy economy that delivers for them, in their communities. We need 

good and patriotic policies for them, too. 

And we need climate solutions that work for people who are on the front lines 

of the climate crisis. That means putting an end to environmental racism and making sure the jobs at the heart of the clean energy economy are accessible to everyone. 

We have to pursue many options to meet our goals by 2030 and 2050. The one 

option we don’t have any more is delay. We must choose climate action now. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee. I hope everybody had a fantastic 

Easter, and welcome back. 

Witnesses, I want to thank you all for being here. I apologize, I 

didn’t come tell you hello this morning, but thank you all for submitting testimony. I did have a chance to go through all your testimony, and I appreciate you making the effort to be here today. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
4 

Madam Chair, first of all, I want to reiterate what I have talked 

about in the past: Climate change is real, humans are having a 

contribution to it. And the congressional districts, like the one that 

I represent, that Congressman Carter represents, the effects of sea 

rise and other challenges, are having real impacts on our communities today. 

I think that what we have to do moving forward is be very 

thoughtful, be responsive, and make sure we are bringing people 

to the table that actually have experience working in these fields, 

as opposed to folks setting targets, objectives, and goals that lack 

any degree of science or reality. Importantly, what we have to do 

is we have to very carefully think about some of these multilateral 

agreements like Paris, and look at the cumulative effect of them 

and determine whether or not these truly will provide a global benefit, a global and environmental benefit, or have adverse consequences. 

For example, Madam Chair, I think it is important to note that 

you can look at what the European Climate Action Network determined. They determined that all European countries are currently 

not, they are not on a trajectory to actually hit their Paris Accord 

targets, that they would have to triple their efforts today in order 

to come into compliance with those targets, and that their targets, 

to begin with, are insufficient. 

So let me say that again, the European Union nations are not 

hitting their targets; they are not on a trajectory to hit their targets, that they would have to triple their efforts and that their targets, to begin with, were insufficient. 

Something else that is really important for us to think about, 

and one of the biggest flaws in the Paris Accord is the fact that you 

have China that doesn’t even have to reduce emissions, doesn’t 

even have to reduce emissions for several years, and is already 

more than offsetting the impact of emission reductions in the 

United States. 

Now, I also think that it is important to make note of another 

really important fact: The IEA, the International Energy Agency, 

in their recent global energy and CO2 status report, I want to read 

a quote from it, because we can sit here and continue demonizing 

the United States, or we can talk facts. In their report they say: 

In the United States, emission reductions seen in 2017 were reversed. Our emissions reductions were reversed with an increase of 

3.1 percent of CO2 emissions in 2018. You have seen lots of reporting on that. So folks were looking myopically in 2017 and 2018. 

Let’s actually look even farther back. Despite this increase, emissions in the United States remained around their 1990 levels, 14 

percent at 800 metric tons of CO2 below the peak in 2000. Now, 

here is the kicker statement: This is the largest absolute decline 

among all countries since 2000. We have got to stop this ridiculousness of beating up on the United States. We have got to recognize 

that we are actually doing extraordinary things without mandates 

requirements that we are doing—experiencing extraordinary reductions in the United States. We have got to stop these utopian concepts like Green New Deal and other things that lack any degree 

of reality, that lack any input from actual experts in these fields. 

We have got to realize that the Paris Accord what the China, India 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
5 

developing country targets. Calling China a developing country is 

fascinating to me, using entirely different metrics on how they are 

reducing emissions. All this is doing is resulting in a net adverse 

impact to our global environment, while undermining the competition, or the competitiveness of the U.S. workforce and the U.S. 

economy. 

Madam Chair, I look forward to working with you, to build upon 

some of the successes, and also, learning from some of the failures 

of previous administrations to try and reduce emissions, particularly looking at the impacts of Ms. Miller’s district, looking at the 

impacts of Mr. Griffith’s district, of some of these flawed policies, 

and moving forward in a direction like we are seeing in Louisiana, 

where we are exporting natural gas to 35 countries today, and resulting in lower emissions. 

Mr. Foster, I want to particularly thank you for your thoughtful 

testimony. I think that you have come across very balanced and 

being very realistic. I enjoyed reading your testimony, I thought it 

was very good; Mr. Guith, you as well. I want to thank you all for 

just being thoughtful and realistic in your testimony. We often 

have people come in here that just throw out these things that 

aren’t based. And I am not beating up on you all in anyway, but 

you had a very balanced and thoughtful realistic approach in your 

testimony, and I do appreciate you being here. 

I am over time, so I am going to go ahead and shut up, but I 

want to thank you all again. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you very much to the ranking member. The 

United States of America has been a world leader and we should 

keep it that way. 

Now I want to welcome our witnesses. First, we have Dr. Diana 

Liverman, who is a Professor of Geography at the University of Arizona. Dr. Liverman served as a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report on limiting warming to 

1.5 degrees Celsius. Her research focuses on how climate change 

affects people, including historically disempowered groups, and how 

society can adapt to climate change. 

Mr. Hal Harvey, here at the end, is CEO of Energy Innovation, 

an energy and environmental policy firm. Harvey founded the Energy Foundation, and has served on Federal energy panels under 

the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations. In 2018, 

he received the United Nations’ Clean Air and Climate Change 

Award, and he is the author of two books on energy and climate. 

Mr. David Foster is a distinguished associate with the Energy 

Futures Initiative, a think tank started by energy security former 

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. Foster served as a senior adviser 

to Secretary Moniz at the Department of Energy, and was the 

founding executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance, a partnership between unions and environmental organizations. From 1990 

to 2006, Foster was director of the U.S. steelworkers district 11, a 

13-State region based in Minneapolis, welcome. 

And Mr. Christopher Guith is acting president and CEO of the 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute. Previously, 

Guith had served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the George 

W. Bush administration, and worked in the offices of Representatives Bob Barr and Tim Murphy. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
6 

Without objection, the witnesses’ written statements will be 

made part of the record. With that, we will go to Dr. Liverman, 

then to Mr. Guith, and then go down the table this way. So without 

objection, the witnesses’ written statements will be part of the 

record. Dr. Liverman, you are now recognized to give a 5 minute 

presentation on your testimony. Thank you. 

STATEMENTS OF DR. DIANA LIVERMAN, REGENTS PROFESSOR 

OF GEOGRAPHY AND DEVELOPMENT, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA; HAL HARVEY, CEO, ENERGY INNOVATION; DAVID FOSTER, DISTINGUISHED ASSOCIATE, ENERGY FUTURES INITIATIVE; AND CHRISTOPHER GUITH, ACTING PRESIDENT AND 

CEO, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, GLOBAL ENERGY INSTITUTE 

STATEMENT OF DIANA LIVERMAN 

Dr. LIVERMAN. Thank you, Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and distinguished members of the committee. Good 

morning and thank you for the invitation to give testimony at today’s hearing. 

My name is Diana Liverman. I am a professor at the University 

of Arizona, where we are proud to host federally funded centers for 

the climate assessment for the southwest with NOAA, and the Department of the Interior Regional Climate Science Center. We also 

have a Center for Climate Adaptation, Science, and Solutions, that 

made many contributions to the U.S. National Climate Assessments. 

I studied climate change and its impacts for 40 years. I wrote my 

Ph.D. on climate change and food security at UCLA and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado. I worked for 

the University of Wisconsin, Penn State, and Oxford University. 

And although I have been a U.S. citizen for 30 years, I have retained my British accent because students in my classes apparently 

are finding it more interesting and more convincing. 

You invited me to speak about the recent special report of IPCC 

on global warming of 1.5 Celsius, requested by countries as part of 

the decision to adopt the Paris Agreement. I was a lead author for 

chapter 5 of the main report, nominated by the U.S. Government, 

and I also contributed substantially to the summary for policymakers. We released the report written by 91 authors from 40 

countries in October 2018. We assessed more than 6,000 scientific 

studies, and received over 40,000 comments from governments, scientists and other expert reviewers that helped us improve the report. 

What did the report conclude? My written testimony provides 

much more detail, but let me summarize some of the key messages: 

First, the Earth is already warmed on average by 1 degree Celsius, 

that is about 1.8 Fahrenheit, even more over land and towards the 

poles. And we are already seeing impacts and losses from the 

warming. In the U.S., the warming has been greatest in Alaska, 

but also in the southwest where I live, where the annual average 

temperature has increased since 1901, with parts in southern California and Arizona warming by more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
7 

Warming has led to lower flows on the Colorado, increased the 

risk of wildfires across the west. It is altering our ecosystems, and 

stressing the electrical grid and agriculture. It has already increased the risk of species extinction, shifted agricultural zones, 

and affected human health. Tucson, where I live, now has 25 more 

days above 100 degrees Fahrenheit than it did in 1970. This heat 

has especially affected our most vulnerable citizens, the poor, the 

elderly, children, as well as tribal members, people of color and 

folks who work outdoors. Many people can’t afford the increased air 

conditioning and water costs. 

Secondly, every bit of warming matters. The IPCC found significant differences in climate and impacts between 1.5 Celsius and 2 

Celsius, that is 2.7 and 3.6 Fahrenheit. For example, sea level rise 

by 2100 would be 6 inches more at 2 degrees with added risks if 

ice sheets become more unstable. Even a few inches of sea level 

rise increases the risks of coastal flooding, salt water intrusion, and 

damage to infrastructure. 

The loss of habitat for many insects, plants and animals doubles, 

even with that extra half degree. Fire risk is higher, and fisheries 

are more disturbed. At 1.5 degrees Celsius, we lose about 70 percent of tropical corals, at 2 degrees they disappear. Poverty increases by several hundred million, and in many regions, water 

stress and heat wave deaths double, agricultural production declines, and diseases can increase. 

My third point is that we can reduce losses now, and at 1.5 degrees Celsius, if we focus on adapting to ongoing warming. Limiting warming to 1.5 Celsius makes that adaptation easier and less 

costly. U.S. communities and businesses are already making costly 

adaptations to cope with observed warming. 

The University of Arizona is working with stakeholders across 

the southwest, water managers, conservation scientists, farmers 

and communities to develop and implement adaptation solutions. 

Fourth, limiting warming to 1.5 is possible. The world is not on 

track if we want to limit warming to 1.5. The IPCC concluded that 

the voluntary commitments pledged so far under the Paris Agreement still take us to 3 degrees. But there is a chance to stay under 

1.5, if we cut emissions in half by 2030, and reach net zero emissions by 2050. 

The U.S. can make important contributions to the rapid and farreaching transitions in energy, land, urban infrastructure, and industrial systems that could help limit warming to 1.5. Delaying 

emission reductions could be very costly. If we choose to delay, we 

may lose the chance to stay under 1.5 degrees Celsius, or we will 

have to make deeper and more expensive cuts in emissions, rely on 

untested technologies, experience greater losses, or adapt to higher 

temperatures. Halving emissions by 2030, starting now, sets us on 

the path to success. The world will not end if we don’t make these 

emission cuts by 2030, but that world will be much harder for us 

to live in. Thank you. 

[The statement of Dr. Liverman follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
8 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 36849C.001
9 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 36849C.002
10 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 36849C.003
11 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 36849C.004
12 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 36849C.005
13 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 36849C.006
14 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 36849C.007
15 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 36849C.008
16 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Guith, you are now recognized to give a 5-minute presentation on your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GUITH 

Mr. GUITH. Thank you. 

Good Morning, Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves 

and members of the committee. The U.S. Chamber appreciates the 

opportunity to testify today on the important role of technology and 

innovation in addressing climate change. Global climate change is 

one of the most complex and far-reaching issues facing governments in the business community. The Chamber recognizes the climate is changing, humans are contributing to these changes, and 

these changes pose risks. The question for business and policymakers is how best to manage these risks, capture opportunities, 

and maintain our global economic leadership. But inaction is not 

an option. The Chamber believes there is much common ground on 

which all sides of this discussion could come together to craft a 

practical, flexible, predictable, and durable approach to climate 

change that acknowledges the cost of action and inaction and the 

competitiveness of the U.S. economy. Because the business community will be integral to developing and providing cost effective solutions and building resilient infrastructure, it will continue to be at 

the table. 

The Chamber believes that technology and innovation are integral to managing climate risks and reducing emissions across the 

U.S. as well as the globe. Instead of regulating our way to lower 

emissions, a realistic, effective and lasting climate policy should 

focus on innovating our way to technological solutions. Breakthroughs and commercially viable technology are necessary to enable significant cuts in emissions without harming economic 

growth or competitiveness of energy intensive and trade exposed 

industries. 

Existing technologies have started us on the path, but they are 

not capable of significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions on 

a global scale at an acceptable cost. New, and in some cases, revolutionary technologies, will have to be developed and adopted commercially, along with the infrastructure to support them. 

Some of these technologies may never reach viability, but that 

does not mean we shirk the duty of trying to develop them. A technology neutral, solutions-focused climate policy is best positioned to 

stand the test of time and deliver cost effective, achievable, and 

meaningful greenhouse gas reductions. 

In the meantime, we should continue to develop our domestic energy resources which provide our businesses a critical operating advantage in today’s intensely competitive global economy. We should 

work to preserve that advantage, recognizing that disproportionate 

international commitments could cause American industrial capacity to move to other countries through carbon leakage. 

A policy that promotes continued economic growth and environmental progress through sustained focus on technology development where what we at the Chamber call the cleaner, stronger approach, is much more popular with the voting public compared to 

an approach centered on expanding government regulation. Last 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
17 

month, we commissioned a national poll that found 79 percent of 

voters agreed that the best way to address climate change is 

through investment, and innovation, and technology, which was a 

24-point advantage over increased government regulation. Additionally, voters prefer a cleaner, stronger focus to a Green New 

Deal approach by more than three to one. 

And finally, more than 64 percent of voters would spend no more than $10 a month to address climate change. These results underpin the Chamber’s efforts to promote bipartisan Federal policies 

and investments that spur technologies that can reduce environmental impact and compete on price and reliability. 

It will largely be up to the business community to develop, finance, build, and operate the solutions needed to power economic 

growth worldwide, while mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. 

Thousands of businesses already have made emissions commitments and are taking action to reduce emissions in their own operations and along their value chains. To draw attention to what the 

energy industry is doing, last summer, we launched a new initiative to highlight that the energy industry has been one of, if not 

the most innovative industries, over the last decade. Our program, 

called Energy Innovates, highlights specific innovative projects and 

technologies, as well as the forward thinkers, engineers, and manufacturers responsible for further development. 

This summer, the Chamber is hosting an energy innovation summit to help policymakers here in Washington better conceptualize 

the exciting development happening across the country. 

Climate change is a global challenge, and U.S. technological leadership will be vital in addressing developing country emission 

trends. Virtually, all future greenhouse gas emission growth is expected to come from developing countries. Much of these increases 

are related to a sharp increase in coal-fired electricity generation 

expected to be built there. As such, technology and innovation will 

be even more important in addressing developing country emission 

trends. 

Make no mistake, the developing world’s desire for greater energy access is not an argument for inaction. As we stated, inaction 

is not an option. However, failure to recognize the global nature of 

climate change leads to a solution set that is ineffective. Advanced 

technologies that compete with traditional fuels on cost, reliability 

and scalability can reconcile the sometimes competing quest for energy access and desire for emissions reductions. 

Technology supported by sound policy will be essential to tackling the challenges and capitalizing on the opportunities presented 

by climate change. The Chamber will continue to support an accelerated program to improve performance, lower the cost, and increase scalability of energy technologies. There are a number of 

near-term legislative actions on which there is broad consensus, 

such as technology and innovation that the Chamber supports, and 

on which Congress could act. 

I listed several in my written testimony, and we encourage all of 

you to cosponsor these bills. America’s business community is 

ready, willing and able to continue to provide the solutions to reduce emissions while growing the economy. With the sensible policy environment that plays to America’s strengths and business 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
18 

leadership, we can continue making our economy cleaner and 

stronger. An approach focusing on solutions offers a practical path 

forward that makes good sense and good business sense. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Guith follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
19 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 36849C.009
20 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 36849C.010
21 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 36849C.011
22 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 36849C.012
23 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 36849C.013
24 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 36849C.014
25 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 36849C.015
26 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 36849C.016
27 

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Foster, you are new recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID FOSTER 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Castor, 

Ranking Member Graves, and Hal Harvey for turning the mic on. 

I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the Energy Futures Initiative to speak to the important issue of the energy and energy efficiency workforces. Twelve years ago, in 2007, I testified to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. At 

that time, I stated one of the most famous American industrialists 

of the 20th century, Henry J. Kaiser, once observed, quote, ‘‘Problems are just opportunities in work clothes.’’ While 12 years later, 

I am pleased to report that millions of Americans have put on their 

work clothes and got about the business of solving climate change. 

Today, of the 6.7 million Americans who work in the energy and 

energy efficiency industries, over 3.5 million, more than 50 percent, 

are contributing to a lower emissions economy. 350,000 of them do 

this in the wind and solar energy industries; another 63,000 in nuclear power plants; 66,000 in hydro; 70,000 in low emissions, advanced natural gas generating plants; and thousands of others in 

geothermal, combined heat and power, battery storage, and many 

other technologies including several hundred at the first coal-fired 

power plant retrofitted with carbon capture technology at the Petra 

Nova generating station, just south of Houston, Texas. 

If it is done right, with the interest of America’s middle class and 

working families at heart, there will be a place at the table, a job, 

and a paycheck, for every American while we solve the climate crisis. But we do have to do it right. Most of the Americans whose 

jobs are reducing greenhouse gas emissions today are working with 

energy efficiency technologies. In fact, almost 2.35 million people 

work in energy efficiency in the United States, retrofitting our 

buildings, installing LED lighting systems, and manufacturing 

high efficiency HVAC systems and hundreds of other ENERGY 

STAR certified products. 

In transportation, almost 254,000 Americans now work manufacturing hybrids, all electrics, and plug-in hybrids, while another 

486,000 work in the motor vehicles component parts industry, specifically on those products that make our automotive fuel consumption more efficient. This is how we solve climate change, by doing 

the hard work every day and getting a paycheck from construction 

work, factory jobs, for mining critical minerals like copper, iron ore 

and palladium and designing, financing, and permitting the systems and products that create our low carbon economy. 

So what are some of the effective job strategies for dealing with 

the disparities that are inevitable in the transition to a low carbon 

economy? First, we need to embrace an all-of-the-above flexible 

strategy towards climate solutions. There is no silver bullet that 

can guide our economy to a low carbon endpoint guaranteeing CO2

reduction and a decent job for every American. But we can invest 

in a range of technologies and options that preserve flexibility and 

encourage participation in every form of energy and in every community during the next decade. From renewables and battery storage in California, to carbon capture and sequestration in Appalachia, to small modular reactors in Idaho. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
28 

Second, we need to accelerate our investments in energy efficiency with a special priority on those regions of the country negatively impacted by declining use of fossil fuels. The third strategy 

is to invest in energy infrastructure. The existing DOE loan program office, with $39 billion of existing loan authority, could be 

particularly helpful in jump-starting such an initiative. 

Fourth, we need to focus on the manufacturing supply chains 

that our new energy technologies are creating. The ENERGY STAR 

brand promoted by the U.S. EPA is one of the strongest product 

marketing brands in the world, recognized as the gold standard for 

efficiency, using a new ENERGY STAR, Made in America procurement policy to support the manufacturer of best in class products 

would be one of best paths forward to a resurgence in American 

manufacturing. Carbon performance should be a universal procurement standard for government spending in the U.S., similar to 

what California recently did with its Buy Clean standard. 

Finally, we need to address the workforce development crisis 

across all energy technologies, but particularly in energy efficiency. 

In 2017, energy efficiency construction employers have projected 

hiring at 10.6 percent for over 120,000 new jobs. But the reality of 

hiring difficulty got in the way, and they added only 21,000 jobs 

in 2018. This was a failure of our workforce development system 

with very real-world consequences. From the environmental perspective, millions of tons of CO2 went into the atmosphere that 

could have been prevented. But from the human perspective, this 

represented over 100,000 families that could have entered the middle class with some of the best paying jobs in America. 

I want to close by thanking the committee, again, for the opportunity to testify. With sound economic analysis, accurate jobs data 

and a collaborative approach, we can manage our path to a low-carbon economy by investing in new opportunities and new jobs first 

before we put old technologies on the shelf. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Foster follows:] 

Testimony to the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis 

David Foster, Distinguished Associate, Energy Futures Initiative 

April 30, 2019 

Good morning, Madame Chairwoman Castor and Ranking Member Graves. I’m 

pleased to be here today on behalf of the Energy Futures Initiative to speak to the 

important issue of the energy and energy efficiency workforce in our country during 

a time of considerable technological change and policy debate, both of which can 

have consequential effects on the lives of the men and women who work throughout 

our energy economy. 

Twelve years ago, in 2007, I testified to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. At that time I reflected, ‘‘One of the most famous 

American industrialists of the 20th Century, Henry J. Kaiser, who built an innovative manufacturing enterprise that included aluminum, steel, and ship building and 

created the health care delivery system that still bears his name, once observed that 

‘‘Problems are just opportunities in work clothes.’’ 

Twelve years later, I’m pleased to report that a lot of Americans have put on their 

work clothes and got about the business of solving climate change. Today, of the 6.7 

million Americans who work in the energy and energy efficiency industries over 3.5 

million, more than 50%, are contributing to a lower emissions economy. 350,000 of 

them do this in the wind and solar energy industries, another 63,000 thousand in 

nuclear power plants, 65,000 in hydro and 70,000 in low emissions advanced natural 

gas generating plants, and thousands of others in geothermal, combined heat and 

power, battery storage, and many other technologies, including several hundred at 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
29 

the first coal-fired power plant retrofitted with carbon capture technology at the 

Petra Nova generating station, just south of Houston, TX. If it is done right, with 

the interests of America’s middle class and working families, at heart, there will be 

a place at the table, a job and a pay check for every American while we solve the 

climate crisis. But we have to do it right. 

Most of the Americans whose jobs are reducing greenhouse gas emissions today 

are working with energy efficiency technologies. In fact, almost 2.35 million people 

work in energy efficiency in the United States, retrofitting our buildings, installing 

LED lighting systems, and manufacturing high efficiency HVAC systems and hundreds of other EnergyStar certified products. They provide the design and engineering plans to restructure our built environment. They reduce the energy consumption 

in our energy intensive industries and in every way they are changing the way we 

interact with our environment. 

In transportation, almost 254,000 Americans now work manufacturing and designing alternative fuels’ vehicles including all electrics, hybrids, and plug in hybrids, while another 486,000 work in the motor vehicles’ component parts industry, 

specifically on those products that make our automotive fuel consumption more efficient. This is how we solve climate change—by doing the hard work every day and 

getting a pay check from construction work, factory jobs, from mining the critical 

minerals like copper, iron ore, and bauxite, and designing, financing, and permitting 

the systems and products that create our low carbon economy. 

For 31 years I worked with the United Steelworkers union, the last 16 as the Director of the 13-state District #11, based in Minnesota. In 2006 with the Steelworkers support, I was the founding executive Director of the Blue Green Alliance, 

a national organization that unified 10 labor unions and five environmental organizations with over 14 million members around a vision of a fair and just transition 

to a low carbon economy that would put money in working families’ pockets and 

make America the leader in low carbon technologies. I also served for three years 

as Senior Advisor on energy, economic development, climate, and workforce issues 

to U.S. DOE Secretary Moniz from 2014–2017. I currently serve as a Distinguished 

Associate at the Energy Futures Initiative, an energy policy think tank, founded by 

the former Secretary and a consultant to the Roosevelt Project at the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology. I also serve on the boards of two manufacturing companies, 

Kaiser Aluminum and Evraz, NA, a steel company. 

While I was at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), I was responsible for overseeing the design and production of the U.S. Energy and Employment Report, an 

employer survey-driven study of how new energy technologies were affecting labor 

markets in the U.S. in five critical sectors—Fuels; Electric Power Generation; 

Transmission, Distribution and Storage; Energy Efficiency; and Motor Vehicles. We 

focused on these sectors because they were at the core of the system through which 

we create, distribute, and consume most of the energy in the American economy. 

After producing two editions of the U.S. Energy and Employment Report, I have 

continued this work at the Energy Futures Initiative in partnership with the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO). This partnership has produced two subsequent reports on the energy workforce, using the identical methodology we created at DOE, released in the spring of 2018 and most recently, the 

spring of 2019. 

Energy jobs data is critical to measuring the economic success of any climate 

change mitigation program, pinpointing any adverse economic consequences, and 

crafting solutions for working people and communities that may be upended by 

changing energy technologies. 

Here are some of the key findings of our reports: 

Although the energy sector in the U.S. has steadily declined as a percentage of 

U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) since the Oil Embargo of the 1970’s, with one 

notable exception during the 2006–08 period, energy occupies a unique position in 

the American economy. It is the sector upon which every other sector is dependent. 

Today’s energy and energy efficiency sectors employ 6.7 million Americans, with 

35% of those employees focused on energy efficiency, 19% engaged in transmission, 

distribution and storage of fuels and electricity, 17% producing fuels, another 13% 

producing electricity, and 15% working in gas stations. 

For the last four years, the energy and energy efficiency sectors have out-produced 

the rest of the American economy, creating jobs at a more rapid rate than the economy as a whole. In 2018, the U.S. economy increased jobs by 1.8%, while the energy 

and energy efficiency sectors added jobs at 2.3%, creating 7% of all new jobs. 

It is critical to understand that an economy whose energy sector is constantly becoming more productive, more efficient and more cost competitive not only creates 

jobs itself, but also stimulates job creation in every other sector of the economy including in manufacturing, construction, agriculture, health care, or IT services. EnVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:32 Aug 15, 2019 Jkt 036849 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A849.XXX A849

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
30 

ergy is a critical cost component that links systems, enables innovation, and stokes 

global competitiveness. We need only look to neighboring economies where the cost 

of energy, inefficient energy systems, and unreliable delivery infrastructure disrupt 

and slow economic activity. 

Our energy system starts with the production of fuels which today employ 1.13 

million Americans, an increase of 52,000 in 2018. Most of this increase was a result 

of the resurgence of oil and gas production in the U.S. While some advocates for 

aggressive action on climate change may see the growth of domestic oil and gas production as a threat, I see it as an opportunity that affords us the economic stability 

to plan the transition to a low carbon economy over the next thirty years without 

the disruption that spikes in fossil fuel prices or lack of availability would cause. 

Just remember the problems that accompanied the 2007–8 spike in oil prices to 

$140/barrel. Agriculture, manufacturing, and transportation, worldwide, faced serious consequences. 

The luxury of our current energy abundance also allows us to attack the much 

more difficult problems of reducing GHG emissions from the industrial, agricultural, 

and transportation sectors without dealing immediately with the social dislocation 

that would be caused in those sectors and in more rural parts of the country, all 

of which are more heavily dependent on fossil fuels. 

Although most fuels’ production in the U.S. is fossil today, it is important to note 

that the 2019 USEER identified over 106,000 Americans who work in renewable 

fuels, an increase of almost 2,300 jobs. 

Electric Power Generation (EPG) employed 876,000 people in the US in 2018, a 

decline of some 8,000 from 2017, but roughly 8,000 more than in 2016. The declines 

were clustered in the solar, coal and nuclear generating technologies and were partially offset by gains in natural gas, wind, CHP, and geothermal. While the number 

of overall jobs in EPG has remained relatively stable, the fuel source of those jobs 

has changed dramatically and resulted in significant reductions in GHG over the 

last decade. Today, 640,000 people, or roughly 73% of the EPG workforce are employed in low emissions technologies—including wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, 

hydro, combined heat and power, biomass, and low emissions natural gas. In addition to including almost 3⁄4 of the workforce, these technologies produce almost 60% 

of our country’s electricity. 242,000 work in the solar industry, 111,000 in wind, and 

63,000 in nuclear generation and 66,000 in hydro, our four principal zero emissions’ 

technologies. This is the clearest proof I know that the transition to a low carbon 

economy can be done in a way that produces jobs, ensures reliability, and provides 

affordable electricity to consumers and business. 

However, it would be misleading not to point out that this success is dependent 

upon the continued production of natural gas, the largest single source of generation 

in the country today and the employer of over 270,000 Americans on the extraction 

side alone. Another 352,000 work in the distribution and generation side of natural 

gas, for a total of almost 625,000. The shift of generation fuels from coal to natural 

gas has been one of the most consequential steps to reduce GHG emissions in both 

the electrical and industrial sectors over the last decade. The flexibility of natural 

gas has also been an important factor in accelerating the deployment of variable renewable energy technologies like wind and solar. 

Our energy infrastructure workforce—the men and women who build and maintain the fuels’ and electricity transmission, distribution and storage systems—is the 

scaffolding around which the rest of our economy is built. Without the ‘‘on time’’ delivery of reliable and affordable energy every other aspect of our economy would 

grind to a halt. Today, in addition to a million people employed in gas stations, our 

energy infrastructure workforce is composed of another 1.4 million Americans who 

build and service 642,000 miles of high voltage transmission lines, 2.6 million miles 

of interstate pipelines, and 6.3 million miles of distribution lines, as well as the 

ports, railway lines, and other essential infrastructure assets. According to the 

American Society of Civil Engineers, our country’s energy infrastructure would get 

a D+ if given a high school grade. This translates into a $177 billion funding gap 

over a 10 year period for the electricity system alone. We lose a significant portion 

of generated electricity to the inefficiency of our grid. Upgrades in the grid are another example of how efficiency investments can directly lead to GHG reductions by 

simply reducing the need for generation, regardless of source. 

Finally, our energy efficiency workforce is critical to the success of any effort to 

address climate change, and its workforce challenges are key to the successful management of an overall energy workforce in transition. With 2.35 million workers, our 

energy efficiency workforce is composed of 55% construction workers, 21% professional and business services, 14% or over 320,000 manufacturing employees, 10% 

in wholesale trade and other. Our energy efficiency workforce has added over 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
31 

275,000 jobs in the last three years and is the fastest growing sector of the low carbon economy. 

Unlike fuel production and some renewable resources which tend to be geographically specific, our energy efficiency workforce is located in every state in our country. In my home state of Minnesota, there are EE workers in every one of our 87 

counties. 

It is especially important to note that we are facing a hiring crisis in energy efficiency technologies in our country that is the worst in the entire energy sector. According to our recent survey, 84% of employers in the construction side of EE found 

it either very difficult or somewhat difficult to hire new employees in 2018. This represented a 5-percentage point jump in intensity over 2017 with 52% of EE construction employers saying it was ‘‘very difficult’’ to hire new employees, citing a lack of 

experience, training and technical skills as the main reasons. EE employers had 

predicted 9% job growth for 2018 and yet were only able to grow by 3% last year. 

The skills’ shortage has become critical and addressing it is key to creating a low 

carbon economy that benefits all working people in America and rapidly reduces 

GHG emissions. 

I want to turn now to one of the key disparities in today’s energy economy and 

one of the great challenges to the successful transition to a low carbon economy. 

That is the geographic uniqueness of key energy resources. Coal is concentrated in 

Appalachia, Wyoming, Montana, and the lower Ohio River basin. Petroleum resources are strongest in TX, LA, ND, and OK. Natural gas jobs are clustered in the 

Gulf Coast and the Marcellus Shale. Solar resources are strongest in the Southwest. 

Wind is concentrated in the Central Plains corridor. What benefits the deployment 

of one resource may negatively impact another. 

So what are some of the effective job strategies for dealing with the disparities 

that are inevitable in the transition to a low carbon economy, to minimize dislocation, and maximize opportunity? Here are five key strategies. 

First, we need to embrace an ‘‘all-of-the-above’’, flexible strategy toward climate 

solutions. There is no silver bullet, no single technology, nor one perfect policy that 

can guide our economy to a low carbon endpoint, guaranteeing CO2 reductions and 

a decent job for every American. But we can invest in a range of technologies and 

options to preserve flexibility and participation by every form of energy and every 

community during the next decade while we pursue every technological solution— 

from renewables and battery storage in California to carbon, capture, utilization, 

and sequestration in Appalachia to small modular reactors in Idaho. 

This is the scientifically prudent approach and it is also the economically inclusive 

approach. It is especially important when we think about how to decarbonize the 

industrial, agricultural and transportation sectors of the economy which are responsible for almost 70% of total emissions. It also means that our coal and gas dependent communities have jobs and a path forward. It means our rural, industrial communities have a role to play. That agriculture is an ally. It means our coastal communities can look to offshore wind, and our renewables-rich communities can prosper. The low carbon economy doesn’t need winners and losers. It needs collaborators. 

Second, we need to accelerate our investments in energy efficiency with a special 

priority on those regions of the country negatively impacted by declining use of fossil fuels. Numerous local clean energy development funds have demonstrated the effectiveness of energy efficiency financing mechanisms as a vehicle to pay for building retrofits through energy cost savings while also creating well-paying construction jobs. Such agencies as the New York State Energy Research and Development 

Authority, the St. Paul, Minnesota Trillion BTU initiative, the many utility administered programs, PACE and on bill financing mechanisms have all demonstrated 

this success. 

A third strategy is to invest in energy infrastructure. Energy infrastructure is 

necessary to and crisscrosses every community. It is also closely linked to energy 

efficiency GHG reductions on the electrical side and to methane emission reductions 

on the natural gas side. In addition to enhancing resilience and national security, 

these investments provide access to some of the best jobs in America and provide 

pathways to lifelong skills and job security. Inevitably, such infrastructure investments lead to broader economic development. 

As a former DOE employee and board member of DOE’s Loan Program Office, I 

would be remiss in not stressing the immediate and important role that the DOE 

Loan Program Office could play in jumpstarting investments in our country’s energy 

infrastructure and creating thousands of well-paying construction jobs and learning 

opportunities. With $39 billion of unused low interest loan and loan guarantee authority, the LPO could move rapidly into the much needed space of helping to finance America’s next generation of energy infrastructure. The Energy Futures IniVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:32 Aug 15, 2019 Jkt 036849 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A849.XXX A849

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
32 

tiative has provided an analysis of this subject, published in March, 2018, entitled, 

‘‘Leveraging the DOE Loan Program: Using $39 Billion in Existing Authority to 

Help Modernize the Nation’s Energy Infrastructure’’ which is attached to my testimony. The LPO could also play a role in supporting the use of regional clean energy 

lending institutions, accelerating the deployment of energy efficiency technologies. 

Both energy efficiency and energy infrastructure investments are applicable for 

every community in the country. However, by investing, first, in these critical aspects of the energy system in those communities and regions impacted most significantly by the loss of jobs in fossil fuels, we can provide economic development support where it is needed most, a critical choice at a time when new energy technologies are displacing some long-standing energy production systems. The sequencing and timing of how we solve a problem can ultimately determine the support it 

achieves from our fellow Americans. 

Fourth, we need to focus on the manufacturing supply chains that our new energy 

technologies are creating. Nothing is more frustrating than looking back over the 

years of American technological innovation and recording the history of American 

applied research being handed off to other countries for commercialization. Such 

was the story of wind and solar technologies, developed here in the U.S., before 

being ceded to Europe and Asia. We do not need to repeat this history with the next 

generation of low carbon technologies. 

Especially with energy efficiency products, such as high efficiency appliances, 

lighting systems, industrial motors, or water pumps, one of our clear goals, when 

introducing new regulatory requirements, should be assuring a manufacturing policy that encourages ‘‘Made in America.’’ Much of the infrastructure is already in 

place but we need to nurture it and aggressively support it. The EnergyStar brand, 

promoted by the U.S. EPA is one of the strongest product marketing brands in the 

world, recognized as the gold standard for efficiency. Using a new EnergyStar Made 

in America procurement policy to support the manufacture of ‘‘best in class’’ products in the global economy would be one of the best paths forward to a resurgence 

in American manufacturing. 

EnergyStar not only certifies products, it also certifies commercial buildings, single family residences, and industrial processes. We already have the least carbon 

intensive steel industry in the world, for instance, and that should be a cause for 

celebration and recognition. Carbon performance should be a universal procurement 

standard for government spending in the U.S., similar to what California recently 

did with its ‘‘Buy Clean’’ standard. Such a policy would provide a significant boost 

for domestic manufacturing. 

Finally, we need to address the workforce development crisis across all energy 

technologies, but particularly in energy efficiency. During the four years of the production of the U.S. Energy and Employment Report, I have watched with alarm as 

the reports of employer hiring difficulty have steadily gone upward from 75% in 

2015 to 80% in 2016 to 83% in 2017 and finally to 84% last year. At the same time 

the disparity between projected hiring growth rates and actual hiring rates from 

employers in key industrial sectors has grown wider and wider. 

Consider these examples. In 2016 EE construction firms projected a growth rate 

in 2017 of 11%, but actual employment in those construction firms declined by 7% 

that year. Overall, energy efficiency employment still grew by 67,000. Two years 

later hiring difficulty by these same construction firms had risen to 84% with 52% 

saying it was very difficult to hire new employees. Employers had projected hiring 

10.6% or over 120,000 jobs but the reality of hiring difficulty got in the way and 

they added only 21,000 jobs. This was a failure of our workforce development system 

with very real world consequences. From the environmental perspective, millions of 

tons of CO2 went into the atmosphere that could have been prevented. But from the 

human perspective, this represented over 100,000 families that could have entered 

the middle class with some of the best paying jobs in America. 

I want to finish my testimony with some comments about our energy system and 

job quality in America. We have recently heard much more discussion about income 

and wealth inequality in America, often from surprising sources. At EFI we recently 

completed a wage survey of energy sector employment to better understand the effect that technology shifts were having on job quality, access and inclusion in our 

energy workforce. We expect to publish a full report on this subject later in the 

spring. 

Let me share some preliminary findings with you today. First, with a handful of 

technology exceptions, our energy and energy efficiency workforce is racially as diverse or more diverse than the American workforce as a whole. Thus, in Fuels, Electric Power Generation, TDS, and EE these sectors of the economy are places where 

all Americans can feel welcome. In Electric Power Generation and in Transmission, 

Distribution, and Storage, the workforce is 35% more diverse. Gender equity, howVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:32 Aug 15, 2019 Jkt 036849 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A849.XXX A849

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
33 

ever, does remain an issue. Energy and energy efficiency jobs also pay substantially 

more than equivalent occupations outside of the energy field. For instance, an electrician working in the electric power generation area gets paid, on average, $1.49 

per hour more than an electrician generally, a construction laborer in EPG gets $.95 

more. In TDS those premiums rise to $2.66 and $1.70. Interestingly, across a range 

of manufacturing positions, Energy Efficiency workers earn from $.82-$1.39 an hour 

more. 

Another important factor underlying this wage differential is the higher degree 

of unionization in America’s energy sector. In Transmission, Distribution, and Storage, the unionization rate is almost three times higher than the average private sector rate. In Energy Efficiency it’s double, while in Electric Power Generation it is 

generally higher except in the wind and solar technologies. Fuels production is 

below the average. 

The quality of energy jobs is very often the anchor to the social and economic 

quality of a community. Consider for instance the relatively rural, isolated nature 

of most of the communities where America’s 90+ nuclear generating stations are located, producing 20% of U.S. electricity, all of it carbon free. The nuclear sector happens to have the highest median wage of any technology in the energy sector. It 

is not surprising that these employers and their employees are among the most 

highly valued in any community. Regardless of your personal views on the value of 

nuclear to our overall energy system, it should be our aspiration that every job in 

energy in America has the same value to its community that those nuclear jobs do. 

I want to close by thanking the Committee again for this opportunity to testify 

about the importance of America’s energy workforce and our collective responsibility 

to those men and women to ensure their safety and economic security since the rest 

of our economy depends on them. As I said earlier, the problem of climate change 

is an opportunity in work clothes. That means it’s a paycheck not a layoff slip. With 

sound economic analysis, accurate jobs data, and a collaborative approach we can 

manage our path to a low carbon economy by investing in new opportunities and 

new jobs first before we put old technologies on the shelf. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Foster. 

Mr. Harvey you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HAL HARVEY 

Mr. HARVEY. Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you Ranking 

Member, and all the other members here. It is a great honor to be 

here today. 

I am an engineer by education. I have decades of experience in 

finance, in technology, in public policy, and in engineering and construction. And I have come here today to offer options that I think 

are practical and that will appeal to both sides of the aisle. As honored as I am to address this, I guess, body, I have to stay it is especially important, I have my son with me today. So he can witness 

my work, but, especially, because we all have a deep obligation to 

our children to give them a planet as bountiful as the one we inherited. We cannot shirk that duty. My approach in thinking about energy policy is to think about the four qualities that Americans need 

with their energy. They need affordable, reliable, clean and safe. It 

is these attributes that are the public policy goals, not a specific 

technology. And the right kinds of policy can produce those attributes. 

Here is the big picture, and it is pretty terrific: It is now cheaper 

to save the planet than to ruin it. I appreciate the testimony from 

the Chamber of Commerce, it should have been written 10 years 

ago, because the technologies are here today. We have had amazing 

advances in batteries, in electric vehicles, onshore wind, offshore 

wind, 3-D printing, solar, LED bulbs, industrial control systems, 

heat pumps and more. And so, it is now cheaper, in many, many 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
34 

circumstances, to drastically reduce climate change than to keep 

going with business as usual. 

The key missing ingredient is the right kind of policy. We want 

to reward those characteristics of affordable, reliable, clean and 

safe, or do we want to protect income and technologies? Let me 

offer an example. My team analyzed every single coal-fired power 

plant in America, the economics of them. Three-quarters of them 

now cost more simply to operate than replacing them within 35 

miles with solar and wind. So it is cheaper to take those same locations, those same transmission lines and the same workers, and 

give them a better job in clean energy than to keep running those 

old power plants. It is also better for the economy because it saves 

consumers money. 

People worry about reliability with clean energy. The states in 

America, and this is our great experiment in democracy, that have 

adopted strong wind energy standards have more—have increased 

the reliability of their grid. It moves you in the proper direction not 

the wrong direction. 

So let me offer four policy ideas, but also mention in my written 

testimony, we worked on a comprehensive strategy that I urge you 

to take a look at. The first policy I would recommend is to require 

that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission be a merit-driven, 

technology-neutral, adjudicatory body required to run the power 

system at the lowest cost. That seems straight forward and that 

seems like a bipartisan idea. And in fact, that is the way the FERC 

has worked for years. But in the last 2 years, they have started to 

put the thumb on the scale for certain technologies. In my mind, 

that is a Soviet-era thinking. That is not what America should be 

all about. 

Second, we should set performance targets for our grid. I would 

argue for 80 percent zero carbon electricity by 2035. This is ambitious, but it is realistic, and it is cost effective. It will save consumers money. If you don’t believe me, check out Iowa, or Kansas, 

or Texas, or Oklahoma, or California, which have different geographies, different policies, different political situations, but are all 

benefiting from incredible rapid adoption of clean energy technology. 

We worked in Texas when George W. Bush was Governor. He 

signed the first—the second renewable portfolio standard in the 

country. And it has been a huge success. 

The third option I would offer for your consideration is let’s make 

sure America builds the most efficient clean cars on the planet. We 

need to accelerate the energy efficiency standards and accelerate 

the transition to zero emission vehicles. 

Ranking Member Graves, I have traveled to China more than 70 

times. I have worked in a dozen countries on energy policy. And I 

tell you, they have a lot of bad stuff to fix, but they are working 

hard on it. And they are moving in the transition to electric vehicles, I am afraid, a lot faster than we are. We don’t want to have 

China on that technology, that should be an American technology, 

in my opinion. 

The fourth recommendation I would offer is to make sure that 

the affected communities in this transition are treated properly. So 

think of the coal mining towns in West Virginia, we should have 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
35 

an environmental restoration project of significant scale, so that 

the same people in the same communities with similar skills can 

be part of the solution and can be supported for that. They have 

helped deliver low cost electricity to this country for 100 years, let’s 

not walk away from that now, let’s begin a serious environmental 

restoration project. 

I see my time is running out. Let me offer a concluding thought. 

My work is organized around solutions, practical solutions, based 

on economics, based on engineering. But I must have done something horrible in a previous life, because I also have to keep up on 

the climate science. And I am here to tell you that if we don’t act, 

and don’t act rapidly, we will leave a much impoverished Earth to 

our children. We will walk away from the America we recognize 

and create FEMA world, and nobody here wants that. So we need 

to do the right thing and we need to do it rapidly. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Harvey follows:] 

Federal Policies To Slash Greenhouse Gases 

Hal Harvey, et al., 

April 2019 

Federal policies could reduce the United States’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

by at least a third below 2005 levels by 2030, and at least 80 percent by 2050, according to modeling in the Energy Policy Simulator (available at https:// 

www.energypolicy.solutions). 

Ultimately, we must get to zero, but this package would be a great start, using 

only federal policy levers that we believe should have a reasonable chance of passing. This package would also kick-start innovation, opening up further options to 

drive emissions to zero in the coming years. However, this is a comprehensive package, not a menu from which to select. Only enacting policies that address emissions 

in every sector creates a reasonable chance to avoid the worst impacts of climate 

change. 

The electricity sector has the greatest emission reduction potential by 2050, given 

the recommended policies below—the path to zero is relatively clear, and we know 

the technologies and approaches that can deliver it. The faster we decarbonize the 

power sector, the more we can use it to decarbonize other sectors—like transportation and buildings, by converting fossil fuel burning to electricity. 

The next largest opportunity lies in addressing super-pollutants (methane and 

fluorinated gases), which tie closely with other policies to reduce emissions from the 

U.S. industrial sector. Heavy industry produces a large share of U.S. GHGs today, 

but the path to zero is less clear for industry—policies included here will get us a 

good start, but more research and development (R&D) is needed to support industry 

decarbonization. 

Major opportunities to reduce GHG emissions via policy also exist in the transportation sector—including a mix of electric vehicle incentives, supporting infrastructure, and strong standards for traditional internal combustion engine vehicles. 

Another important chunk of emissions reductions comes from upgrading the energy efficiency of existing buildings and also switching from burning gas or oil onsite to using electricity. 

Agriculture also presents emission reduction opportunities, and support for agriculture-related R&D can help identify options to drive additional emissions reductions. 

A carbon price adopted at the federally-estimated social cost of carbon would offer 

additional potential emissions reductions alongside these sector-specific policies. 

Finally, the list of policies below includes important enabling policies, such as 

support for rural Americans in the energy transition, as well as expanded clean energy and carbon reduction R&D. 

ELECTRICITY

The electricity sector is currently the second-largest source of U.S. GHG emissions, but it has the clearest path to zero emissions. We have the technology (and 

it’s increasingly cheaper to deploy clean rather than polluting power plants), we 

have the know-how, we just need to get this moving—and quickly. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
36 

1 Note that it would be useful to structure this as an incentive-driven race to the top; in the 

past, state officials have balked at federal requirements on their electricity mix. 2 Note that taxable cash incentives are much more efficient than tax credit structures—with 

some analyses suggesting the same federal dollar could achieve twice as much in the form of 

a taxable cash incentive as in the form of a tax credit (see https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/09/Supporting-Renewables-while-Saving-Taxpayers-Money.pdf). The financial efficiency of tax credits may even decline further given recent tax reform, as large businesses have less tax appetite and the already-tight market for tax equity will likely become even 

tighter. 3For more on what would need to be done to make these structures as useful as possible, 

see: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60413.pdf. 4See this paper we wrote: https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ 

A_Roadmap-For-Finding-Flexibility-In-Wholesale-Power-Markets_FINAL.pdf. 

Leaning into this sector where we are already making progress will have knockon benefits for other sectors: A decarbonized electricity system can be used to replace fossil fuels in other parts of the economy, via electric vehicles, electrifying 

buildings that would otherwise burn natural gas, and electrifying parts of factories 

that would otherwise burn fuel onsite. 

CREATE A 100 PERCENT NATIONAL CLEAN ENERGY STANDARD

A 100 percent clean energy standard for the electricity sector by 2045 1 is one of 

the most effective policies for reducing U.S. GHGs. The standard could include all 

sources of zero-carbon electricity (solar, wind, biomass, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, 

carbon capture and storage, and any other source of zero-carbon electricity developed between now and 2045). It should include interim targets at least every five 

years, or better yet, an annual improvement rate of two percent per year from 2020– 

2045. Special attention must be paid in early years to develop low-cost options for 

squeezing the last 10 percent of GHGs out of the power system. 

EXTEND AND EXPAND TAX CREDITS FOR SOLAR, WIND, AND ENERGY STORAGE

Extending tax credits 2 for solar, wind, and energy storage is another strong mechanism to support clean electricity, particularly if a national clean energy standard 

is not part of a final policy package. These kinds of incentives help spur the market 

for newer technologies with great potential, driving sufficient scale to bring down 

costs and make new options available for Americans. Offshore wind and energy storage are two of these newer technologies, but have huge market potential if they can 

achieve enough scale to bring costs down just a bit more. 

In addition to traditional tax credits, the federal government could address upfront capital costs for clean energy technologies by leveling the playing field with 

fossil fuel infrastructure through additional financing mechanisms such as Master 

Limited Partnerships, Real Estate Investment Trusts, Clean Renewable Energy 

Bonds, and securitization of project debt (similar to how Fannie Mae does this in 

the housing market).3

ISSUE A STRONGER MANDATE FOR FERC TO MODERNIZE POWER MARKETS AND MAKE

THEM TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL

The wholesale power markets regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) were established in an era when coal and other fuel-burning power 

plants dominated the U.S. electricity system. Naturally, rules and structures were 

designed with the power plants of the day in mind, but many more options are 

available today and the power markets must evolve to take advantage of them. 

FERC should inventory market rules and structures with an eye toward updating 

them to be truly technology neutral given the swath of new options available today.4

FERC should also consider complementary reforms to the governance of regulated 

power markets to ensure decision-making processes reflect today’s needs. 

The federal government should further clarify that FERC should consider benefits 

of GHG emission reductions in its gas infrastructure and electricity market design 

rulemakings. In the absence of a clean energy standard, the federal government 

should articulate its intention that FERC-jurisdictional markets assist state efforts 

to reduce GHG emissions. 

SPUR TRANSMISSION: GET MORE FROM THE EXISTING SYSTEM, SMOOTH THE WAY FOR

MORE

Transmission is the platform that allows our nation’s electricity system to function. As renewables provide increasing amounts of the U.S. electricity supply, we 

need to move it from the places with the greatest solar and wind resources to the 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
37 

5Dynamic line rating gets more out of the system than existing practices in much of the country (for more, see https://issues.nawindpower.com/article/using-grid-weve-got). Where needed, we 

can beef up transmission capacity on existing rights of way. 6See this factsheet from the Department of Energy: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/ 

edg/media/NIETC_Fact_Sheet.pdf. 7See this article from the board chair of PJM, the nation’s largest electricity market: http:// 

www.orkas.com/the-future-of-electric-transmission/. 8For example, the case brought against EPA resulting in remand of SNAP was brought by 

Mexichem Fluor, Inc., a Mexico-based chemicals manufacturer. 

places where people and businesses need to use it. We can do that by getting more 

out of our existing system,5 and by adding new lines. 

The federal government could build on the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors 6 to overlay priorities for GHG reduction goals, aligning transmission incentives with GHG objectives, then partner with states to increase capacity on existing rights of way or build new lines. President Lyndon Johnson provided 

a model for this in the 1960s with the build-out of the Pacific Intertie.7 Texas also 

provides a model by pre-approving and building out transmission to ‘‘Competitive 

Renewable Energy Zones’’ where clean energy resources are abundant. Market 

mechanisms can then select the lowest cost projects to build clean power in those 

zones. 

While transmission allows electricity to travel across space, energy storage can 

allow electricity to travel across time, alleviating congestion on transmission lines. 

The federal government could direct FERC to consider establishing structures to 

plan and pay for energy storage in a similar way to transmission. 

CREATE A NATIONAL DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAM

‘‘Demand response’’ is the term for when consumers and businesses shift when 

they use electricity to take advantage of low-cost or low-emissions sources. This can 

reduce the need to build costly new power plants, and can help get the most from 

renewable energy. A national program focused on scaling demand response could 

kick start the market—perhaps via pay-for-performance matching funds for states 

or municipalities that establish programs. Loans may also be considered since welldesigned demand response programs should pay for themselves in short order. 

SUPER POLLUTANTS

Bolstering efforts to reduce carbon dioxide with programs to address methane and 

fluorinated gases (‘‘F-gases’’) is an efficient way to drive near-term reductions in 

U.S. contributions to climate change. Per molecule emitted, methane warms the climate at least 28 times more than CO2, and F-gases can be thousands of times 

stronger contributors to climate change. 

RAPIDLY PHASE OUT F-GASES BY RATIFYING THE KIGALI AMENDMENT AND GIVE EPA

AUTHORITY

Ratifying and implementing the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol 

would create a requirement to reduce F-gas consumption in America. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already attempted to regulate F-gases 

under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP), but the ruling was remanded. Expressly directing EPA to regulate these gases, with the flexibility to use 

other approaches beyond SNAP, would allow it to move forward with requiring the 

use of lower GHG-emitting substitutes. U.S. companies would be at a competitive 

advantage with a strong new F-gas phase-out policy, as they are the primary manufacturers of the chemicals that could substitute for climate-warming F-gases.8

SET A STEADILY DECLINING STANDARD FOR METHANE EMISSIONS FROM OIL AND GAS, 

INCLUDING EXTRACTION AND DISTRIBUTION

The federal government could strengthen Obama-era standards for methane leakage, methane leak detection, and mitigation systems to push methane leakage rates 

toward zero. A 2050 target of zero leakage throughout the system, along with strong 

interim targets, will encourage the natural gas industry to invest in the system upgrades and monitoring equipment necessary to significantly cut emissions. Canada’s 

methane rules could serve as a template for early action—it aims to reduce methane 

emissions from the oil and gas sector 40-45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025. 

The federal government could dedicate resources to measuring methane leakage, 

include leakage estimates into GHG inventories, and reward gas utilities for targeting leakiest equipment first. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
38 

9 Note that this has not been done in the U.S. to date, but other countries have used this approach with some success. For example, see Ontario, Canada’s proposed industry performance 

standards: https://prod-environmental-registry.s3.amazonaws.com/2019-02/EPS%20Regulatory% 

20Proposal%20%28EN%29_0.pdf. 10See https://buyclean.org/2017/10/16/gov-jerry-brown-signs-buy-clean-law/. 11See http://www.energy-transitions.org/sites/default/files/ETC_MissionPossible_FullReport. 

pdf. 

INDUSTRY

Federal options for reducing industry sector GHG emissions are less well-established than some of the other economic sectors. However, it is very important for 

any comprehensive climate plan to address emissions from the industry sector, as 

industry produces about as many GHGs as the whole U.S. transportation sector 

today, as well as a large share of the projected remaining GHG emissions in 2050. 

The U.S. needs a plan to address this sector and develop further options to drive 

down emissions. The following policy proposals are a good start. 

ESTABLISH CARBON INTENSITY STANDARDS FOR CEMENT, STEEL, CHEMICALS, AND NAT- URAL GAS AND PETROLEUM SYSTEMS; ALLOW TAX CREDITS FOR SOME SHARE OF UP- GRADE COSTS

New emissions intensity standards could drive industry energy and emissions savings.9 A program that sets new output-based standards every few years based on 

the top industry performers could drive a race to the top and encourage continuous 

improvement in U.S. factories. Standards could be set based on emissions or energy 

per unit of output (e.g., CO2 per ton of cement or BTU per ton of ethylene produced). 

Tax credits based on performance could be made available to businesses that invest 

to meet new standards. This policy could be coupled with a border adjustment to 

level the global playing field for U.S. industries. 

CREATE A FEDERAL ‘‘BUY CLEAN’’ PROGRAM

A federal ‘‘Buy Clean’’ program would set standards for cement, iron, steel, and 

other products used to build federally-funded infrastructure, based on the emissions 

intensity of those inputs. A model policy is in place in California (Assembly Bill 

262), which includes suppliers’ emission intensities in government procurement decisions.10 The federal government could ensure a national program considers material 

substitution opportunities (e.g., using timber instead of steel for buildings less than 

20 stories).11

INCENTIVES FOR INDUSTRIAL COGENERATION AND WASTE HEAT RECOVERY

New incentives for industry facilities to cogenerate electricity and heat, and to use 

waste heat, would improve the efficiency of U.S. factories. Incentives for cogeneration should not be offered for coal-fired industrial equipment. 

INCREASE INCENTIVES FOR CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE AND PROVIDE FINANCING

AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) could be a critical part of decarbonizing the industry sector. Section 45Q tax credits were recently increased and expanded to cover 

smaller industries, but these tax credits could be increased to kick-start industrial 

sector CCS, which has fewer decarbonization options than the electricity sector. 

Complementing these tax credits with loan guarantees and technical assistance 

would help industries access the capital and expertise needed to install CCS, which 

is a relatively new technology with high upfront capital costs and little monetized 

payback. 

BUILDINGS

Improving America’s buildings can result in better comfort and energy service for 

citizens and business owners, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Buildings can be a tough nut to crack since there are so many dispersed decision-makers, 

but that is precisely the reason this sector provides a way to reach voters with 

something tangible that can make their lives better. 

INCENTIVES FOR BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION AND EFFICIENCY RETROFITS, WITH SOME

IMPORTANT EXCLUSIONS

Buildings can decarbonize by using energy more efficiently, and then converting 

essential uses to clean energy. Because the majority of existing U.S. buildings will 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
39 

12See https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12053-018-9661-5. 13https://www.brookings.edu/research/advancing-inclusion-through-clean-energy-jobs/. 14 It would be important to only offer these incentives for heat pumps that use working fluids 

with very low global warming potential—otherwise, some of the chemicals in heat pumps can 

be dangerous for climate change. 15https://aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdf/conferences/eeff/2016/Weeks_Session4A_FF16_5.24. 

16.pdf. 16 Building codes are adopted and enforced at the state and city levels, but a federal code 

could act as a model for smaller jurisdictions to adopt. 

still be standing in 2050, the federal government must find ways to incent retrofits 

combining appliance electrification, efficiency, and on-site clean power generation 

(e.g., rooftop solar) if practical. By and large, existing buildings could be much more 

efficient, but the upfront cost of upgrades dissuades building owners. 

A national program with financial incentives including low interest loans or onbill financing for building retrofitting could significantly accelerate the pace of retrofitting; current programs vary in their effectiveness but generally reach only a fraction of one percent of eligible customers each year.12 A national program to target 

a package of decarbonization retrofits in one percent of U.S. homes per year would 

be reasonable and in line with Germany’s retrofit rate. 

Such programs should encourage efficiency retrofits to include electrification and 

clean on-site generation, reducing the total cost of all decarbonization measures. 

Programs should also encourage pay-for-performance, increasing the value of efficiency measures to the grid.13 On the flip side, gas appliance retrofits should not 

receive federal funding; while they reduce emissions in the short term only in coalheavy states, they also lock in gas consumption for the 15–20 year appliance lifespan, and create upstream methane leakage. 

Like renewable energy 20 years ago, all-electric retrofits come at a premium 

today, but hold huge long-term potential for cost and carbon reductions. When contractors get in the door of a building for an efficiency retrofit, they should also seize 

the moment to drive electrification. Building electrification incentives could include 

tax credits for demand response-enabled heat pumps for space and water heating 

and cooling (which in addition to replacing natural gas, enable a huge efficiency improvement for space and water heating), heat pump clothes dryers, and electric induction stoves, at the point of sale.14 The federal government can also increase customer access to these technologies by encouraging utilities to finance them on customers’ bills.15

Electrification-induced efficiency improvements of this kind have a knock-on benefit of lowering household energy costs while delivering the same comfort and service. In addition, as more of these products are deployed, costs are likely to decline. 

A higher incentive could be offered to electrify buildings with oil-fired space and 

water heating, which is more polluting and less efficient than natural gas. To measure progress, the federal government can set a target for the carbon footprint of the 

U.S. building stock (e.g. 50 percent below 2020 levels by 2035), and delegate authority for sizing the incentives to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to achieve the 

target as cost-effectively as possible. 

DIRECT DOE TO ACCELERATE THE STANDARDS PROCESS FOR APPLIANCES AND

EQUIPMENT

DOE has a strong appliance and equipment standards program, but it is underfunded and years behind schedule in keeping standards up-to-date. This may sound 

like a small opportunity, but it can deliver energy savings, cost reductions for citizens, and pollution reduction. Additional funding for this critical program, along 

with a directive to accelerate this process would improve appliance and equipment 

efficiency. 

REPAIR AND ACCELERATE THE BUILDING CODE PROCESS

The federal government could maintain and promote an advanced model code for 

states and regions to choose to adopt, and a federal code could even serve as a backstop for the remaining states with no code.16 A national model code could be based 

on California’s model, where today’s most efficient approaches become the standard 

every seven years and the building code is automatically reviewed and revised every 

three years. Advanced codes also offer alternative compliance pathways based on 

performance, rather than the usual list of prescriptions. 

Finally, codes may need to be updated to include GHG considerations in addition 

to efficiency. Codes should support fuel switching in buildings from oil and gas to 

electricity, and restrict the build-out of new natural gas infrastructure and hookVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:32 Aug 15, 2019 Jkt 036849 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A849.XXX A849

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
40 

17 Note these annual improvement rates assume compounding improvements, not a simple division of improvements through a final year. 

ups. They should also require building electrical equipment to be sized to accommodate an appropriate level of on-site EV charging. 

MAKE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR STATES AND CITIES TO ADOPT STRETCH BUILDING CODES

AND TRAIN BUILDERS AND INSPECTORS

Federal matching funds could encourage states and cities to adopt stronger building codes to make buildings even more efficient. Funds could also be made available 

to train builders and inspectors, which would allow more regular building inspections and help drive best practices into building construction, increasing the share 

of buildings that actually adhere to code. 

TRANSPORTATION

The U.S. transportation sector has eclipsed the power sector and is now the largest source of GHG emissions. The move to electric vehicles (EVs) is exciting and 

many policies can accelerate the shift, but millions more fuel-burning vehicles will 

still be sold, so we cannot take our foot off the pedal of efficiency improvements for 

those vehicles, even as we electrify. A complementary infrastructure program focused on transit can reduce emissions by supporting alternatives to personal cars 

and charging stations for electric vehicles of all kinds. 

SET AN ANNUAL IMPROVEMENT RATE FOR VEHICLE EMISSION STANDARDS AND MOVE

AUTHORITY TO EPA

Vehicle standards (i.e., fuel economy or GHG emission standards) are key to reducing transportation sector CO2 emissions. Even with aggressive policies to promote EV sales, millions of internal combustion engine cars will still be sold between 

now and 2050, and efficiency standards can help drive down emissions from these 

vehicles. Rather than specify a mile-per-gallon target in the future, standards 

should specify an annual improvement rate, building on existing standards for lightand heavy-duty vehicles. An annual improvement rate of about seven percent per 

year from 2026–2040 for light-duty and 1.7 percent per year from 2028–2040 for 

heavy-duty vehicles 17 would enable U.S. vehicles to become super-efficient, while 

pushing manufacturers to ramp up sales of plug-in hybrid electric and full electric 

vehicles. 

Moving authority over these standards from the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration to EPA would drastically decrease the administrative burden on the 

auto industry for following these standards. 

ESTABLISH A TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT, NON– 

MOTORIZED TRANSPORT, AND EV CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE

An infrastructure program could help reduce transportation emissions. U.S. cities 

need improved public transit options and support for a new wave of EVs. The federal government could provide matching funds (or even greater than 50 percent cost 

sharing) for states or cities that want to invest in EV chargers at public and multifamily buildings, electric buses, electric light rail, bike lanes, and efforts to make 

cities more walkable. On interstate highways, an exception could be made in the 

prohibition of commercial activities at rest stops for fast-charging EV infrastructure, 

and federal funds could support highway fast-charging infrastructure to help make 

it easier for drivers to go electric. 

REPAIR EV TAX CREDITS BY ELIMINATING 200K SALE CAP

EV incentives have been a major contributor to growth in recent years. Incentives 

should continue to be offered at existing levels by eliminating the current cap of 

200,000 credits per manufacturer, at least for the next five years. To increase accessibility for low- and middle-income Americans, the tax credit system should be 

amended to allow for cash grants at the point of sale. 

AGRICULTURE

The U.S. agricultural sector produces about the same amount of emissions as our 

nation’s buildings sector, but the path to zero emissions in agriculture is much less 

clear. The following policies can help. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
41 

18See https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES1021210001. 

INCREASE INCENTIVES FOR AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GASES

Increased incentives can expand low-GHG agricultural practices, such as low-till 

methods, cover crops, and water conservation. Conversion to these practices may 

have high upfront or ongoing costs as well as some loss of revenue, so government 

incentives can encourage farmers to adopt these practices. The federal government 

could fund a national experiment to explore whether farmers could be paid directly 

for increasing the carbon content of their soil. 

INCREASE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR PRECISION AGRICULTURE DEPLOYMENT

The federal government could increase technical assistance for deployment (e.g., 

farmer-to-farmer workshops) of precision fertilizer, soil supplements, and other practices aimed at reducing costs, chemical input, fertilizer, and soil erosion. Government assistance in the form of incentives and cooperative formation can also help 

increase precision agriculture deployment. 

FUND R&D AND IMPLEMENTATION OF COW METHANE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

Cows are a major source of agriculture sector GHG emissions, but the best management practices typically suggested are rotational grazing—which creates struggles with accurate deployment and scalability—and expensive feed change. New 

R&D is needed for improved options. 

CARBON PRICING

CONSIDER A HYBRID CAP-AND-TRADE/CARBON PRICING SYSTEM

Carbon pricing would create an additional incentive to decarbonize the economy, 

particularly the electricity and industry sectors. The federal government could consider establishing a hybrid cap-and-trade system with cap levels reflecting scientifically based targets, a price floor and ceiling to manage price variability, and a significant investment of revenue in reductions from sectors that respond less to price 

changes (such as transportation, buildings, and agriculture). Another option is a hybrid carbon tax, whereby the tax level varies based on progress reducing emissions. 

An important caveat: Existing sector-specific policies should be not discarded in 

favor of carbon pricing. Rather, carbon pricing should be used as a complementary 

policy to help achieve additional emissions reductions. It is not a substitute for performance standards. 

RURAL AMERICA AND THE ENERGY TRANSITION

Federal support for rural Americans can be very powerful. These supports include 

taking care of frontline communities where polluting energy infrastructure has 

made an impact over the years, as well as sharing the new energy economy’s benefits with those who host its infrastructure. 

MATCHING FUNDS FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES HOSTING ENERGY AND TRANSMISSION

INFRASTRUCTURE

To the extent that new energy and transmission projects include a payment to 

local communities for hosting infrastructure, a federal matching fund could be created to help support these communities. This can compensate communities and increase public support for these projects. 

FEDERAL FUNDS FOR TRANSITION SUPPORT FOR COAL MINERS AND POWER PLANT

WORKERS

The clean energy transition will result in fewer Americans working in coal mines 

and coal power plants. The total number of Americans working in these industries 

is already relatively small roughly 50,000 Americans are employed in the coal mining industry 18—so a federal fund would not need to be large to assist communities 

and individuals through this transition. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
42 

19https://energyinnovation.org/publication/the-coal-cost-crossover/. 20See: http://www.energy-transitions.org/sites/default/files/ETC_MissionPossible_FullReport. 

pdf. 21On carbon removal programs, see also: https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/12/wanted-325-millionfederal-rd-jumpstart-carbon-removal. 

CREATE INVESTMENT INCENTIVES FOR CLEAN ENERGY IN COAL AND FRACKING

COMMUNITIES

Local clean energy resources are cheaper than keeping two-thirds of U.S. coal 

plants running,19 and can sustain economic development through the clean energy 

transition. Incentives for clean energy manufacturers and developers to invest in 

communities that have historically hosted fossil fuel infrastructure can help those 

frontline communities during this transition. New investment can help create jobs 

and reinvigorate local economies affected by the transition. 

HEALTH CARE FOR COAL MINERS

Federal support for health care for coal miners can help those most harmed by 

helping America achieve the economic prosperity we enjoy today. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TRIPLE CLEAN ENERGY AND CARBON REDUCTION R&D FROM $2.5 BILLION TO $7.5

BILLION PER YEAR

The U.S. lags far behind on spending on clean energy and carbon reduction R&D. 

The budget for clean energy and carbon reduction R&D—note this is not the total 

energy research budget, but just the share going to clean energy and carbon reduction—should be tripled to at least $7.5 billion per year. Research areas that need 

more attention include: software advancements to plan and run a zero-carbon grid; 

opportunities to decarbonize heavy industry; hydrogen generated from clean electricity and used to meet both stationary and mobile energy needs; biochemistry and 

synthetic chemistry; materials efficiency and advanced recycling; new materials like 

low-carbon cement, steel, and plastic substitutes; as well as carbon capture and removal.20 21

EXPAND CRADAS

The federal government could support broader use of cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) between the private sector and national labs. 

CRADAs demand commitment from the public and the private sector, and are effective at stimulating private research, patents, and accelerating important technologies toward commercialization. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you very much. Thank you to all the witnesses for your outstanding testimony. 

At this time, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. 

Dr. Liverman, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

said that the global community needs to achieve net zero emissions 

by 2050 to limit warming, but it doesn’t specify the country-bycountry reductions. You have heard some of the comments up here 

that gosh, the U.S. can’t do it on its own. But what does the scientific literature say about what the U.S. needs to do in order to 

achieve that global goal? And what is your response to gosh, throw 

up our hands because other countries may not be moving fast 

enough either? 

Dr. LIVERMAN. Well, the scientific literature is considerable, looking at different countries’ responsibility for emissions, and what 

criteria one might use to decide what an equitable or a politically 

feasible response might be. So one of the issues is that carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a number of years. So what we 

emitted 50 years ago, it is still around contributing to warming. 

So there are several alternatives, several choices that might distribute responsibility for emissions. If you use current emissions, 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
43 

then, certainly, China is now higher than the United States. But 

historically, in terms of accumulated emissions, the U.S. still is the 

highest. We have done more to contribute to warming than any 

other country. We also have higher per capita emissions, 20 tons 

compared to a world average of about 6. So depending on which of 

those allocation criteria we look at in our research, the U.S. could 

bear a larger responsibility for emissions than a 50 percent reduction by 2030. But that negotiation is something that is done in the 

political arena, scientists are just pointing out what the various 

choices would be and what the implications might be in terms of 

the fair responsibility of the United States. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, clearly, we are behind the 8 ball, because the 

U.S. has put off climate action for so long that dramatic transition 

to the clean energy economy. 

Mr. Foster, you say this is an outstanding opportunity to create 

clean energy jobs and lower utility bills for consumers. Help us 

prioritize as we look to putting together a report for the United 

States, and for citizens in the Congress. Where do we start? 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, one of the projects that we started when I 

worked at the Department of Energy was the collection of jobs data 

on energy jobs and energy efficiency, an annual study that we have 

continued for the last 4 years. What I think it shows us is that the 

big bulk of an immediate economic impact on Americans is in the 

field of energy efficiency. We have an outstanding record, we have 

2.35 Americans who work in that area, very heavily dominated by 

construction, but over 320,000 manufacturing jobs. Many of those 

manufacturing jobs, making that energy efficient equipment, are 

located in coal States; six of the top 15 are among those. It is no 

accident that places where we once mined coal produce cheap energy and led to a manufacturing cluster in all those States, so to 

speak. So investments, picking up projects like the old 48(c), advanced energy manufacturing tax credit, to spark the growth of 

manufacturing and clean energy, energy efficiency technologies 

would be one of smartest things we could do to drive economic development in places that have been negatively impacted. 

Ms. CASTOR. And Mr. Harvey, you have laid out some significant 

recommendations for us. You also have authored a book ‘‘Climate 

Solutions,’’ that is a very good roadmap for policymakers. You highlight that we better get started in the energy sector. Could you 

elaborate please? 

Mr. HARVEY. Certainly. There are four big sectors in American 

energy, or any country’s energy, which is the electric grid, transportation, buildings, and industry. They have separate pathways, 

although obviously connected, and one needs to have policy for each 

one that understands the dynamics of that one. 

The technology advancement off of the electric grid has been dramatic, and it is now driven so that the lowest cost electricity on the 

planet is solar and wind. And we have many more options on the 

way. By the way, I am completely in favor of technology, the more 

advanced technologies. I want to use what have already right 

away, and keep developing the next generation. 

So the electric grid can be decarbonized at a savings to consumers, so long as the policy is proper designed. And what do I 

mean by that? This is very important. You need a long-term target 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
44 

that has high certainty. Companies need flexibility on how to get 

there. The target should be technology neutral and there should be 

price finding. It should not be driven by arbitrary dicta. If you do 

those things, you liberate the free market and all its innovation to 

find a solution. It doesn’t mean you softened the goal at all. It 

means you create enough of a horizon and enough certainty and 

enough flexibility that you achieve it at the lowest possible cost. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you very much. Mr. Graves, you are going 

to yield to Mr. Carter. 

Mr. Carter, good morning. 

Mr. CARTER. Good morning. 

Ms. CASTOR. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank each and 

every one of you for being here. We appreciate this. This is very, 

very helpful to us as a committee, and we all take that very seriously, climate change is real. The climate has been changing since 

day 1, and protecting our environment is real. We all understand 

that. 

Mr. Guith, I am going to start with you. As Ranking Member 

Graves mentioned, I read your report as well and found it to be 

very interesting and very balanced. And I appreciate that. I wanted 

to ask you specifically about something you mentioned. You mentioned a number of private sector businesses that are already making investments in their own right to fight climate change. Can you 

just talk a little bit about that and maybe just a few examples? 

Mr. GUITH. Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity. I didn’t 

get a chance to go over it in the oral testimony. But in my written 

testimony, I highlighted a couple of specific projects that I think 

are emblematic of what U.S. business has been doing over the last 

decade. And we feature these in our energy debates program. The 

most recent one we just—module we just put on our website last 

week was San Diego Gas & Electric who constructed, what at the 

time was the world’s largest stationary storage facility. It has now 

been surpassed by one in Australia, but I am sure there will be a 

race to the top to see who can make the most efficient and, frankly, 

largest dispatchable battery. Advanced reactor at new scale, it is 

a small module reactor. It is revolutionary design that can be used 

globally, and in places where you wouldn’t necessarily put a large 

scale reactor like we use right now. And then, one that is incredibly 

important, just outside of Houston, Texas, a project being built by 

a consortium of companies that stands to be the first zero emissions natural gas plant, that would be competitive—— 

Mr. CARTER. I have actually seen that. 

Mr. GUITH [continuing]. With off-the shelf natural gas. That 

power, yes. It is a great project. 

Mr. CARTER. And you bring out some great examples. Let me ask 

you this: As is often the case in Congress, with the best of intentions, we put in government regulations to encourage these type of 

things. Do you think that it is possible that the government putting 

more requirements on these businesses to fight climate change in 

specific ways could do just the opposite, and that is, it could hinder 

their ability? 

Mr. GUITH. Absolutely. I think, even with the best intentions, 

American history, and probably the history of democracy globally, 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
45 

is littered with unintended consequences. I mean, we see State by 

State, and sometimes even national policies are creating headwind 

for nuclear power right now. Nuclear power remains the backbone 

of our emissions-free generation. It is the leading source of roundthe-clock baseload generation. I don’t think those policies were intended to harm nuclear, but—— 

Mr. CARTER. Exactly. 

Mr. GUITH [continuing]. That is what happened. 

Mr. CARTER. And as you point out, quite often that does happen, 

with all the best of intentions. 

At the same time, if we put in policies that—if we allow policies 

that harm our economy, isn’t that going to hurt business’ ability to 

address and to make investments to fight climate change? 

Mr. GUITH. Absolutely. I mean having private conversations with 

many of my members, especially in the generation sector, they 

have all made significant commitments to emissions reductions 

over the next 30, 40, 50 years. But they are concerned that specific 

policies might deny them the capital they need to invest in the 

technologies they would need to actually meet those commitments. 

Mr. CARTER. Absolutely. And let me reach just a little further, 

we have established the fact that China is accounting for 30 percent of all the emissions in the world, the United States, only 15 

percent. But even with China and their international emissions, 

and what they are putting into the environment, does the business 

community have a role in working with China, do you think, in trying to reduce emissions? 

Mr. GUITH. Absolutely it is a great economic opportunity. The reality is, is that emissions from developing countries, and whether 

you consider China one or not, are going to continue to rise. And 

unless we or someone else bring the technologies to bear that are 

scalable to the extent that we are talking about globally—we are 

not talking about a single state or a single community in this country, where resources are relatively accessible, we are talking about 

scalable globally. They are going to keep burning coal. So unless we 

have a way to capture the emissions from that, we are going to continue to be at a net negative as far as reductions. 

Mr. CARTER. Well, again, thank you all for being here. Thank 

you, Mr. Guith. And again, I can’t stress, as I have in the past the 

opportunity that lies here. We have the brightest minds, the greatest innovators, right here in America. That is why I am so excited 

about this. I mean, people look at this, the sky is falling. Actually, 

this is one of the greatest opportunities I think we have had in this 

country in many, many years, and I look forward to seeing it what 

results from this. 

So thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Carter. 

Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Chair Castor, Ranking Member 

Graves, and thank you to our witnesses. We know what we are facing. We have already seen heat waves, droughts, wildfires, surge 

in extreme weather events, more acidic oceans, rising sea levels, 

and certainly, the intergovernmental panel on climate change emphasizes that it is time, it is past time to take bold action. And we 

do, here in the United States, have the ability, and, I submit, the 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
46 

obligation as well, to be a leader in curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Certainly our commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement are an important first step, but there is so much more that 

we can do, and we must accept this challenge. 

We know it is going to require innovation, leadership and the responsible use of our vast resources. I just had the opportunity to 

tour the manufacturer of a wave buoy that is going to help tap the 

power of the ocean. 

So, Mr. Harvey, in your testimony you highlight examples of advances in clean energy technology, wind, solar, battery storage. Significant Federal investments in research and development have 

been critical in developing and deploying new and advanced clean 

energy technologies, programs like ARPA-E, supporting high risk, 

high reward energy research that is not being addressed by the private sector. 

So I am going to ask Mr. Harvey and Mr. Foster, what sectors 

would benefit from additional R&D resources and in what other 

areas would additional Federal funds be effective in spurring innovation and research? 

Mr. HARVEY. So thank you for the question. I think it is a very 

important one. Everybody on this panel, I think everybody in this 

room agrees, technology is the key to success here. Right now, the 

United States of America spends less than 1 half of 1 percent of 

its energy budget on R&D. That is pitiful. That is the wrong number. For IT, it is 10 percent, for pharmaceuticals, it is 20 percent. 

More than 10 years ago I founded something called the American 

Energy Innovation Council, which was about 10 CEOs including 

Bill Gates, the CEOs of GE, McDonnell Douglas, and a number of 

other companies. We urge the trebling of Federal R&D. I think if 

you trebled clean energy R&D from roughly 2.5 billion to 7.5 billion 

you would create an amazing downpayment on the future. 

With that said, there is development of new ideas and then there 

is deployment. Innovation happens all the way along that. You 

need a different policy for innovation in the deployment phase. You 

need large-scale purchase. And in the beginning you are going pay 

a little more, but over time, you drive the price down. So you are 

creating options for all of humanity. We have done that successfully with solar, with wind, with many aspects of geothermal, with 

fracking, with many other technologies. The learning curve, as it 

is called in scientific parlance, is our friend. But if you let technologies die on the vine before you get to those price reductions, 

then you fail to create those options for future generations. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I appreciate that very much. I also serve on the 

Science, Space, and Technology Committee, so it is very helpful. 

Mr. Foster, climate change, as we know, is affecting our entire 

economy, and solution must include the creation of good-paying 

jobs. My other committee is the Education and Labor Committee 

where we do work on a lot of workforce issues at advocated for onthe-job training programs. 

And I know, Mr. Harvey, you mentioned people who work in coal 

power plants. My grandfather was a coal miner in Pennsylvania. 

I am sure he worked very hard in that coal mine trying to support 

his family. He lost his leg and then he died of lung cancer, so he 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
47 

had severe health problems. So we want to have good, safe jobs for 

workers, and that needs to be central to a clean energy economy. 

So Mr. Foster, you talked about the workforce development crisis 

across all energy technologies, especially in energy efficiency. And 

you highlight energy efficiency jobs paying substantially more than 

equivalent occupations outside of the energy field. So how can Congress better support workforce development in the energy sector in 

our transition to a clean energy economy? Mr. Foster. 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, first, let me just add that in my opinion, there 

is no technology more important to invest in right now than carbon 

capture sequestration, simply because we have no other paths to 

decarbonization in the industrial sector and it is extremely important that we contribute to that. It also has other applications that 

from a political point of view, I think open up the subject of climate 

change to a much broader discussion in this country because it 

then talks about what is the future of coal, what are the future of 

fossil fuels. If we have that technology it becomes very, very important to otherwise abandoned communities. 

In terms of what can be done on the energy workforce crisis, I 

think a deep look at how our Federal agencies collaborate and coordinate on how they develop curriculum that supports energy efficiency technologies, how the National Science Foundation, how the 

Department of Education, how the Department of Defense, Department of Labor, and the Department of Energy, all work on how 

they create a uniform, standard-driven energy efficiency technology 

that can be spread out around the country to our benefit. That was 

a project we worked on when I was at the Department of Energy. 

And I think it is something of extreme importance to solve this crisis. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, very helpful. I yield back. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. Miller, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Madam Chair and thank all of you for 

being here today. We all care about taking care of and protecting 

Mother Earth. 

In the past century, we have seen unparalleled economic growth 

around the world. This boom is in part because people have access 

to energy, increased access to affordable electricity to power our 

homes, our schools, and our places of work correlates directly to the 

improved quality of life for people all around the world. Any recommendation this committee makes must ensure that we maintain 

access to affordable energy. Dismantling coal, oil, and natural gas 

will not only hurt our economy, but it will also make energy less 

affordable and set society back. I can personally attest to the effect 

of policy that can decimate an economy. 

One of the many aspects that makes our country great is our entrepreneurial spirit. So many of our Nation’s small businesses and 

corporations have taken steps to be good stewards of the environment, and to give back to their communities, without the direction 

of the Federal Government because it is the right thing to do. 

It is a good reminder of what can be done when the government 

takes a backseat, and lets businesses run themselves. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
48 

Mr. Guith, in your experience with the private sector, what is already being done to lower carbon emissions while preserving and 

promoting our Nation’s diverse energy mix? 

Mr. GUITH. Where do I begin? If you look across the many commitments that have been made, some of them have been within the 

companies themselves. There has been billions of dollars invested 

in greater efficiencies within the manufacturing sector. 

If you look at the advent of the shale revolution and what that 

has meant to fuel diversity, and efficiency, and frankly, emissions. 

But ultimately, as you pointed out, we have seen great economic 

growth over the last century. If you look over just the last 40 years, 

we have seen our own economy grow by 170 percent, while simultaneously reducing the criteria air pollutants by 70 percent. That was 

driven by innovation, that was driven by science, and that was 

driven by the entrepreneurial and ingenuity of the business community. 

Mrs. MILLER. What technologies can and should be deployed to 

mitigate carbon? 

Mr. GUITH. I think there is a pretty wide consensus across every 

scientific body that has looked at this that the three core technologies that are essential from a scalability standpoint globally 

are carbon capture sequestration, whether it is utilization or otherwise, stationary storage. Renewables have made a huge dent in our 

emissions profile, but until we can bring them to a parity, as far 

as baseload replacement, they are going to have a glass ceiling. 

And then finally, advanced nuclear. I mean, everybody that I 

have looked at, that has looked at this, all say that those are the 

three. And, obviously, efficiency is going to continue to be integral 

to all of them. 

Mrs. MILLER. In 2017, the United Sates led the world in the reduction of climate emissions. However, other countries, even those 

who are signatories to multilateral agreements, are canceling out 

our efforts. Can you speak to how we can, in America, do—help to 

counteract what these other countries are doing? 

Mr. GUITH. As I mentioned in my testimony, the developing 

world is projected to continue to have emissions increases, while 

the developed world is projected to continue to decrease them. Unfortunately, they are not equal and we look—we expect emissions 

to continue to increase globally on the net. 

What can be done is what we are doing now, and that is, investing in the technology to a much greater scale. We have consistently 

been disappointed with OMB’s budget when it comes to innovation 

and technology. We agree that there is lot more that needs to be 

done at the Federal level, both from an R&D standpoint, but also 

from a commercialization standpoint, as well as structurally within 

the Federal Government itself, to focus on these core technologies. 

But right now, U.S. business continues to lead the way. 

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you. 

I yield back my time. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Huffman, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to our witnesses. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
49 

I am intrigued and a little bit skeptical about this notion of carbon capture and sequestration that we keep coming back to, and 

several of the witnesses have referenced. Mr. Foster, I can stipulate 

that if we have got a natural gas power plant that comes online 

and is truly zero emissions, because it has implemented cutting 

edge carbon capture sequestration, that will be a good thing. My 

understanding is that plan is not yet producing electricity. And my 

concern is that this notion of CCS has always been that thing just 

around the corner that we keep pointing to to avoid bolder action 

in support of clean renewables and efficiency and other things. But 

I want to, for a moment, imagine that this really is near and 

deployable at scale. And I guess my question for you is, I get that 

that is appealing to folks that want to minimize disruption to fossil 

fuel infrastructure and to fossil fuel interests. But why would anyone do it in the absence of regulations, in the absence of some cap 

on emissions, in the absence of some price on carbon. It is not going 

to happen out of the goodness of people’s heart. Would you agree 

with me? 

Mr. FOSTER. I would agree with that. From the studies that we 

did when I was at DOE, it was a combination of baseline policy, 

combined with forward leaning tax credits. And those things have 

generally been the combination in driving claim policy forward that 

I have been the most struck by. So that, for instance, the Clean 

Power Plan, coupled with the ITC and PTC taxes for wind and 

solar, along with the new technologies of hydraulic fracking lowering the cost of natural gas, very quickly according to the National 

Renewable Energy Lab within less than 1 year after the adoption 

of the Clean Power Plan, market forces had taken over and were 

driving the reduction of the C02 emissions faster than policy alone. 

So I think that combination of things is really the magic spot. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. 

Mr. Harvey, I think I am hearing you say that if we take our 

thumb off the scale for fossil fuels, and put in place some of the 

incentives, like the one Mr. Foster and I were just talking about, 

either carbon pricing or some caps that begin to move the market 

towards low emission solutions, that clean energy competes just 

fine, and, in some cases, actually saves money. Would you elaborate on that, please? 

Mr. HARVEY. Yes, absolutely. There is a problem with unintended consequences of regulation, and that’s been raised already, 

and we need to pay attention to that. In my mind, the best way 

to achieve reductions is to think about public standards. We have 

public standards so that our meat isn’t poisoned, so that our water 

is clean. You mentioned the Clean Air Act, fantastic unleashing of 

technology in business innovation, but it came about because of 

public standards, because we said we are going to emit fewer carcinogens and fewer lung-damaging particulates into the atmosphere. That is what we need in carbon dioxide as well; is set clear 

public standards, and let the market find the best way to achieve 

them. Don’t choose technology, don’t choose prices—that is a communist idea—choose what the public needs and let the market do 

its job. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Can you give us an example of the standards that 

might be set? For example, there is a lot of talk about net zero 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
50 

emissions by 2050. Is that the kind of standard that you could 

build incentives around? 

Mr. HARVEY. It is. Although, I wouldn’t argue for that one precisely. There are 30 states now with renewable portfolio standards. 

The best of them say, ‘‘Hit the target, go.’’ I don’t care—by the 

way—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Technology neutral. 

Mr. HARVEY. Technology neutral absolutely. I would make it 

clean energy. I wouldn’t make it renewable per se. Every one of 

those, every single one of those has been hit at a lower cost than 

projected, and some of them at dramatically lower costs. And by 

the way, they are not R things or D things, they are both sides of 

the aisle, these renewable portfolio standards. 

So for the country, I mentioned 80 percent by 2035, it is feasible. 

It would set a clear signal. It creates enough of a time horizon that 

business can get to it. It would be very powerful. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right. Thanks. 

I don’t have a lot of time, but Mr. Guith, I am drawn to the fact 

that you are saying inaction is not an option. And believe me, I am 

encouraged by that statement as far as it goes, but my challenge 

is, I am looking at a couple of decades of action by the Chamber 

here in Congress and elsewhere that is all about preventing action 

on addressing climate change. 

In 2007, you spearheaded the defeat of a very modest climate 

bill, Lieberman-Warner; you spearheaded the opposition to Waxman-Markey. You turned around, you targeted Members of Congress that voted for that climate solution. In the next election, you 

defeated them. And when your allies came into power, they have 

done nothing for a decade on this issue, and you were just fine with 

that. I guess what I am trying to understand—oh, and you also 

funded studies that attacked the Paris Climate Agreement and 

Donald Trump cited those studies, even though they have been debunked by independent scientists. So after all of this effort, you 

have put in defending the status quo and preventing climate action, as you testify today telling us that inaction is not an option, 

has there been a change in the Chamber’s position? 

Mr. GUITH. No. I mean—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Well, that is really what I was asking. And so reserving my time—reclaiming my time, I want to urge you—— 

Ms. CASTOR. The gentleman’s time has expired, and I think we 

will be able to get back to that issue. So at this point, we will recognize Mr. Griffith for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Armstrong will be recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Thank you. I take a little exception with the 

talk that carbon capture isn’t feasible. We are dealing with whether it is ELM cycle research, we have a thing called Project Tundra 

in North Dakota. We have great partnership between the coal industry, the wind industry, the oil and gas industry, and utilizing 

it because we have—it is North Dakota, but we have some advantages of geography in that they are both there, and not to mention 

up in the Weyburn Field in Canada has been doing this now for 

over a decade. So as we continue to work forward with that, I— 

Americans want clean air, they want clean water. And sometimes, 

I think we get into a situation where our policies get counterintuVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:32 Aug 15, 2019 Jkt 036849 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A849.XXX A849

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
51 

itive based on politics. And I don’t think there is a better answer 

than that than pipelines. Transportation is obviously one of the 

lead drivers in carbon emissions, whether it is trains, whether it 

is cars, whether it is anything, it is not as safe to move product 

on rail or on the roads as it is in pipelines. But more importantly, 

we are trying to move natural gas through—it would be nice to get 

a quorum on FERC, that would be pretty good moving forward. But 

we try, moving our gas to the east coast, we end up having a really 

bad winter. Carbon emissions actually go up, because State water 

laws trumping FERC citing on a pipeline, and so we are using 

heating oil instead of natural gas to burn. And I think we do this 

a lot. Perfect is the enemy of good when we continue to have this 

conversation. So—and just with the Bakken shale revolution in 

North Dakota, we have invested $12 billion in gas infrastructure. 

We probably need another $5 or $6 billion more. So as we continue 

to capture carbon from North American Coal, or the Wolf Creek 

station, all that is going to do without the infrastructure is—I 

mean, it is still better. We are capturing the carbon, but we are 

producing more oil and gas, and we don’t have the infrastructure 

in place to process the gas, and then we run into these kind of 

issues. 

So I guess my question for Mr. Foster, you were the one that 

talked about carbon capture, what incentives, what advantages can 

we do so—and I agree with you, it is clean energy, so we can do 

this in a realistic manner that is allowing industries to compete 

and also protect the reliability of the grid. 

I mean, that is a part of the conversation I don’t think we have 

enough, is that given certain storage limitations and weather limitations, if you live in a State like mine where it is 35 below for 45 

days in a row, and windmills don’t turn if it is more than 20 below, 

we have to have reliable energy. And one thing you can’t do with 

a coal plant is just turn it on and off very quickly. 

Now, there is some quick combustion engines with natural gas 

and we can do those things. So how do we really truly incentivize— 

I mean, we do some stuff with our research arm at the EERC and 

do a lot of projects, but from a Federal level, how do we not pick 

winners and losers, and just start talking about whether it is sequestration, enhanced oil recovery, and those types of things. 

Mr. FOSTER. I believe that a properly constructed Federal clean 

energy standard, coupled with improvements to the 45Q tax credit, 

would provide the kind of architecture to help make carbon capture 

sequestration more commercially viable in the electric sector. But 

beyond that, I think it is absolutely critical that we drive the cost 

of deployment of that technology down so it can be usable in industrial applications, because we have no other way to remove emissions from blast furnaces and steel mills, or from cement kilns, or 

a host of other industrial applications that are going to be needed 

the world over. So what better economic driver than to be the leaders in producing, applying, commercializing this technology across 

all its different uses. 

Mr. ARMSTRONG. To understand how this works on the ground 

sometimes, I mean, innovation happens in really interesting places. 

So we have an ethanol plant that is immediately located next to 

a coal plant, and they use the coal plant to heat the ethanol plant. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
52 

So they are capturing, they are increasing efficiencies, they are 

driving down the cost; instead of a waste product, now they are creating two different things. 

I will have a question for Mr. Guith. How do we do any of these 

things that doesn’t just export our pollution? If we are going to go 

back and ban the export of oil, ban the export of LNG, ban the export of coal when we are dealing with developing countries and 

doing those things. I mean, if we are serious about this conversation, isn’t the conversation also have to include that part of the 

conversation? Because the last thing we want to do is export our 

pollution to countries that don’t have the regulations we have here. 

Mr. GUITH. It is not just the production side, it is on the consumption side, too. I mean, we know full well that climate change 

is a global issue. And if it is not addressed globally, it is not going 

to be addressed. If we don’t have technologies in place that the rest 

of the world can use, whether it be sequestration or otherwise, then 

we are going to continue to see emissions rise. 

And I would also point out, to follow up on Mr. Foster’s answer, 

right now, the USE IT Act is an incredibly important regulatory 

change that has tremendous bipartisan support in the Senate, and 

hopefully, we will see it passed there and come over here to help 

facilitate greater use of sequestration. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Levin, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Chair Castor, and thank you to our witness for providing such thorough testimony. Many of your statements make it clear that the planet is heading towards huge costs 

associated with climate change. However, it is heartening to see 

you have done a lot of work to chart the best path forward that 

can help the United States and the rest of the world to avoid those 

costs. 

Dr. Liverman, I would like to begin with you, and also begin by 

saying my wife is a proud University of Arizona graduate. She 

would be very mad if I didn’t offer Bear Down. In this committee, 

we have discussed that there will be a significant financial cost if 

nations, including the United States, don’t take action on climate 

change. So I would offer that any recommendations the committee 

makes must be compared to that baseline. 

In your testimony, I was struck when you said that limiting 

warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius rather than 2 degrees could avoid 

up to $38 trillion, that is with a T, $38 trillion worldwide in damages by the end of the century. 

On this figure can you estimate how many dollars of those damages might take place in the United States? 

Dr. LIVERMAN. The IPCC didn’t look at that, but the U.S. National Climate Assessment did provide some figures. They suggested that if warming continues, that damages could be up to .6 

percent higher, if we go up 2 degrees in the U.S. And that would 

be 2.3 percent of GDP per degree of warming. So if we continue to 

warm, if we don’t act, it will have a significant impact on our GDP. 

Mr. LEVIN. So it would be terrific if you could track down the 

number in trillions of dollars in direct economic impact, the cost of 

inaction of the United States and provide that to the committee. 

Dr. LIVERMAN. I would be happy to do so. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
53 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Harvey, in fairness to my wife, I notice you went to my alma 

mater, Stanford University, so go Cardinal. I was interested to 

read your finding that multiple midwestern States that derive 

more than 25 percent of their generation from wind power have 

more reliable grids than their neighbors that don’t. 

This week, you are probably aware the House is voting on a bill 

that would keep the U.S. in the Paris Agreement. And I have offered an amendment to that bill underscoring the fact that cleaner 

and more reliable forms of energy like wind don’t necessarily mean 

less reliability or higher costs. In fact, often the opposite is true. 

Could you elaborate on how wind power and other renewables integrated into the grid of future, don’t necessarily equate to higher 

costs or less reliability. 

Mr. HARVEY. Certainly, Congressman Levin, and thanks for the 

opportunity. 

I studied power systems planning in my graduate program in engineering at Stanford. And we were taught to turn on power plants 

in ascending economic dispatch order to meet whatever the demand 

was, and that people still refer to baseload power, shouldering 

power and peaking power. That paradigm is giving way to a new 

management strategy, which is system optimization. 

So a grid operator should have a whole suite of resources at his 

or her fingertips, ranging from the conventional power plants to renewable energy, to demand side opportunities as well. And then 

wheeling power across large distances. The more options you have, 

the more robust your system is. If something goes down and you 

have a good transmission line, you can bring in electricity from another part of the country. When it is freezing cold in North Dakota, 

it is probably reasonably warm in Arizona. When San Diego has a 

peak demand, Seattle doesn’t and vice versa. And so, by hooking 

together heterogenous systems and heterogenous power supply and 

optimizing across the suite, you create a much more robust system 

and a much more reliable system. It is what other industries are 

used to doing, the electric power industry is just learning to do 

that. 

I will just mention one last word, the head of the California Independent System Operators, Steven Berberich, is somebody you 

should consider as a witness, because he is running one of the largest grids in the fifth largest economy in the world, and he is pushing into these frontiers and he is not breaking a sweat. 

Mr. LEVIN. I think a field trip to Folsom would be great for the 

committee to see CAISO. 

Mr. Guith, I noted your mention of a San Diego Gas & Electric 

project. And I commend the work at SDG&E, that is in my neck 

of the woods. But I note that it didn’t happen in a vacuum, it happened only after tough regulatory oversight by the California Public Utilities Commission. I wanted to turn to the Paris Accord and 

get your take on it for just a minute. 

I noticed the Chamber has a position saying, and I quote, ‘‘The 

Chamber believes in an effective climate policy should encourage 

international cooperation,’’ end quote. And also, quote, ‘‘The United 

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Changes Paris Agreement established a comprehensive framework for international acVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:32 Aug 15, 2019 Jkt 036849 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A849.XXX A849

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
54 

tion,’’ end quote. Mr. Guith, do you believe the United States 

should stay in the Paris Climate Agreement? 

Mr. GUITH. I think the business community has been pretty clear 

that United States needs to remain at the table internationally, 

and that includes the Paris Agreement itself. 

Mr. LEVIN. Great. I agree and every member will have the opportunity to vote this week to keep the United States in the Paris 

agreement when H.R. 9 comes to the floor. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GUITH. But if I may, though, the legislation is not just about 

Paris. It is also about the commitment and how by we get there. 

That is a completely separate issue. 

Mr. LEVIN. Well, I find any discussion of H.R. 9, or questioning 

of H.R. 9, hard to reconcile with the Chamber’s position. I actually 

think it is quite consistent, and I think my colleagues across the 

aisle will agree if they take the time to read the legislation. I thank 

you for your time. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Levin. Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have to respond. I 

read the legislation, and I am not voting for it. So there. 

All right. Mr. Foster, thank you so much for being here today 

and thank you—you are probably the only person on the panel 

today who has actually been to my district. And it was one of those 

rare moments when while we didn’t agree on everything, Secretary 

Moniz sent you and a team down to see what was going on in coal 

fields. I greatly appreciated that. We had a seminar as you recall 

at the University of Wise, University of Virginia at Wise. And then 

you all went over to a high school in one of my poorest counties, 

Dickenson County. My district, for those of you who don’t know, 

abuts to West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee. 

And we have a significant coal mining investment in part of the 

district, it is a very large district. And so I was very appreciative 

of your comments on page four of your written testimony that says 

we need—first we need to embrace in all-of-the-above flexible strategy toward climate solutions. There is no silver bullet. You said 

this in your oral testimony, too. No single technology, no one perfect policy, which is why I believe we have to continue to invest in 

research. I would suggest when—I appreciated you both pronouncing Appalachia, for those of us from central Appalachia, correctly. And for recognizing there are some things we can do in Appalachia, one that was not on your list because we hadn’t really 

thought about when you all were down to visit, is close loop storage 

inside of a coal mine using the water. Obviously there is nothing 

living down there. We bring the water in from outside, there is not 

an environmental consequence, and we can use that as a giant battery sitting in the same areas. Mr. Harvey said we want to put 

some of the jobs in the area where the jobs are going to be lost, 

and my district has suffered heavily. 

Further, I would also have to say that one of the things we 

talked about at that seminar was the fact that we are going to continue to use coal. Everybody today has been talking about the grid 

and electricity. A large amount of the coal out of my district makes 

steel, and I know you have a lot of interest in steel as well having 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
55 

worked with the unions in that industry. And so, we are going to 

continue to mine that high quality coal, and we have to find ways 

to make sure that the American public understands that not every 

coal is equal to other coal, but a lot of the coal around the world 

is dirtier than our coal. And we have to come up with new research 

and ways to do that. 

Now, I am excited and will tell you that one of the participants 

there—and you heard the testimony from Dr. Yoon at Virginia 

Tech—they just have taken some of their technology and they were 

looking at rare Earth minerals, and separating that from the carbon in central Appalachia. But they also can make poor coal better. 

And so they have licensed that technology to steel plants in India, 

and I think this is how we solve some of these problems, so that 

they can take that poorer coal that they are mining in India, and 

upgrade what they are doing because they are going to make steel. 

Other nations, particularly in the developing world, they are not 

going to impoverish their people because we have decided we don’t 

want it to be warmer. No matter what the consequences may be, 

they are not going to have their people living in the dark or living 

in poverty. But if we can get technologies that we can then license 

with these two steel mills that they have licensed their technology 

are going to do is lower the carbon footprint, because even in the 

developing world they want to have jobs, they don’t want to be impoverished, but they also want clean water and clean air. So this 

is where I think we can find the win and I appreciate you saying 

that. 

And I am concerned, and I will give you an opportunity to give 

me some help, that the DOE’s loan program that you worked with, 

and you said in your testimony, there were 39 billion of unused low 

interest and loan guarantees authority that could move rapidly to 

help finance some of this research that I am very positive about. 

Tell me why aren’t we using that? What can we do to speed that 

up? 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, I submitted, along with my testimony, a research paper that had been done by the Energy Futures Initiative 

about a year ago, and a whole range of suggestions on how the loan 

program office could be applied, particularly to energy infrastructure investments, and a variety of other issues like that. I do think 

with the budget constraints that Congress may have on it, this is 

authorized $39 billion worth of loan guarantees, and low interest 

loans that could be applied without further authorizations. 

So, I think looking deeply at ways in which the loan program office could be used to accelerate additional technologies, particularly 

energy infrastructure, look at the research paper we did, and we 

strongly encourage the committee to investigate that. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Guith, you heard my spiel on developing countries. What can 

we do to increase their use of technologies? Because they are going 

to continue to use fossil fuels, we know that. In fact, the World 

Bank said we are not going to lend any more money for building 

coal-fired power plants, so China is investing all over the world, 

particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, in building new coal-fired 

power plants. What can we do to encourage these countries to use 

the new technologies and to make it cleaner? 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
56 

Mr. GUITH. That is a great example right there. I mean, the technology that the Chinese are financing is subcritical, and so you 

have more emissions. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Subcritical means poor? 

Mr. GUITH. Yes. If the United States would have remained as 

part of that financing mechanism, we would have been using ultra 

critical technology, and, therefore, lower emissions. But ultimately, 

we need to develop and commercialize the technology. If we make 

it available as we have so many technologies that we are using 

right now, the rest of the world will use it. But the rest of the 

world generally, especially developing world, does not have the resources that we have. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you very much. Mr. Casten, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASTEN. Thank you, Chair Castor. Thank you so much to the 

panel. 

I want to focus my comments on—the question is on economics, 

and I just want to start with something that is, I think, non controversial, but too rarely said, and that is that fossil fuel is an inherently high marginal cost source of energy relative to every other 

option. And when you use less fossil, you reduce less CO2 and you 

save money. It is not complicated, but we don’t mention it often 

enough. 

The one exception, of course, is in the extractive industries, and 

the jobs in the extractive industries have a rooting interest in higher cost energy. The entire rest of the economy from steel production 

to bitcoin mining to airline flight attendants has a vested interest 

in lower cost energy. 

Mr. Foster, can you give me a rough estimate of how many jobs 

have a rooting interest in higher cost energy in the country relative 

to the numbers that have a rooting interest in lower cost energy? 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, I can give you rough numbers of a number of 

them according to the U.S. energy and employment report. So for 

the coal industry, which includes their entire value chain it would 

be about 200,000 jobs; for the natural gas industry, it would be 

about 650,000; and for the petroleum industry, it would be about 

900,000. So if you try to put that in comparison, I mentioned wind 

and solar, solar if you are looking at the majority time jobs, it is 

about 240,000 wind. It is about 107,000. You look at the other zero 

carbon energy, I think I mentioned nuclear is in the range of 

63,000, hydro 66,000. 

Mr. CASTEN. Is it safe to say that even those pale beside those 

industries like steel making, all the manufacturing sector, that actually employs the bulk of the economy and has a rooting interest 

in lower cost energy? 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, I think just about every sector of the economy 

has an interest in lower cost energy. And one of things I found interesting is following how in the era of really unparalleled growth 

in the United States, we have seen a constantly diminishing share 

of gross domestic product going to energy. So it is down to about 

5.4 percent today of gross—overall of gross domestic product. 

Mr. CASTEN. I am sorry to interrupt, but I know we are am tight 

on time. Is it safe to say that investing in lower marginal cost enVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:32 Aug 15, 2019 Jkt 036849 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A849.XXX A849

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
57 

ergy sources is a net job creator and is net stimulative to the economy? 

Mr. FOSTER. That is a very big generalization that I wouldn’t 

necessarily jump to. 

Mr. CASTEN. I certainly would, but fair enough. Part of the reason I say this is because I spent 20 years in the energy industry 

before I got here. And I am of the opinion that the single biggest 

explanation for the falling CO2 emissions in the electric sector was 

the 1992 Energy Policy Act, and FERC order 888, which, for the 

first time, encouraged us to preferentially deploy lower cost assets, 

which, oh, by the way, are the more efficient and less fossil fuel intensive assets. 

I was delighted to hear your comments on that, Mr. Harvey. And 

I wonder if you would chat a little bit about what more we might 

be thinking at, specifically at the FERC level, to better incentivize 

lower cost production, and to better value ancillary services like 

voltage stability and other mechanisms to accelerate this transition 

to cheaper and cleaner energy. 

Mr. HARVEY. Representative Casten, you just proved yourself to 

be an energy nerd, sir. Congratulations. 

Mr. CASTEN. Not the first time. 

Mr. HARVEY. So the FERC has a very important job to do now, 

wholesale markets in America are FERC-regulated, but they are 

not generally FERC-controlled, they are controlled by independent 

nonprofit associations that are answerable to no one, and that is 

a bit of a problem. 

What happens is, and you are absolutely correct with rule 888, 

it opens the doors for lowest marginal cost energy dispatch. However, the FERC and other independent markets have the ability to 

set conditions for those sales, and the ability to reward other attributes, so spinning reserve, ancillary services, capacity factors, 

and so forth. 

Some of those things you need to reward, others of those are basically fake ways to give a lot of money to certain industries, and 

I am being blunt here, because one needs to be. That is exactly 

what is it going on right now. 

The proper answer is to define those characteristics based on 

physical and economic need, not based on arbitrary made up numbers. I think the FERC just needs a stronger instruction about 

what its role is in creating a truly fluid market, a truly liquid market. 

Mr. CASTEN. So with the little time I have left, and I really, really enjoyed your testimony, I want to introduce for the record with 

unanimous consent if I could, climate policy initiative report supporting renewables while saving taxpayer money. 

Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter 

this into the record. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
58 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 36849C.017
59 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 36849C.018
60 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 36849C.019
61 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 36849C.020
62 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 36849C.021
63 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 36849C.022
64 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 36849C.023
65 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 36849C.024
66 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 36849C.025
67 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 36849C.026
68 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 36849C.027
69 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 36849C.028
70 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 36849C.029
71 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 36849C.030
72 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 36849C.031
73 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 36849C.032
74 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 36849C.033
75 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 36849C.034
76 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 36849C.035
77 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 36849C.036
78 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 36849C.037
79 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 36849C.038
80 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 36849C.039
81 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 36849C.040
82 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 36849C.041
83 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 36849C.042
84 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 36849C.043
85 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 36849C.044
86 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 36849C.045
87 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 36849C.046
88 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 36849C.047
89 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 36849C.048
90 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 36849C.049
91 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 36849C.050
92 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 36849C.051
93 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 36849C.052
94 

Mr. CASTEN. There specifically is a rich discussion in here about 

the benefits of using cash incentives as opposed to tax credits, 

which you talked about. Can you give us a little bit of an education 

on the differential ways that cash incentives versus tax incentives 

drive investments in clean energy? 

Mr. HARVEY. Certainly. So whenever you give somebody cash, they get a $1 worth of benefit for every $1 you give them. If you 

give them a tax credit, they have to find a way to use that tax credit. And most startups and most new technology companies don’t 

have profits, or don’t have excess profits, so they don’t need the tax 

credit, so they sell it on a secondary market. The price of that tax 

credit is always going to be less than $1, because of transaction 

costs. In many cases, because of restrictions on the tax credit, it is 

as low the 50 cents, which means the Federal Government is getting 50 cents for every dollar it gives up. That is a terrible bargain. 

So the answer is either direct grants, or highly fungible, highly 

liquid tax credits. 

Mr. CASTEN. Thank you. I wish I had more time, but I think I 

am out. 

Ms. CASTOR. And we will ask Mr. Harvey to get back to the committee with greater detail on that point. 

At this time, I recognize the ranking member. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Liverman, thanks again for being here. You made reference 

to IPCC and Paris Accord earlier. Do you believe that the metric 

measuring China and India’s emissions is the appropriate one 

meaning including GDP or an economic unit as opposed to an absolute reduction? 

Dr. LIVERMAN. I think we need to use all of the measures to assess what is happening in China, whether it be their absolute emissions, their historic emissions, their carbon intensity. Most scientists will look at all of those. 

Mr. GRAVES. So just doing economic is not an appropriate metric? 

Dr. LIVERMAN. I think the research suggests that we should look 

at multiple metrics because each metric gives us a different insight 

into what China’s doing and where it is going. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. Number two, I want to make sure I understood what you said before, so please correct my statement if I 

get this wrong, but you made mention of the greenhouse gas concentrations in the environment and talked about how much of that 

is attributable to what we released over the last 50 years. And so, 

I want to take it a step further and make sure I got this right. So 

there is sort of a momentum within the environment of these 

greenhouse gases. And so, effectively, if we could stop all emissions 

today in the United States, and those concentrations that are there 

are there. And so the corresponding temperature changes would result because of those greenhouse gas concentrations that are in the 

environment from previous emissions, is that accurate? 

Dr. LIVERMAN. Yes, unless, of course, we look at what the IPCC 

calls the negative emissions. And the discussion that we had so far 

has focused very much on the technology of carbon capture and 

storage, this sort of new technology, but we have very long-standing technology of carbon capture and storage which is forestry and 

farming for carbon capture. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
95 

Mr. GRAVES. Biogenics, yeah. 

Dr. LIVERMAN. And so, that we could make a dent in the emissions that are already there, and the U.S. can play a major role if 

we manage our forests and manage our farmland in order to capture carbon. 

Mr. GRAVES. I read an interesting article this week, I think it 

was the Salk Institute on how they are working on plant technology in order to increase the sink that results. In fact, I used to 

work on coastal resiliency issues. We were looking at how to 

change the vegetation in some of our diversion, water diversion receiving areas, to increase the uptake of phosphates and nitrates to 

help reduce the dead zone that was occurring, the hypoxic conditions in the Gulf of Mexico. So I agree there are other technologies 

and I think some of the extraction of carbon capture utilization are 

important ones. 

Do you believe that we should be using a metric of looking at 

sort of best return on investment whenever we make recommendations ultimately out of this committee, looking at which recommendations are going to get best return on investment in terms 

of preventing temperature increases and preventing sea rise and 

things along those lines? 

Dr. LIVERMAN. Yes, we need a metric of return on investment, 

but I would say that IPCC and many other scientific assessments 

do identify the challenge of putting a financial cost on some losses, 

loss of life, loss of farms. 

Mr. GRAVES. Sure. 

Dr. LIVERMAN. Loss of infrastructure. It can be quite hard to put 

a dollar value on that. And also, the uncertainty about discounting 

the future. 

Mr. GRAVES. But it is important for us to use some type of metric 

in looking at jobs, at economic and return on investment and others. 

Dr. LIVERMAN. Yes, yes. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. Moving on. Mr. Harvey, I want to—you 

talked a lot about renewables. You talked about wind and solar 

and others, and certainly those are important all-of-the-above strategies or components of a comprehensive strategy. But you didn’t 

talk about storage, and obviously, that is an important part, the 

sun doesn’t shine at night, right? And so I was looking at some statistics the Manhattan Institute put together, they determined that 

the gigafactory, Tesla’s gigafactory, the largest battery manufacturing facility in the world. That its annual production is capable 

of storing 3 minutes of U.S. energy. If they produced batteries for 

a 1,000 years we would be able to store enough energy for 2 days 

in the United States. Fifty to 100 pounds of rare Earth materials 

are mined for every 1 pound of battery. How do you reconcile that 

and the environmental impacts? And let’s keep in mind 15 of the 

top 23 commodities we are importing, minerals we are importing, 

including rare Earth, are actually from China, Russia and other 

countries like that, or China and Russia alone are involved in providing those materials to the United States. 

Mr. HARVEY. So electricity storage and batteries is really expensive, and it is true we are not going to get to long-term grid scale 

battery storage at a cost-effective number any time soon. FortuVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:32 Aug 15, 2019 Jkt 036849 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A849.XXX A849

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
96 

nately, we don’t need to, there are half a dozen strategies to balance the grid given variable renewables. I mentioned wheeling 

power. The grid is a kind of battery because we never have the 

same demands across the United States or the same supplies. We 

need to use some of our other resources better. The Bonneville 

Power administration uses its hydroelectricity for bulk power instead of peaking power. That is economically insane, right? We 

should use it at its highest value use. 

Onshore wind has a different operating regime than offshore 

wind. Offshore wind operates much longer and for different times. 

So the more varieties you have, and the more they are hooked together, the less you need battery storage. All that said, I think 

storage is one realm where we need to do a lot of R&D, and we 

can use spot storage to alleviate tensions and problems on the grid. 

But your main point about bulk storage is correct. 

Mr. GRAVES. Madam Chair, I want to ask unanimous consent to 

include in the record a graphic from the Manhattan Institute that 

indicates that $1 million invested in shale and $1 million invested 

in solar and wind would actually produce at least six times as 

much energy over a 30-year period as compared to just wind or 

solar. 

I yield back. 

Ms. CASTOR. Any objection? And I failed to rule on Mr. Casten’s 

unanimous consent request. So without objection, we will admit 

into the record Mr. Casten’s material and the ranking member’s 

material. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
97 

Ms. CASTOR. At this time, Mr. Neguse, you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. NEGUSE. Thank you, Chairwoman Castor, thank you for 

holding this important hearing. Thank you to the witnesses. I reviewed your testimony, your written testimony as well as I know 

my colleagues have, and found each of you, in your respective testimonies, to be incredibly helpful and thoughtful, and certainly educational for us and our work, so I appreciate the work that you 

have done. 

I would say with respect to the ranking member’s comments, and 

I certainly appreciate them regarding energy storage, begs perhaps 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 152 36849C.053
98 

the larger question, for this committee and for this Congress to debate, which is to say, why not invest more resources in research on 

energy storage, and that seems to be an area where there is some 

bipartisan support. And I appreciate the Chamber of Commerce’s 

written testimony in terms of recommending increased investments 

in ARPA-E and so forth, which I imagine can be incredibly productive from an energy storage standpoint. So I hope that my colleagues would join us in that effort. 

I am a FERC nerd as well, and so, like Mr. Armstrong and Mr. 

Casten, I wanted to talk to you, Mr. Harvey, a little bit about your 

recommendations. Before I do so, I do just want to touch on a comment made by Mr. Carter at the beginning of hearing, with you, 

Mr. Guith—I hope I am pronouncing that right, my name is a 

tough one, so—my understanding of Mr. Armstrong’s comment was 

essentially that Federal standards, or international standards, for 

that matter, from a renewable energy standpoint, that those could 

have unintended consequences and they could impede economic 

growth and so that is why, perhaps, some folks on the other side 

of the aisle oppose them and perhaps your organization as well. Am 

I understanding that right, that exchange? 

Mr. GUITH. No. I made the point that policymakers have to be 

careful in how they develop policy, because there could be especially as relates to climate far-reaching impacts. I mean, the example that we were discussing is focusing on one specific type of nonemitting energy that might therefore have a negative impact on another non-emitting energy. In that case it was nuclear. 

Mr. NEGUSE. I appreciate your response. What I would was say 

is part of why I am struggling, and I suspect my colleague, maybe 

my colleague, Representative Huffman, feels the same way, is some 

your written testimony seems to indicate, in fact, a preference for 

some of these standards. A good example of this is the Kigali 

Amendment, right? An amendment that has been ratified by 66 

countries, that a variety of business entities in our country are advocating for passage of here, right, because we know there would 

be a substantial economic impact in terms of the tens of thousands 

of jobs that would be created by virtue of committing to the reduction 80 percent over the next 30 years of HFCs, right? Billions of 

dollars of economic impact here in the United States. And so, I 

guess the point I am making is that standards imposed at the Federal level or by international agreement can be quite a boon to our 

economic growth. And I would hope the Chamber would appreciate 

that given that you all have been very supportive of the Kigali 

Amendment. 

Mr. GUITH. I think it is a great example where the business community was involved, so that policymakers understood what was 

achievable, versus what was hypothetical. And that is why I think 

you got to a point with Kigali, where it was a win-win across the 

board. And that is why, I mean, to go back to Mr. Huffman’s original question, I mean the Chamber hasn’t changed. Certainly, the 

business community has evolved, but we have been pushing for 

these types of advanced technology investments certainly since I 

have been involved with the Chamber a decade ago. I mean, without developing these technologies, if you go back 50 years—— 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
99 

Mr. NEGUSE. I appreciate your comments. I don’t want to interrupt. I would say in Representative Huffman’s defense, while I certainly can’t speak to the Chamber’s activities in the last 10 years, 

and I am new to Congress here for all told of 112 days, I suppose, 

I think that the Chamber has had a long history that has been well 

documented in terms of opposing a variety of different important 

legislative efforts at the congressional level to try and move the 

needle in the fight against climate change. But as I said, I appreciate your support to the Kigali Amendment and hope you can join 

many of my colleagues here in the Congress that are urging the 

Trump administration to agree with the vast majority of the international community that are pushing on that front. 

Mr. GUITH. We have, voicefully. 

Mr. NEGUSE. Thank you. Mr. Harvey, with respect to FERC, just 

following up on the point that Mr. Casten made, your written testimony articulates, I think, in an effective way, the realities of the 

ways in which FERC has been far from technology neutral, and I 

guess I am curious, what recommendations you believe we should 

take in terms of trying to give FERC that better, quote, unquote 

‘‘instruction’’ that you referred to in your answer to Mr. Casten. 

Mr. HARVEY. I will first acknowledge it is difficult to specify a set 

of rules that are going to guide all future rulemaking. But I do 

think emphasizing again that it is the FERC’s requirement to be 

technology neutral to set performance standards, that the performance standards should be based on an explicit physical or economic 

need. Not one that is made up. It might be worthwhile for the 

FERC to have a scientific or technical advisory board made up of 

utility engineers and national lab experts, something like that to 

ascertain whether the decisions they made are made for a thumb 

on the scale reason, or for system balancing and legitimate purpose. But you do not want the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to be the handmaiden of a certain industry. It will wreck our 

electric system in the long run and it will impose unnecessary 

costs. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you. 

Mr. McEachin, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me start by apologizing to you. We had a hearing on robocalls in Energy and Commerce. It was a bit repetitive, but there we were, so I apologize for 

my tardiness. 

Mr. Foster and Mr. Harvey, I am hopeful that the House of Representatives will consider infrastructure legislation in the next few 

months. To that end, Mr. Foster, your testimony has discussed the 

importance of investing in energy efficiency and infrastructure, 

both of which spur economic development. What would you 

prioritize for investments and why? 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, in terms of energy infrastructure, I think almost any investment that you make is going to create good, highpaying jobs in the energy sector, the transmission distribution and 

storage system has almost three times the unionization rate of any 

other part of the private sector. So you are dealing with highly 

skilled, highly trained construction workers, good-paying jobs. So 

rebuilding a transmission, expanding transmission to allow more 

renewables onto the grid, a whole range of those kinds of activities 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
100 

will be very good for the economy, lowering energy costs and very 

good for job creation. 

So, especially, if you were to prioritize areas that have been negatively impacted by some of the changes that we have experienced 

in our evolving energy technologies, that would be a great place to 

start. 

I will just repeat again that we have, in the loan program office, $39 billion worth of unused loan authority that with the proper supervision, could be used to jump-start a big energy infrastructure 

spending program in America. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. Thank you for that. Mr. Harvey, what about 

you? What should the infrastructure bill include to make a dent in 

our greenhouse gas pollution? 

Mr. HARVEY. One element I would propose is expanding transmission lines across the country to help balance renewables and 

balance the whole system. In fact, I think we should look at ways 

to streamline permitting. I advocate pre-zoning into red, yellow and 

green zones, where red, you are just not going to build anything; 

green, you get a permit in 90 days if you meet the proper specs; 

and yellow is like everything today, it is an all out war. So we just 

need to clean that up and save a lot of time and a lot of trouble. 

I would recommend extending tax credits for clean energy, a 

bunch of them are set to taper down, starting now. Right when we 

are building momentum, that is the wrong time to do that. So I 

would push those back another 5 years or something like that. I 

think also we need to look at transportation. One interesting opportunity would be to offer matching funds to utilities to build an electric vehicle charging infrastructure. And in general, transportation 

infrastructure, one of the iron laws of transportation is if you build 

it, they will come. If you add freeway lanes, you get more cars. If 

you add things like bike paths, you get more bikes. There is a revolution in transportation options which we should take advantage of 

what they call micromobility to bikeshare to autonomous vehicles, 

or electric vehicles. We neglected our transportation infrastructure 

for decades now, and it is starting to fail us. And that is going to 

be very costly to the American economy. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. Let me ask you as quickly as I can about your 

red, green, and yellow pre-zoning, is that what you called it? 

Mr. HARVEY. Yes. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. I experienced that problem in Virginia with local 

governments, a particular area loses its coal industry, but when we 

try to put up a wind farm, they are concerned about their view 

shed. So I understand some of the problems, with zoning particularly in your red area—I mean, in your green area, are you saying 

to those areas no matter what their zoning laws are, we can come 

in? Explain to me how that would work in 1 minute and 3 seconds? 

Mr. HARVEY. The cognizant jurisdiction, be they local, State, or 

national, need to set whatever standards they want to set. But 

then, if in a green zone a project meets those standards and gets 

a permit in 90 days. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. I see. 

Mr. HARVEY. I saved you 48 seconds. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. There you go. 

Madam Chairwoman, I give you 45 seconds back. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
101 

Ms. CASTOR. Very good. Thank you, Mr. McEachin. Mr. Palmer, 

you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My question is 

for the entire panel. If the United States completely eliminated its 

carbon emissions, would that stop global climate change? 

Mr. FOSTER. If the question is ‘‘we,’’ meaning the United States 

of America, if we did that, the answer is no, it clearly wouldn’t. 

Mr. PALMER. If the entire world stopped its carbon emissions, 

would that stop global climate change? 

Dr. LIVERMAN. No. We have some built-in warming, but if we focused also on taking carbon out of the atmosphere, it could do so. 

Mr. PALMER. Have we ever seen a case where sea levels rose 

more than are predicted, for instance, by the scientists now? 

Dr. LIVERMAN. My understanding is that what we are observing 

is consistent with what the science had projected, but sea level rise 

does take a number of years. So much of that is still to come. 

Mr. PALMER. Well, the reason I ask that is apparently, some 

folks take as the gospel truth whatever these esteemed scientists 

project in, for instance, in his book, Farewell to Ice, Peter 

Wadhams, a professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, 

predicted that polar ice and the Arctic would be gone by mid decade. Not only is the ice still there, but at points in 2012 and 2016, 

it actually increased by about 50 percent. It went from 2.2 million 

square miles to 3.3 million square miles. So I guess my question 

is, do each of you believe that the science on climate is settled? 

Dr. LIVERMAN. The science on climate has reached considerable 

consensus. There is still areas where we are not completely clear 

about what is going to happen, partly because we don’t know what 

policies we are going to pursue. And with regard to using one 

paper, one of the things—— 

Mr. PALMER. That is not one paper. 

Dr. LIVERMAN [continuing]. That the IPCC tries to do is to look 

at a whole range of research papers and assess and judge what 

those say collectively, rather than looking at just one paper. 

Mr. PALMER. And it is not just one paper. There are a number 

of—there is a number of examples that indicate that the science is 

not completely settled. Although, I think the consensus is, is that 

the climate is changing. I am not sure that the consensus is that 

it is all anthropomorphic. I am certain it is not the consensus that 

it is all anthropomorphic, and when we talk about eliminating all 

carbon emissions from the United States in the next 10 years, even 

Senator—former Secretary of State John Kerry admits that that 

will not mitigate climate change, it will not mitigate warming, basically has us standing alone. And there are obviously consequences for the policies that we develop. 

In California right now, there is a lawsuit that has been filed by 

minority group against the California Air Resources Board, because 

of the harm that it is doing to low-income people. Since the effective date of California’s greenhouse gas reduction law, the Global 

Warming Solutions Act, 41 States have reduced their per capita 

greenhouse gas emissions more than California, but it had enormous negative impact on people in California. So, I think, we have 

got to look at this in the broader spectrum of how this affects evVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:32 Aug 15, 2019 Jkt 036849 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A849.XXX A849

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
102 

erybody, and the U.S. obviously I think we continue the best in the 

technologies to reduce our carbon emissions. I am all for that. 

I think we have to look at the whole picture of climate change, 

because I think that natural variation is going to be the bigger factor in this. And if we are not taking steps to engineer solutions, 

use our technology engineer expertise to adapt and mitigate, and 

we just focus on the carbon side of things, we are going to be in 

big trouble. We will not be prepared for the consequences of that 

inaction. 

Dr. LIVERMAN. I would agree, and so would IPCC, and the National Climate Assessment that we need to do a lot to focus on how 

we cope with extreme climate and global warming, whilst at the 

same time, looking at reducing our carbon emissions. The importance of adaptation is very important, both for the disadvantaged 

and for businesses across the United States. 

Mr. PALMER. Well since I got an agreement, I will yield back. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, I want to thank the witnesses here today I 

think you helped us set the table, Dr. Liverman, to review the— 

your work and the scientific consensus across the globe that we are 

not on track to reducing carbon emissions. Yes, we must and we 

will have hearings focused on solutions regarding adaptation and 

mitigation, but there is simply not a substitute for tackling the 

source of the problem, and that is the increase in greenhouse gases. 

So thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. And the committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

United States House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate 

Crisis 

Hearing on April 30, 2019 ‘‘Solving the Climate Crisis: Drawing Down 

Carbon and Building Up the American Economy’’ 

Questions for the Record 

Dr. Diana Liverman, Regents Professor of Geography and Development, 

University of Arizona 

DEAR CONGRESSWOMAN CASTOR: Thank you for your letter with follow up questions about my testimony before the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis on 

Tuesday, April 30, 2019. It was a privilege to meet you and the committee and receive such thoughtful and important questions. I provide answers to the questions 

below, including some research that has been published since the release of the 

IPCC 1.5°C report. 

Sincerely, 

DIANA LIVERMAN, 

Regents Professor of Geography and Development, University of Arizona. 

THE HONORABLE KATHY CASTOR

1. Is the US emissions trajectory consistent with limiting warming to 

1.5≥C or even 2≥C? 

The most recent research shows that the US emissions trajectory is not consistent 

with limiting warming to 1.5°C or 2°C. 

The IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C (August 2018) did not examine emissions by 

country. The report does assess the consistency between the current Paris commitments (NDCs or Nationally Determined Contributions) and scenarios that would 

limit warming to 1.5°C, and concludes that the full implementation of the current 

Paris commitments would produce a global average temperature increase by 2100 

of 2.9–3.4°C (5.2–6.1°F) above preindustrial levels at 66% probability. 

IPCC finds that there is high agreement that the current Paris commitments are 

not in line with pathways to achieve either a 1.5° or 2°C target. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
103 

The UNEP Emissions Gap report (November 2018) supports the 2.9°C–3.4°C of 

warming estimate by 2100 under a scenario where Paris commitments are fully implemented. 

UNEP reports that US emissions decreased from 2004 to 2017, and in 2017 were 

13.1% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. UNEP states that the United States 

Paris target was to reduce emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 26–28% 

by 2025, but noted that with the current intention to withdraw from the Paris 

agreement the US is unlikely to meet either target. 

The latest analysis of the Global Carbon Project (Dec 2018) estimates that global 

carbon dioxide emissions rose by 2.7% between 2017 and 2018, projecting US emissions as 2.5% higher in 2018 than 2017 after several years of decline as coal was 

displaced by gas, solar and wind. 

The US Energy Information Administration (USEIA) Monthly Energy Review for 

May 2019 reports that energy related carbon dioxide emissions, which were around 

6 billion metric tons in 2005, had fallen to 5.17 billion metric tons in 2017, a reduction of 14.4% from 2005 and approaching emission levels for 1990 (5.04 billion metric tons). However, 2018 reversed this trend increasing by 2.7% over 2017 to 5.26 

billion metric tons. 

In March 2019 the USEIA Annual Energy Outlook projected that US energy consumption will remain near current levels of 5 billion metric tons through 2050 (see 

figure below) if there are no changes in laws and regulation and if current trends 

shifting from oil and coal to gas consumption continue. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 36849C.054
104 

Some recent studies (e.g. America’s Pledge Initiative on Climate 2018, Kuramuchi 

et al 2017) suggest that actions by non-Federal actions by states, cities and business 

could contribute to emission reductions of up to 21% below 2005 levels by 2025, approaching the Paris reduction commitment of 26–28% even without new Federal 

policies. 

The IPCC 1.5°C report concludes that for a chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, 

global CO2 emissions must decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and 

reach net zero emissions by 2050. For 2°C emissions would need to decline by 20% 

between 2010 and 2030 and reach net zero around 2075. 

According to the Energy Information Administration, US CO2 emissions from energy consumption were about 6 billion metric tons in 2010. To be consistent with 

the IPCC 1.5°C pathway, and if the US were to follow this global average pathway, 

emissions would need to decline to 3.2 billion metric tons by 2030. Given that we 

are now in 2019, and emissions are at 5.3 billion metric tons, energy related emissions would need to decline annually by at least 3–4%. 

Finally, the research literature on responsibility for emissions suggests that the 

U.S. should be making even steeper cuts than the global average because of our historical responsibility for emissions and high per capita current emissions (e.g. Holz 

et al, 2018; Van Den Berg, 2019). Carbon dioxide, once emitted, has a long residence 

time in the atmosphere (between 20 and 200 years according to IPCC) and thus 

some analysts believe that cumulative emissions should be the basis for emission 

reductions. This implies that those having greatest historical emissions making 

greater cuts. The US is the largest historical emitter with responsibility for around 

25% of accumulated CO2 emissions, compared to 12% for China (WRI 2019). 

2. Please provide more information on the economic damages associated 

with global warming of 1.5≥C and 2≥C and how many dollars of those damages might take place in the United States? 

Assessing the economic damages of global warming is extremely challenging. They 

depend on detailed and robust estimates of the impacts across regions and for key 

sectors such as agriculture, coastal infrastructure, and health, and assumptions 

about how to convert non-market impacts, such as those on ecosystems and disease, 

into dollar values. Results also vary with assumptions about discount rates and future economic growth. 

The IPCC 1.5°C report discusses several major studies of economic damages. 

First, Warren et al (2018) estimate that by limiting warming to 1.5°C rather than 

2°C damages are reduced by 22% (range 10–26%) and are reduced by 87% (range 

74% to 91%) compared to the current trajectory that would take warming to 3.5°C. 

Damages included are costs associated with climate change-induced both market 

and non-market impacts, impacts due to sea level rise, and impacts associated with 

large scale discontinuities This the source of the $54 trillion at 1.5°C and $69 trillion at 2°C estimates of the IPCC, and also estimates cumulative damages of $551 

trillion if temperatures rise to 3.7C by 2100. Global GDP in 2017 was about $80 

trillion, of which the US was responsible for almost 25% ($20 trillion). If losses were 

equally distributed and proportional to GDP then the damages to the US, based on 

this paper, would be about $13 trillion at 1.5°C and $16.6 trillion at 2°C by 2100, 

compared to more than $130 trillion at 3.5°C. 

IPCC also discusses research by Burke et al (2018) that finds that ‘‘limiting 

warming to 1.5°C instead of 2°C would save 1.5–2.0% of Gross World Product (GWP) 

by mid-century and 3.5% of gross world product (GWP) by end-of-century’’. Under 

a 3% discount rate this corresponds to avoided damages of $8.1 trillion—$1.6 trillion 

by 2050, and $38.5 trillion by 2100 (this is the source of the number included in 

my original testimony). 

More recent research by Jevrejeva et al (2019) examines the global economic costs 

of coastal flooding and conclude that annual global flood costs will be $10.2 trillion 

a year (1.8% of GDP) in 2100 at 1.5°C (projecting .52m of sea level rise) and 11.7 

trillion (2% GDP) under a 2°C scenario (projecting .63m of sea level rise) if no further adaptation is undertaken. The US annual flood cost is reported as $394 billion 

a year at 1.5C (0.9% of GDP) and 446 billion at 2C (1% of GDP) 

IPCC discusses two studies focusing only on the USA which find that economic 

damages are projected to be higher by 2100 if warming reaches 2°C than if it is 

constrained to 1.5°C. The first study is that of Hsiang et al. (2017) concluded that 

the USA could lose 2.3% Gross Domestic Product (GDP) each year per degree of global warming. They find that the baseline if no further action is taken to reduce emissions results in economic damages reaching 4.5% (range 2.5% to 8.5%) of GDP per 

year by 2100. Avoided damage from achieving a 1.5°C temperature limit is 4% of 

GDP (range 2.0%–7.0%) by 2100. Avoided damages in the US from achieving a 2°C 

temperature limit are 3.5% of GDP (range 1.8%–6.5%). The second study by Yohe 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
105 

(2017) finds an annual GDP loss in the US of 1.2% per degree of warming, or approximately 0.6% for a half a degree increase from the current 1°C warming to 1.5°C. 

Economic damage estimates for the US are also provided in the 4th US National 

Climate Assessment (NCA4). The technical report for NCA4 (EPA 2017) compares 

annual economic damages in 2090 for two IPCC scenarios, RCP8.5 which approximates to a no further action scenario (e.g. a 3.5°C (range 2.6–3.8) global warming 

by 2100) and RCP4.5 which approximates to a 2°C (1.1 to 2.6) scenario (by 2100). 

Damages are estimated for sectors that include air quality, extreme temperature 

mortality, loss of labor, health, agriculture, infrastructure, energy and fisheries. For 

example, annual damages in 2050 under the RCP4.5 (2°C) scenario include $6.9 billion in air quality, $32 billion from extreme high temperature mortality, $35 billion 

in lost labor hours, $1.8 billion to fisheries, $9.5 billion to roads, bridges and rail, 

and $69 billion in damage to coastal property. This totals $154 billion and rises to 

$262 billion in annual damages by 2090. $56 billion (85%) of the coastal property 

losses estimated for 2050 under the 2°C scenario would occur in the Southeastern 

United States if no further adaptation occurs. 

Since this question was asked Representative Levin from California’s 49th congressional district, I include a regional example of damages to the US from the recent California Climate Assessment (August 2018, Appendix B). The estimates of 

economic damages to different sectors in California by the middle of this century 

(2050) due to climate change include those to health from high temperature mortality ($50 billion a year), transport ($1 billion from 2040–2070), inland flooding 

($42 billion/yr), sea level rise ($18 billion/yr to replace flooded property), and water 

shortages (around $3 billion a year) (see Table 6 for California below from 

Bedsworth et al. 2018). The California assessment notes that ‘‘many other important 

impacts have not been quantified, including public health and property damage 

from wildfires, impacts on human morbidity from high temperatures, impacts of 

drought on water quality, and impacts to habitat and other ecosystem services. All 

of these damages are likely to be costly’’. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 36849C.055
106 

REFERENCES CITED

Alcaraz, O., Buenestado, P., Escribano, B. et al. Distributing the Global Carbon 

Budget with climate justice criteria Climatic Change (2018) 149: 131. https://doi.org/ 

10.1007/s10584-018-2224-0. 

Bedsworth, Louise, Dan Cayan, Guido Franco, Leah Fisher, Sonya Ziaja. (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission). 

2018. Statewide Summary Report. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. 

Publication number: SUMCCCA4–2018–013. 

EPA. 2017. Multi-Model Framework for Quantitative Sectoral Impacts Analysis: 

A Technical Report for the Fourth National Climate Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 430–R–17–001. 

Global Carbon Project (2018) Carbon budget and trends 2018. 

[www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget] 

Holz, C., Kartha, S., & Athanasiou, T. (2018). Fairly sharing 1.5: national fair 

shares of a 1.5 C-compliant global mitigation effort. International Environmental 

Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18(1), 117–134. 

Kuramochi, T., Ho ̈hne, N., Sterl, S., et al. (2017) States, cities and businesses 

leading the way: a first look at decentralized climate commitments in the US. 

NewClimate Institute and The Climate Group. Available at: https://newclimate.org/ 

wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/states-cities-and-regions-leading-the-way.pdf. 

America’s Pledge Initiative on Climate (2018) ‘‘Fulfilling America’s Pledge: How 

States, Cities, and Business Are Leading the United States to a Low-Carbon Future.’’ 

UNEP (2018). The Emissions Gap Report 2018. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi 

US Energy Information Administration (May 2019) Monthly Energy Review 

US Energy Information Administration (March 2019) Annual Energy Outlook 

Van den Berg, N.J., van Soest, H.L., Hof, A.F., den Elzen, M.G., van Vuuren, D.P., 

Chen, W., Drouet, L., Emmerling, J., Fujimori, S., Ho ̈hne, N. and Ko ̃berle, A.C., 

2019. Implications of various effort-sharing approaches for national carbon budgets 

and emission pathways. Climatic Change, pp. 1–18. 

United States House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate 

Crisis 

Hearing on April 30, 2019, ‘‘Solving the Climate Crisis: Drawing Down 

Carbon and Building Up the American Economy’’ 

Questions for the Record 

Christopher Guith, Acting President, Global Energy Institute, U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce 

THE HONORABLE GARRET GRAVES

1. Has the Chamber’s position on climate change changed? 

The Chamber has long supported sensible action to address anthropogenic climate 

change, with special emphasis on the fundamental role technology, supported by 

sound, durable policies, will play in mitigating it and adapting to it. That has not 

changed. We welcome the renewed emphasis on bipartisan solutions that can preserve American jobs and economic growth, maintain the international competitiveness of our businesses and industries, increase energy access to the nearly one billion people living in energy poverty, and improve the environment. 

America’s business community is ready, willing, and able to provide the solutions 

that will continue to reduce emissions while growing the economy. Our companies 

and entrepreneurs will continue to lead by bringing innovation, technology, and ingenuity to this challenge, just as they have done with other environmental challenges. With a sensible policy environment that plays to America’s strengths and 

business leadership, we can continue to make our economy cleaner and stronger by 

leveraging the America’s edge in energy, technology, and innovation going forward. 

The Chamber looks forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle to 

fashion climate solutions that are sensible, effective, and durable. 

2. It was mentioned that the NERA report the American Council on Capital Formation and the Global Energy Institute sponsored examining the 

costs of meeting the Obama Administration’s pledge under the Paris Agreement has been ‘‘debunked.’’ Could you respond to this statement. 

The NERA report was a solid and in many respects groundbreaking piece of analytical work. First, the business community supports the Paris framework, and continues to do so. It should be noted that had the Obama Administration laid out a 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
107 

plan to meet its Paris pledge and conducted an economic analysis of it, hiring NERA 

to do such an analysis would not have been necessary. Concerning the report itself, 

reproduced below is a response to critics of the report that GEI posted in June 2017 

and that should put to rest any claims that it has been debunked: 

June 3, 2017 

Setting the Record Straight on the NERA Report 

By Dan Byers & Stephen Eule 

SUMMARY

Over the last few days, there has been a lot of attention given to a report that 

the Energy Institute co-sponsored that examined the costs of meeting the Obama Administration’s Paris pledge. The report by NERA Economic Consulting, Impacts of 

Greenhouse Gas Regulations on the Industrial Sector, examines the costs of filling 

the gap between what President Obama committed to—a 26% to 28% reduction in 

net greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 compared to 2005—and the plans he proposed 

to accomplish it. 

President Trump cited some of the results of the study. Some media outlets and 

others have mischaracterized the report and its findings. Here we set the record 

straight on two key critiques. (For more in-depth analysis read beyond this summary.) 

The first erroneous claim is that the policies modeled by NERA were based on 

‘‘worst-case assumptions’’ that would ‘‘inflate the cost of meeting U.S. targets under 

the Paris accord.’’ 

This is not true. 

The NERA study generated five unique scenarios using realistic and reasonable 

cost estimates based on Department of Energy baseline forecasts—not the one scenario with ‘‘worst-case assumptions’’ as has been claimed. The data from the study 

cited by President Trump were from the scenario that most closely followed the 

Obama Administration’s regulatory approach. In addition, other analyses—by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Energy Information Administration, for example— 

show impacts of meeting the goal similar to the range of outcomes in the NERA 

study. 

The second erroneous claim is that study does not count the economic benefits 

from constructing and operating new renewable generating facilities. This claim, too, 

is false. 

The NERA model used in the study does NOT ignore positive economic contributions from renewable energy projects. It simulates ALL economic interactions in the 

U.S. economy, including the economic benefits from renewable energy projects. The 

model calculated benefits from the building and operating of renewable energy 

projects. However, in the model, these economic benefits were outweighed by increased costs. 

The model design is discussed extensively in the report. It makes it clear that 

it captures all types of responses and benefits from the various regulatory decisions 

that would be made to meet the pledge. 

The reason the study was conducted in the first place was to undertake the analysis the Obama Administration failed to do before and after it made its Paris pledge. 

It makes sense to at least understand what the impacts of that pledge would be and 

how it might be achieved. The report is transparent in its assumptions and its data, 

explains its methodologies, and provides multiple scenarios which take into account 

both the benefits and costs of meeting the pledge. 

There will be considerable debate about the President’s decision, but criticism of 

the NERA report is unwarranted. 

We have addressed other critiques of the NERA report here <https:// 

www.globalenergyinstitute.org/nrdc-swings-and-misses> and here <https:// 

www.globalenergyinstitute.org/wri-also-swings-and-also-misses>, and readers interested in a more detailed response to the critiques describe above should see below. 

DETAILED ANALYSIS

Claim One: The policies modeled by NERA were based on ‘‘worstcase assumptions’’ that would ‘‘inflate the cost of meeting U.S. targets under the Paris accord.’’ This is false. 

This argument isn’t new—some environmental groups made it when the 

report was first released. While we’ve addressed it here and here, let’s take 

another stab at it. 

First and foremost, the NERA report didn’t just look at one ‘‘worst case’’ 

scenario—it actually examined five, including one that set a price on carbon 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
108 

as a way to achieve the emissions reduction the U.S. has committed to. All 

of those scenarios produced different results, which were included in the report. 

The numbers cited by President Trump were specific to one particular 

scenario, which reflected the reflected the regulatory approach being taken 

by the Obama Administration and that most likely would have been taken 

by a Clinton Administration has Hillary Clinton won the election. 

There is solid evidence to back this up. The Obama Administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency included funding to develop this scenario—new greenhouse gas regulations on 

industrial sectors. And in official meetings with stakeholders, the Obama 

Administration did not hide its intention to regulate industrial emissions. 

InsideEPA reported on White House meeting where, ‘‘administration officials were candid in their plans to regulate manufacturing GHGs to address 

an emissions gap’ between current and proposed climate rules and President 

Obama’s INDC pledge to cut GHGs 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 

2025.’’ 

While we’re on the subject of assumptions, critics have also asserted that 

the NERA results are out of line with results from other analysts. That’s 

not the case. 

During the election, it turns out that the Clinton campaign undertook 

modeling to estimate the costs of closing the Paris gap. It set a greenhouse 

gas fee at $42 (2012$) per ton of carbon dioxide from energy use in 2017 

and increased it by roughly 2% a year thereafter. This study found significant economic impacts: ‘‘In our analysis, for example, a $42/ton GHG fee 

increases gasoline prices by roughly 40 cents per gallon on average between 

2020 and 2030 and residential electricity prices by 2.6 cents per kWh, 12% 

and 21% above levels projected in the EIA’s 2014 Annual Energy Outlook 

(AEO) respectively. Average household energy costs would increase by roughly $480 per year, or 10% relative to the levels projected in EIA’s 2014 Outlook.’’ 

The NERA results also are consistent with those from modelling runs 

performed by EIA under President Obama. Among the many side case modelling runs in the AEO 2016 was the ‘‘Industrial Efficiency High Incentives’’ 

side case, which EIA describes this way: ‘‘Uses a price on carbon dioxide 

emissions as a proxy for higher energy costs as a way to increase energy 

efficiency in all industries except refining. The carbon dioxide price is 

phased in gradually, starting in 2018, reaching $35.00 in 2023 (2015 dollars 

per metric ton), and increasing by 5% per year thereafter.’’ 

Why is this model run interesting? Because it produces cuts in economywide energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2025 of about 30% below 

the 2005 level, entirely consistent with President Obama’s Paris economywide greenhouse gas pledge. 

When compared to EIA reference case model run (without the Clean 

Power Plan), this scenario produces the following results (all dollar figures 

in 2015$): 

• Change in GDP in 2025: ¥$269 billion Cumulative Change in GDP 

from 2018–2025: ¥1.92 trillion 

• Change in Employment: Trough of ¥1.4 million in 2023 and ¥955,000 

in 2025 

• Change in Average Electricity Price in 2025: +19% 

• Change in Cumulative Electricity Expenditures from 2018–2025: +$350 

billion 

• Change in Average Gasoline Price in 2025: +11% 

As these other studies make plain, the NERA study we co-sponsored is 

not an outlier by any extent of the imagination. 

Claim Two: The study guilty of not counting the economic benefits 

from constructing and operating new renewable generating facilities. This claim is false. 

The NERA model used in the study simulates ALL economic interactions 

in the U.S. economy, including the economic benefits from renewable energy 

projects. The model calculated benefits from the building and operating of 

renewable energy projects, but in the model these were far outweighed by 

higher costs on producers, consumers, and the overall economy due to 

broader greenhouse gas regulations on other sectors. 

The model design and description is detailed extensively in the report. 

One section notes the following: ‘‘Throughout the time horizon of the module 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
109 

run, in order to meet any increase in electricity demand, increase in reserve 

margin requirements, and/or replacement of retired generation, the electric 

sector must build new generating capacity. Future environmental regulations, system constraints (e.g., reserve margin requirements), capital costs, 

and forecasted energy prices influence which technologies to build and 

where. For example, if a national RPS policy is to take effect, some share 

of new generating capacity will need to come from renewable power. On the 

other hand, if there is a policy to address emissions, it might elicit a response to retrofit existing fossil-fired units with pollution control technology 

or enhance existing coal-fired units to burn different types of coals, biomass, 

or natural gas. All of these policies may also affect retirement decisions. The 

NewERA electric sector module endogenously captures all of these different 

types of decisions.’’ [Emphasis added] 

So that criticism doesn’t hold water, either. 

3. Concerning H.R. 9, are the Nationally Determined Contributions other 

nations have offered up part of the Paris Agreement. 

No. Parties to the Paris Agreement have a binding obligation to submit periodically Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC). The goals in the NDCs themselves, however, are not binding in any way, and they are not part of the Paris 

Agreement itself (unlike pledges under the Kyoto Protocol, for example, which were 

negotiated and appended to the treaty). 

United States House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate 

Crisis 

Hearing on April 30, 2019, ‘‘Solving the Climate Crisis: Drawing Down 

Carbon and Building Up the American Economy’’ 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. David Foster, Distinguished Associate, Energy Futures Initiative 

THE HONORABLE KATHY CASTOR

1. In your testimony, you said, ‘‘We need to accelerate our investments in 

energy efficiency with a special priority on those regions of the country 

negatively impacted by declining use of fossil fuel.’’ Can you provide more 

detail on the types of energy efficiency investments we should make in 

these communities? 

Fossil fuel production is concentrated in those states with readily accessible resources. Currently, 73% of all coal production jobs are located in just 10 states; 74% 

of all oil production jobs are also located in just 10 states; and 84% of all natural 

gas production jobs are similarly concentrated in 10 states. Compounding this problem is the fact that two states, Texas and Pennsylvania, are in the top ten in all 

three fossil fuel production jobs while eight others—West Virginia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Illinois, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, and California—are in the top 10 

in two fossil fuel resources. 

While jobs in oil and natural gas fuels production rose in 2018 by over 50,000 jobs 

and have increased significantly from a decade ago, the opposite is the case for coal 

fuels’ production. As a result, the states and communities impacted by the loss of 

coal fuels’ jobs, along with those states and communities with the most coal power 

generation jobs, should receive special attention in economic development resilience 

planning. There are four ways that energy efficiency investments can benefit these 

highly impacted communities. 

The four response areas are energy infrastructure, the industrial sector, commercial buildings, and residential buildings. Energy efficiency investments are needed 

to meet carbon emissions reduction targets in every part of the country and in each 

of these sectors. However, by targeting those communities whose employment has 

been adversely impacted by the decline in coal production first, jobs can be provided 

in labor markets already suffering from higher than average unemployment. Given 

the demonstrated hiring crisis in energy efficiency (especially in its largest sector— 

construction—where a majority of employers reported that it was very difficult to 

hire new employees in 2018), a focus on introducing energy efficiency technologies 

into these communities is a sensible response to worker dislocation. 

A four-pronged energy efficiency initiative in these communities and regions provides the added benefit of reducing residential consumer energy costs and making 

businesses and real estate more economically competitive. 

In the first edition of the Quadrennial Energy Review focused on Transmission, 

Storage and Distribution and released in April, 2015, the Department of Energy recommended that DOE should, 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
110 

Provide state financial assistance to promote and integrate TS&D infrastructure investment plans for electricity reliability, affordability, efficiency, 

lower carbon generation, and environmental protection. In making awards 

under this program, DOE should require cooperation within the planning 

process of energy offices, public utility commissions, and environmental regulators within each state; with their counterparts in other states; and with 

infrastructure owners and operators and other entities responsible for 

maintaining the reliability of the bulk power system. 

Implementation of such a program, focusing first on Appalachia and other coalimpacted communities, would provide immediate economic support, job creation, and 

greater efficiency and resilience. 

In many of the communities that were originally built around the availability of 

coal resources, manufacturing also plays a more significant role in local economies. 

A focus on industrial energy efficiency would preserve the competitiveness of the existing manufacturing ecosystem while also creating demand for energy efficiency industrial products, particularly electrical motors, one of the largest consumers of energy in manufacturing. Many of the top 10 coal producing states—PA, OH, IL, IN, 

KY, and WV—have significant manufacturing employment in both energy intensive 

industries such as steel and aluminum, but also in the production of energy efficiency products. These kinds of industrial energy efficiency investments, thus, have 

the twin benefit of reducing costs while increasing product demand. Programs such 

as DOE’s Industrial Assessment Centers which provide energy efficiency assessments to small and medium sized manufacturers could be expanded in these communities. 

Commercial and residential energy efficiency building retrofit programs could also 

be significantly expanded in the target areas, financed through federally guaranteed 

revolving loan programs with the loans paid back through energy savings. 

This kind of focused investment on energy efficiency in multiple sectors of the 

economy provides affected communities with the skills training needed for the jobs 

of the future. Increased deployment of energy efficiency technologies is going to be 

needed for at least the next 30 years to meet carbon reduction targets. Perfecting 

the model for concentrated investment in energy efficiency in coal communities 

today will provide a model for similar investments in other geographies where unemployment levels are endemically high. 

2. In your testimony, you said: ‘‘Carbon performance should be a universal procurement standard for government spending in the U.S., similar 

to what California recently did with its Buy Clean standard.’’ Can you provide more detail on what a federal ‘‘buy clean’’ procurement standard 

would entail and how it would work? 

The California legislation amended state contracting provisions as follows, ‘‘The 

Buy Clean California Act, (Public Contract Code § 3500–3505), states the Department of General Services (DGS) is required to establish and publish the maximum 

acceptable Global Warming Potential (GWP). It targets embedded carbon emissions 

of structural steel (hot-rolled sections, hollow structural sections, and plate), carbon 

steel rebar, flat glass, and mineral wool board insulation. These materials must 

have a GWP that does not exceed the limit set by DGS.’’ https://www.dgs.ca.gov/ 

PD/Resources/Page-Content/Procurement-Division-Resources-List-Folder/BuyClean-California-Act. 

Industrial emissions make up approximately 21% of all global greenhouse gas 

emissions with 2⁄3 of industrial energy consumption coming from five key sectors, 

commonly known as ‘‘energy intensive, trade exposed’’ industries or EITE’s. A federal ‘‘buy clean’’ procurement standard would require that all prospective bidders for 

federal government projects provide a life cycle assessment of the direct and indirect 

emissions associated with all materials proposed for use in an awarded contract that 

fall within the definition of EITE products. By limiting the coverage of the ‘‘buy 

clean’’ standard to those products that produce the majority of industrial greenhouse 

gas emissions, the standard will achieve maximum effectiveness with a minimum 

of regulatory oversight. 

A ‘‘buy clean’’ standard would play a dual role, reinforcing carbon reduction policies in the industrial sector, while, at the same time, promoting the economic competitiveness of high performing, energy efficient U.S. businesses which are already 

among the lowest emitting producers of energy intensive products in the world. That 

is why a broad coalition of California stakeholders supported passage of this legislation including environmental organizations, unions like the United Steelworkers, 

and California steel producers such as Gerdau Steel. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
111 

3. In your written testimony, you say: ‘‘sequencing and timing of how we 

solve a problem can ultimately determine the support it achieves from our 

fellow Americans.’’ As we look how to decarbonize the electricity sector, 

how would you recommend we sequence policy implementation to maximize emissions reduction and public support? 

There are several policies that I think would increase public support for 

decarbonizing the electricity sector. The first would be the enactment of a federal 

clean energy standard (CES) such as was recently introduced by Senator Smith 

(MN) and Representative Luja ́n (NM). A CES that uniformly provides incentives for 

carbon reductions, even partial ones such as achieved by high efficiency natural gas 

or carbon capture sequestration technologies, removes any doubt from the public 

mind about the actual goal of decarbonization. It’s not about rewarding one technology over another such as wind or solar; it’s about finding the most cost efficient, 

secure, and reliable approach to decarbonizing over a 30 year glide path. 

Second, I would recommend a national initiative to modernize the electrical grid 

to achieve significant efficiencies by reducing current power loss. Such an initiative, 

focused first on those regions and states suffering from job loss in coal communities, 

would demonstrate the federal government’s commitment to use our energy transition to promote economic opportunity, job creation, and skills’ training for high unemployment regions. Initial funding for such an infrastructure program could come 

from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office. See the analysis on this 

issue from the Energy Futures Initiative at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ 

58ec123cb3db2bd94e057628/t/5b4e7494758d463f2a81294a/1531868312531/ 

Leveraging+the+DOE+Loan+Program_SG_v4_TB+CLEAN.pdf. 

Third, I would recommend a special initiative on reducing industrial emissions 

and building domestic clean energy supply chains to demonstrate that federal policy 

is focused on making the U.S. the global leader in clean energy manufacturing. 

Components of such a policy would include restoring the 48C Advanced Energy 

Manufacturing Tax Credit, passing a ‘‘buy clean’’ federal procurement policy, establishing an industrial energy efficiency tax credit, and integrating carbon-based border adjustments for EITE’s. Implementation of an EITE border adjustment policy 

could be done as part of the current USMCA or the original NAFTA and would provide an initial global mechanism for encouraging reductions in industrial emissions 

while also rewarding existing American companies in these critical sectors—iron 

and steel, aluminum, pulp and paper, chemicals, cement, brick, and glass—for their 

relatively high environmental performance. 

Manufacturers and their employees have played a critical role in resistance to 

decarbonizing the electrical sector out of concern for competitiveness in global markets. Addressing these concerns directly by providing economic incentives to 

decarbonize manufacturing would turn this resistance into support. 

Fourth, I would recommend making energy efficiency investments, particularly in 

negatively impacted coal communities and in high unemployment pockets whether 

in rural or urban areas, the center piece of a national effort to reduce carbon emissions by the creation of energy efficiency jobs. Since this sector exists in virtually 

every county in America and has already produced over 2.3 million jobs, this positive focus on new job creation presents the public with a powerful reason to support 

the transition to a low carbon economy. In addition, the majority of energy efficiency 

jobs are in construction, and pay better than similar jobs in the economy at large 

because of higher unionization rates and skills’ requirements. They also rely on 

skills that are readily transferable to other sectors of the economy. There are many 

local examples of how to fund energy efficiency investments such as green banks, 

revolving loan funds, etc., but the federal government should adopt a complete menu 

of tax credits, supports for utility-funded programs, and grant programs to bring energy efficiency investments to scale. 

Finally, I would recommend reauthorizing the Energy and Advanced Manufacturing Workforce Initiative (EAMWI) started by the U.S. Department of Energy in 

2016 to coordinate the workforce development efforts of the Departments of Energy, 

Labor, Commerce, Education, Defense and the National Science Foundation. 

EAMWI activities would insure maximum success in energy efficiency job training 

curriculum development, realization of job training activities in the field, and successful deployment of new energy efficiency and energy technologies. 

4. In your written testimony, you say: ‘‘We need to focus on the manufacturing supply chains that our new energy technologies are creating. Nothing is more frustrating than looking back over the years of American technological innovation and recording the history of American applied research being handed off to other countries for commercialization.’’ What 

can Congress do to ensure U.S. workers manufacture the components needed to build a cleaner energy economy? 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
112 

1https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/542/Rapid-affordable-energy-transformation-possible. 2https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re-futures.html, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/71465.pdf. 

3See answer to Question three below for ideas on how to jumpstart transmission development. 

4https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/OrvisAggarwalWholesaleMarketsFlexibility-June2018.pdf. 

There are several pieces of legislation that Congress could consider to address this 

issue. First would be the restoration of the 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing 

Tax Credit which was significantly oversubscribed when it was first introduced and 

successfully created tens of thousands of new jobs before it expired. 

Second would be the creation of a collaboration between the Advanced Manufacturing Office (AMO) of the DOE, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST), and the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) that would be required to perform periodic supply chain analyses of all new energy technologies, prepare qualification assessments of OEM’s for parts production, and deliver workshops 

on the qualification process and standards for small manufacturers at the state 

level. 

Third would be the creation of domestic content standards for the production of 

critical energy equipment similar to the rules that exist for other products of national security importance under the Buy America Act. 

Fourth would be the restoration of funding for Mission Innovation, the pledge to 

double government investments in clean energy research and development in five 

years, led by the U.S. and announced at the time of the Paris climate agreement. 

The maintenance of high levels of R&D funding is critical to a healthy manufacturing economy. 

United States House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate 

Crisis 

Hearing on April 30, 2019, ‘‘Solving the Climate Crisis: Drawing Down 

Carbon and Building Up the American Economy’’ 

Questions for the Record 

Mr. Hal Harvey, CEO, Energy Innovation LLC 

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE CASTOR: I appreciate the chance to respond to questions 

from yourself and Congressman Ben Ray Luja ́n. Your questions and our responses 

follow, but please note that we would be happy to elaborate on any point, or consider other issues. 

THE HONORABLE KATHY CASTOR

1. In your written testimony, you say the following about cleaning up the 

electricity sector: ‘‘We have the technology (and it’s increasingly cheaper to 

deploy clean rather than polluting power plants), we have the know-how, 

we just need to get this moving—and quickly.’’ What are the primary barriers standing in the way of faster deployment of clean energy technology? 

Technology and cost are no longer major barriers to deep electricity sector 

decarbonization—institutions and information are. Conventional wisdom that wind 

and solar require 100 percent redundancy from dispatchable power plants is not accurate. Numerous studies including some by federal agencies 1 and our national laboratories 2 show we can reliably operate very high penetrations of renewable electricity using today’s technologies at a similar cost as today’s electricity system. Further advancements in energy storage and renewable energy technologies, coupled 

with digitized devices able to respond to real-time grid needs, hold tremendous 

promise to further reduce costs as we decarbonize the electric grid. With such technological tailwinds, we now must turn our attention to overcoming four barriers: 

slow infrastructure development, incumbents preventing uneconomic fossil retirement, market barriers to renewable energy, and fossil fuel-dependent communities 

impacted by transition. 

Our grid infrastructure has been slow to adapt to the fundamentally new characteristics of clean electricity technologies. Renewable energy is always available 

somewhere, and long-distance transmission lines enable excess in one part of the 

country to compensate for deficits elsewhere. Despite clear consumer benefits from 

expanding transmission lines to access low-cost renewables and sharing resources 

over large areas, developing new long-distance transmission lines often takes more 

than 10 years, and many promising projects never materialize.3 At the local distribution level, demand-side resources like storage are unable to participate meaningfully in grid management, restricting a crucial source of flexibility 4 to support 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
113 

5https://energyinnovation.org/publication/managing-the-utility-financial-transition-from-coalto-clean-2/. 6https://energyinnovation.org/publication/the-coal-cost-crossover/. 

7 page 15 https://www.eba-net.org/assets/1/6/%5BGlick_and_Christiansen%5D%5BFinal%5D. 

pdf. 8PJM Interconnection and ISO-New England. 

renewable energy. New data management systems and advanced rate designs are 

needed, yet monopoly distribution utilities lack proper incentives to innovate and 

improve efficiency under conventional cost-based revenue regulation. 

Legacy rules, procurement, and market products also favor incumbent fossil fuelbased technologies and make it more challenging for new technologies to participate 

in energy markets. Uneconomic fossil generators are not retiring as fast as they 

should, as backward-looking market designs (described in more detail in the answer 

to Question Two below) keep inefficient coal and natural gas units online. At the 

state level, utilities owning these assets resist retirement, and regulators lack the 

financial tools to accelerate retirement of uneconomic coal assets without harming 

customers 5. 

Grid operators including utilities stack the deck against new renewables. In electricity markets, renewable energy, demand-side resources, and storage face significant barriers—in the form of obsolete rules—to participation and often cannot provide their full range of value to the market. In monopoly jurisdictions, utilities use 

outdated cost assumptions and trumped-up integration cost estimates to prevent 

competition from renewables in procurement processes. As evidence of the market 

potential, 280 gigawatts of wind and solar projects are stuck in queues for interconnection wholesale markets alone, enough to treble U.S. renewable generation capacity. Developers and financiers are ready, but cannot access the market. 

A rapid renewable energy transition risks leaving behind entire communities dependent on coal mining and fossil power plants. These communities often rely on 

mining and power plants for both jobs and local tax revenue to support social services. But viable local clean alternatives exist—local wind or solar could replace three 

quarters of existing U.S. coal capacity at a lower cost to consumers,6 and the federal 

government could support this just transition with financing and worker retraining 

programs in partnership with local utilities. 

2. In your testimony, you say: ‘‘The first policy I would recommend is to 

require that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission be a merit driven, 

technology neutral, adjudicatory body required to run the power system at 

the lowest cost.’’ Would Congress need to make changes to authorizing statutes to implement the technology neutral FERC idea? Describe. 

Congress does not need to make changes to the Federal Power Act, which provides 

FERC’s legal authority, but it does need to insist that FERC actually satisfies its 

obligations to ensure just and reasonable rates and avoid undue discrimination. In 

other words, Congress needs to hold FERC accountable to its obligation to be meritdriven and technology neutral while ensuring fair prices and reliability. As Commissioner Glick recently pointed out,7 FERC has historically interpreted its just and 

reasonable rate authority and obligation to avoid undue discrimination as requiring 

technology neutrality. 

FERC precedent and court interpretations clearly maintain that FERC’s duty is 

to create a level playing field for all grid resources to compete on their technological 

and cost merits. Of course, if Congress wants to emphasize a certain aspect of that 

duty, for example, that FERC require grid operators to take proactive steps to develop (as transmission assets) and deploy (as grid services) distributed energy resources when they are the lowest cost option, additional legislation could accelerate 

those changes. 

One recent FERC decision approving a pernicious policy in two FERC-regulated 

wholesale electricity markets 8 punishes states taking action on greenhouse gas 

emissions. These markets impose a Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR), the original 

intent of which is to mitigate against buyer-side market power, on renewable power 

plants receiving state support through a renewable portfolio standard (RPS). In effect, the MOPR requires renewables to bid in at an administratively determined 

price greater than the actual cost of running these plants, which is zero. This in 

turn raises the wholesale electricity price and supports fossil-fueled plants which 

otherwise would retire. 

The MOPR undermines state choice—states are being forced to pay for fossilfueled power plants that constituents don’t want and market operators don’t need 

for reliability. Congress should clarify that the MOPR should not be applied to resources receiving state policy support. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
114 

9https://cleanenergygrid.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NREL-seams-transgridx-2018.pdf. 

10 Unfortunately, DOE has refused to release the study. https://cleanenergygrid.org/interconnections-seam-study/. 11https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/542/Rapid-affordable-energy-transformation-possible. 12http://corridoreis.anl.gov/. 13https://ecosystems.azurewebsites.net/WECC/Environmental/. 

The root of these backward-looking market design policies is institutional lag behind the economic and political realities driving the U.S. toward more renewable energy. Markets using the MOPR still see renewables as undermining the integrity 

of markets, rather than redesigning the markets to fairly accommodate these resources. Reliability services markets are based upon, such as peak capacity needs, 

respond to the existing system’s performance attributes. MOPR ensures that fossil 

resources receive revenues through capacity markets, even when a high renewables 

system would not need that same service. As renewable energy output varies with 

weather, complementary resources can and should provide flexibility, especially the 

underused resources of responsive demand, efficiency, and storage. Rather than defining new services to accommodate state constituents’ preferences for low-cost renewables, market operators have kept one foot in the past, and FERC has been 

loath to correct them. 

Serious technological changes are hitting the electricity grid, but the concomitant 

changes in market incentives and rules are lagging behind, as are the mechanisms 

to allow more demand side participation. FERC and the ISOs/RTOs wholesale electricity markets have done little to accelerate this transformation, instead in many 

cases setting rules prejudiced against clean energy. As new technologies come online 

at lower prices and higher volumes, Congress should consider examining whether 

existing wholesale electricity market structures are equipped to handle today’s technology. 

3. During Q&A, you stated the following in response to a question from 

Rep. McEachin: ‘‘One element I would propose is expanding transmission 

lines across the country to help balance renewables and balance the whole 

system. In fact, I think we should look at ways to streamline permitting. 

I advocate pre-zoning into red, yellow, and green zones, where red, you are 

just not going to build anything; green, you get a permit in 90 days if you 

meet the proper specs; and yellow is like everything today, it is an all-out 

war. So we just need to clean that up and save a lot of time and a lot of 

trouble.’’ Can you provide more detail on how to design a red/yellow/green 

zoning process for transmission? 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) recently completed a study 9

of the value of interconnecting the entire country with high-voltage direct current 

(HVDC) transmission, modern transmission technology widely used by China to 

build out and improve the efficiency of its grid. NREL’s study calculated up to a 

3-to-1 benefit to cost ratio from a transmission overlay connecting East and West 

so that clean energy can reach cities and factories anywhere across the nation.10 A 

similar study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

found that reducing carbon emissions 80 percent using today’s technologies was possible at negligible incremental cost if we build out a national HVDC grid to support 

renewable development and integration.11

In the U.S., a HVDC transmission overlay linking the country’s three electric 

grids and remote high-quality wind and solar resources with demand centers would 

reduce overall costs to consumers, open up massive opportunities for new renewable 

resources to access the market, and provide grid operators with additional tools to 

balance an increasingly variable electricity mix. 

Reducing permitting and siting problems by pre-screening federal and state lands 

for transmission corridor suitability is crucial to enabling this transmission overlay. 

This is already ongoing in the Western U.S., through the federal West-wide Energy 

Corridors 12 planning process, and should be expanded to the rest of the country. 

The planning process identifies continuous strips of federal land across jurisdictional 

boundaries suitable for transmission development. Robust stakeholder engagement 

minimizes environmental, cultural, and other stakeholder conflicts. Eventually, this 

process will streamline federal siting, review, and permitting processes for transmission developers. Parallel efforts to engage with private landowners crucial to 

completing many of the corridors will increase the likelihood of success. 

Data is also key to pre-screening transmission. The Western Electricity Coordination Council has developed the Environment Data Viewer,13 a tool that should be 

expanded for the rest of the U.S. to enable smart infrastructure development. The 

tool uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data for different land conflicts, enVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:32 Aug 15, 2019 Jkt 036849 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A849.XXX A849

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
115 

14https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/pdf/stateanalysis.pdf at page 4. 15 44 percent of California residents with incomes under $40,000 favor cap-and-trade, while 

39 percent oppose it. https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/ppic-statewide-survey-july2018.pdf at 21. 

abling users to create maps of low-conflict land. For example, lowest conflict existing 

rights of way are green; low-conflict undeveloped land is yellow; and land with explicit environmental, infrastructure, or cultural conflicts ranges from orange to red. 

The tool uses professional judgment of transmission planners, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, environmental leaders, and even archaeologists to 

build the tool’s classifications . 

Some obvious ‘‘green’’ zones exist—along existing transmission corridors or highways, for example. These should be promptly identified and so-designated. Some 

places should be labelled ‘‘red,’’ such as wilderness study areas, or areas with ecologically important biota. Making these strictly off limits can reduce time and 

money spent on fruitless pursuits. 

Note that this recommendation does not contemplate relaxing environmental 

standards, but instead doing the work to designate these three classes in advance 

to reduce uncertainty, time, and money. 

Besides providing corridors and data, the federal government can also facilitate 

inter-state cooperation on transmission development. Though all consumers should 

benefit from a more robust HVDC transmission network, these benefits are often 

not distributed equally among states. The largest beneficiaries of HVDC transmission are likely the producer state and the load center on the other end of the 

line, making states between the two reticent to accept transmission development 

without compensation. The federal government can facilitate dialogue between 

states involved. 

4. During the hearing, Rep. Palmer stated the following: ‘‘In California 

right now, there is a lawsuit that has been filed by minority group against 

the California Air Resources Board, because of the harm that it is doing to 

low income people. Since the effective date of California’s greenhouse gas 

reduction law, the Global Warming Solutions Act, 41 states have reduced 

their per capita greenhouse gas emission more than California, but it had 

enormous negative impact on the people in California. So, I think, we have 

got to look at this in the broader spectrum of how this affects everybody, 

and the U.S. obviously I think we continue the best in the technologies to 

reduce our carbon emissions.’’ As an energy expert living and working in 

California, what is your response to this statement? 

As the world’s fifth largest economy, California is a global leader on climate 

change and a model of successful greenhouse gas reduction policy. As of 2016, only 

New York and the District of Columbia have lower per capita energy-related carbon 

dioxide emissions than California.14 Rep. Palmer cites data related to per capita 

emissions reductions that ignores California’s thirty-plus years of environmental 

leadership before enacting the Global Warming Solutions Act. In 2006 when the bill 

passed, California was already a national leader in renewable energy and used virtually no coal-fired power, the reduction of which accounts for the vast majority of 

U.S. emissions reductions since 2006. California has much work left to reduce emissions to meet its goals, but is well on its way to creating an equitable, affordable, 

low-carbon future. 

Low-income community opposition to California’s Global Warming Solutions Act 

is vastly overstated. The lawsuit takes issue with proposed measures in a planning 

document from the California Air Resources Board specifying measures that can reduce greenhouse gas emission in line with the state law—40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The group backing the lawsuit, the Two Hundred, is represented by 

a law firm whose work has focused on fighting environmental protections in California for the last 30 years. Masquerading as a civil right issue, this lawsuit creates 

a pretext for removing the very environmental protections low-income residents depend on. 

Recent polling 15 indicates low-income residents are more likely to support capand-trade than not. Disadvantaged communities and the organizations representing 

them recognize that climate change and pollution pose a real threat to the lives and 

economic security of low-income communities, and California has built vital protections for our communities into ourμclimate laws. That’s why dozens of disadvantaged community representatives support California’s climate change policies and 

work constantly to ensure that they address poverty and pollution at the same time. 

Of course, the revenue stream that pays for these programs is California’s capand-trade program, which some have argued has a negative impact on the very 

same priority populations where climate investments are being made. The latest 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
116 

16https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/2019_cci_annual_report.pdf?_ga= 

2.14451895. 1868598449.1553707432092139052204.1553538057 at viii. 17 AB 617 is the most recent effort by the state to improve air quality, particularly in EJ communities. The law is in the early stages of implementation but it was achieved due to a high 

level of engagement by priority communities on the issue of air pollution. 18SB 350. 

data show $1.9 billion (more than 57 percent) of all implemented dollars raised by 

cap-and-trade are benefiting state-identified disadvantaged communities and low-income communities.16 These investments are creating new affordable housing, improving accessible and affordable mobility, lowering energy bills, and creating new 

jobs, while also reducing greenhouse gases. Legislation established parallel programs to improve air quality in historically disadvantaged communities 17 and study 

low-income barriers to adopting clean energy technologies.18

5. During the hearing, members raised Chinese carbon pollution levels on 

numerous occasions. China’s emissions now, and their future trajectory, 

are critical to addressing the climate crisis. Given your experience working 

in China, is the Chinese government implementing policies that will curb 

and ultimately reduce Chinese carbon pollution? Please explain. 

It is true that without continued heroic public investment from the Chinese government, the world will fail to meet international emissions reduction goals necessary to limit warming to safe levels. It is also true that China has experienced 

rapid economic growth dependent on burning coal for industrial processes and electricity, resulting in citizens with higher incomes who now drive gasoline-powered 

cars. One cannot be sanguine or naı ̈ve about the environmental problems China 

faces, nor the vast Chinese contribution to climate change. 

But in many ways, China’s efforts to combat climate change have dwarfed those 

of the U.S. Despite its rapid rise to the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, the 

Chinese government has systematically implemented policies to curb its greenhouse 

gas pollution for more than a decade, and remains committed to doing so in the future. 

The Chinese government began including explicit climate change targets in its 

Five-Year Plan (FYP) in 2011. China’s initial greenhouse gas reduction goals were 

aimed at reducing carbon intensity (carbon per unit of GDP). By 2017 China had 

cut carbon intensity 46 percent from 2005 levels, honoring its voluntary international commitment to reduce carbon intensity 40 to 45 percent from the 2005 

level by 2020—three years ahead of schedule. Under the Paris Accord, China agreed 

to further reductions of carbon intensity 60–65 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, 

and will make ‘‘best efforts’’ to peak carbon emissions by or before 2030. 

Through ambitious policy and public investment, China is now the world leader 

in two key clean energy technologies—renewable electricity and electric vehicles 

(EVs). Almost 30 percent of the world’s renewable power capacity is in China, and 

in 2017, China added almost half the world’s renewable power capacity. In China’s 

13th Five-Year Renewable Energy Development Plan, the government announced 

$373 billion in total renewable energy investment by 2020. This historic renewables 

investment played an outsized role in driving down the global solar module costs 

90 percent since 2008. 

China is also responsible for more EV sales annually than the rest of the world 

combined, and boasts the only city in the world with all-electric bus and taxi fleets: 

Shenzhen. BYD, the international leader in electric bus manufacturing, trails only 

Tesla in EV sales. As the world economy continues toward low-carbon development, 

China’s industries are well positioned to take advantage. 

China is evolving its command and control economic and emissions policy centered 

on mandates and subsidies into more sophisticated market approaches, starting 

with the world’s largest carbon market, which will launch later this year (2019). Its 

current first phase only covers power generation accounting for some than 3.5 

gigatons of annual carbon dioxide emissions, more than half of U.S. total annual 

emissions. The Chinese government plans to expand the market to cover other energy-intensive sectors. 

Despite these policies, without more action China’s emissions will continue to rise. 

Chinese climate goals are deeply influenced by international norms and leadership 

by other nations, and the loss of U.S. leadership in controlling greenhouse gases is 

definitely softening China’s ambition. China begins designing new policies first by 

learning the best practices of other countries, often seeking to emulate innovative 

U.S. market design. U.S. leadership on low-carbon technology development and 

emissions reduction goals provides strong motivation for the Chinese government to 

continuously push for more aggressive goals. 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
117 

1https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Coal-Cost-Crossover_Energy-Innovation_VCE_FINAL2.pdf. 2https://us.energypolicy.solutions/. 

3https://www.e2.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/E2-2019-Clean-Jobs-America.pdf. 

4https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2018-ends-312000-jobs-created-december-strong-year-jobmarket/. 5 https://www.brookings.edu/research/advancing-inclusion-through-clean-energy-jobs/. 6https://www.bls.gov/ooh/fastest-growing.htm. 

7https://www.bls.gov/ooh/fastest-growing.htm. 

THE HONORABLE BEN RAY LUJA ́ N

1a. How does a Clean Energy Standard, such as the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019, put the United States on a trajectory towards producing 

electricity with net-zero carbon emissions by mid-century? 

A clean energy standard (CES) such as the CESA of 2019 is an excellent way to 

decarbonize the power sector. The CESA of 2019 is a particularly good example of 

a CES, in that it allows for all types of clean energy technologies, and sets longterm targets with continuous improvement along the way, which will drive and sustain innovation. Such a bill would help rapidly decarbonize the power sector, and 

would incentivize clean energy companies to accelerate research and development, 

to meet a clear and aggressive long-term target. 

By including all zero-carbon technologies, a CES provides a high degree of flexibility that helps decarbonize the power sector at the lowest cost. Additionally, it is 

already cheaper 1 in much of the country to build and run new clean energy than 

to simply pay for the operating costs of fossil plants, so a CES would actually help 

lower costs—right from the start. 

An initial analysis of the bill using the Energy Policy Simulator (EPS) 2—assum- ing the share of clean electricity increases linearly to reach 90 percent in 2040, then 

pushes toward 100 percent by 2050—suggests the CESA of 2019 would reduce 

power sector emissions from 2005 levels by about 75 percent in 2035. By 2030, according to the EPS, this CES would save around 20,000 lives due to cleaner air. By 

2040, that number rises to about 38,000; by 2050, it reaches about 70,000. 

1b. How would it stimulate good, well-paying jobs? How can a clean energy standard help to promote U.S. technological leadership and R&D efforts and how would leading on this the climate benefit domestic businesses? 

The renewable energy industry has become a major U.S. employer. E2’s recent 

Clean Jobs America report 3 found nearly 3.3 million Americans working in clean 

energy—outnumbering fossil fuel workers by 3-to-1. Nearly 335,000 people work in 

the solar industry and more than 111,000 work in the wind industry, compared to 

211,000 working in fossil fuel extraction, of which only 50,000 are coal miners. 

Clean energy employment grew 3.6 percent in 2018, adding 110,000 net new jobs 

(4.2 percent of all jobs added nationally 4 in 2018), employers expect 6 percent job 

growth in 2019. 

Clean energy jobs offer higher wages than the national average, and are widely 

available to workers without college degrees, according to new Brookings Institution 

research.5 Landing a clean energy job can equal an 8–19 percent increase in income, 

and 45 percent of all workers in clean energy production (e.g. electricians, installers, 

repairers, and power plant operators) have only a high school diploma, while still 

receiving higher wages than similarly educated peers in other industries. 

E2 reports the fastest-growing jobs across 12 states were in renewable energy during 2018, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics already forecasts 6 the country’s 

two fastest-growing jobs through 2026 will be solar installer (105% growth) and 

wind technician (96% growth).7 While we have no jobs estimate from this CES, it 

is reasonable to expect significant acceleration of these already encouraging trends, 

since the CES requires more than doubling current annual installations of wind and 

solar. Because the best wind and solar resources are available in the Great Plains, 

Southeast, and Southwest, opportunities abound for economic development in rural 

as well as urban areas. 

1c. What other policies would complement a clean energy standard? 

Congress should focus on three policy areas to enable a cheaper, faster clean electricity transition: Maximize existing transmission while streamlining future development, spur investment in flexible zero-carbon resources, and invest in building and 

end-use efficiency and electrification. 

Maximize existing transmission while streamlining future development—Transmission is the platform that allows our nation’s electricity system to function. As 

renewables provide increasing amounts of electricity in the U.S., we need to move 

it from the places with the greatest sun and wind resources to the places where peoVerDate Sep 11 2014 08:32 Aug 15, 2019 Jkt 036849 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A849.XXX A849

rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
118 

8Dynamic line rating gets more out of the system than existing practices in much of the country (for more, see https://issues.nawindpower.com/article/using-grid-weve-got). Where needed, we 

can beef up transmission capacity on existing rights of way. 9https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/edg/media/NIETC_Fact_Sheet.pdf. 10See also transmission answer for Rep. Castor. 11http://www.orkas.com/the-future-of-electric-transmission/. 12https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/A-Roadmap-For-Finding-FlexibilityIn-Wholesale-Power-Markets.pdf. 13https://www.energy.gov/savings/low-interest-energy-loan-programs. 14https://aceee.org/blog/2019/04/bill-financing-gains-ground-faces. 15https://www.energy.gov/eere/slsc/property-assessed-clean-energy-programs. 16https://www.smud.org/en/Rebates-and-Savings-Tips/Improve-Home-Efficiency. 17https://www.brookings.edu/research/advancing-inclusion-through-clean-energy-jobs/. 

ple and businesses need to use it. We can do that by getting more out of our existing 

system,8 and by adding new lines. The federal government could build on the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors 9 to overlay priorities for greenhouse 

gas reduction goals, reforming and aligning transmission incentives with greenhouse 

gas objectives.10 The federal government could then partner with states to increase 

capacity on existing rights of way, as well as build new lines. President Lyndon 

Johnson provided a model for this in the 1960s with the build-out of the Pacific 

Intertie.11 Texas also provides a model—pre-approving and building out transmission to ‘‘Competitive Renewable Energy Zones,’’ where clean energy resources 

are abundant. Market mechanisms can then be used to select the lowest cost 

projects to build clean power in those zones. 

Spur investment in flexible zero-carbon resources and get more out of existing assets—Solar and wind power are the cheapest new zero-carbon generation sources 

today, but their production varies with the availability of sunlight and wind, so they 

require a more flexible power system to realize their value as power system 

decarbonizers. Fortunately, many options are already available to draw additional 

flexibility out of the power system, including improved grid and transmission operations. Grid flexibility can also come from physical assets, such as batteries and 

fast-ramping natural gas plants, better co-optimization power supply and power demand.12 Congress incentivizes the investment in storage and demand response 

needed to balance a high-renewables grid, while also leveraging the national labs 

to partner with system operators to integrate better weather forecasting and market 

optimization software. 

Invest in building and end-use efficiency and electrification—Using electricity 

more efficiently is a key policy for reducing the overall cost of a national CES. Because the majority of U.S. buildings standing today will still be standing in 2050, 

Congress must find ways to incentivize whole-building efficiency retrofits. To reduce 

overall costs and leverage the clean grid to decarbonize building heating, retrofits 

should combine appliance electrification and on-site clean power generation (e.g., 

rooftop solar), if practical and applicable. 

A program with financial incentives including low-interest loans,13 on-bill financing,14 property tax financing,15 and cash rebates at the point of equipment sale 16

for building decarbonization retrofitting could improve economics and stimulate investment. Programs should also encourage pay-for-performance, increasing the incentive for efficiency measures that reduce grid costs.17 Incentives should cover electrification for the big end-uses—building heat, water heat, and clothes drying, while 

implementing appliance standards that ensure maximum efficiency and customer 

savings. 

2. Would a low-carbon grid be as reliable and resilient as a predominately 

fossil fuel driven grid? Please explain. 

Cleaning up the electricity supply brings different but manageable resilience and 

reliability problems. To reduce outages and improve security, policymakers should 

focus on the main causes of outages—the aging and vulnerable transmission and 

distribution systems. 

A more distributed and decentralized grid relying on local solar and storage can 

be more resilient to centralized threats. Relying on smaller, uncorrelated power generators over a larger footprint improves reliability. At the same time, widening grid 

balancing areas and strengthening interregional transmission connections also reduce the risk associated with single generator or transmission failures. 

With respect to a low-carbon power generation mix, the transition from fuel-based 

power to higher shares of renewable energy affects bulk power system reliability 

and resilience in a blend of both positive and negative ways. 

For human-caused events, such as cyber or physical attacks, renewables can help 

to reduce fuel supply risk. Coal relies on rail delivery, which is subject to physical 

attacks, since roughly 40 percent of U.S. coal comes from Wyoming’s Powder River 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING
119 

18https://www.nap.edu/read/11977/chapter/7. 19http://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM07/20160419/104773/HHRG-114-HM07-BioParfomakP-20160419.pdf. 20https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/as-extreme-weather-forces-coal-to-falterwhere-will-resilience-come-from#gs.frgowa. 21 http://www.unisdr.org/files/1145_ewheatwave.en.pdf. 22https://rhg.com/research/the-real-electricity-reliability-crisis-doe-nopr/. 

Basin, and nearly all via the 103-mile Joint Line rail corridor.18 And natural gas 

pipelines are vulnerable to cyber and physical attacks.19 As demonstrated during 

the recent polar vortexes, coal piles on-hand can freeze,20, and co-dependence on 

natural gas for heating and generation during extreme cold can threaten resource 

availability. Prolonged heat waves can leave nuclear unusable 21 if cooling water is 

too hot. 

But renewable energy sources are not automatically resilient. A robust grid requires strategies to deal with natural events, such as adverse weather. Hydroelectric generation is drought-vulnerable, while cloud cover from intense storms and 

hurricanes can threaten solar availability. Extreme winds may force partial wind 

curtailment for short periods of time. 

Resilience can be achieved first by strengthening the distribution system for utilities—which causes by far the most power interruptions.22 Second, by making the 

transmission grid more ‘‘islandable,’’ meaning that grids can automatically isolate 

blackouts in small areas so they do not cascade through the system. Third, having 

a heterogenous set of clean energy sources and geographically dispersed supplies 

provides insurance against failures. Smart strategies to manage demand via demand response technologies gives many more options to grid operators. And of 

course, energy efficiency dramatically reduces stresses on the grid, and allows for 

more ‘‘ride through’’ in the case of disruption. 

The upshot is that with smart operations and policy, the grid can be made more 

resilient and more reliable, even as we move to clean energy at scale. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with HEARING