U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–198 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

CLIMATE CHANGE: PREPARING 

FOR THE ENERGY TRANSITION 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Tuesday, February 12, 2019 

Serial No. 116–3 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair 

DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

TJ Cox, CA 

Joe Neguse, CO 

Mike Levin, CA 

Debra A. Haaland, NM 

Jefferson Van Drew, NJ 

Joe Cunningham, SC 

Nydia M. Vela ́zquez, NY 

Diana DeGette, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Darren Soto, FL 

Ed Case, HI 

Steven Horsford, NV 

Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Kevin Hern, OK 

Russ Fulcher, ID 

David Watkins, Chief of Staff 

Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel 

Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director 

http://naturalresources.house.gov 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, CA, Chair 

PAUL A. GOSAR, AZ, Ranking Republican Member 

Mike Levin, CA 

Joe Cunningham, SC 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Diana DeGette, CO 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Vacancy 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Kevin Hern, OK 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 
(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, February 12, 2019 ....................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Cunningham, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, prepared statement of ................................................... 74 

Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona ........................................................................................................... 5 

Lowenthal, Hon. Alan S., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Bissett, Bill, President and CEO, Huntington Regional Chamber of 

Commerce, Huntington, West Virginia ....................................................... 19 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

Dennison, Brandon, Founder and CEO, Coalfield Development, 

Huntington, West Virginia ........................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32 

Farley, Chandra, Director, Just Energy, Partnership for Southern Equity, 

Atlanta, Georgia ............................................................................................ 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Hille, Peter, President, MACED, The Mountain Association for 

Community Economic Development, Berea, Kentucky .............................. 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Mason, Joseph, Professor, Department of Finance, Louisiana State 

University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana ............................................................ 38 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40 

Shrader, Sarah, Owner and Co-Founder, Bonsai Design; President, 

Outdoor Recreation Coalition of the Grand Valley, Grand Junction, 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 83 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Cheney 

Overview and FAQs, Green New Deal .................................................... 62 

Submissions for the Record by Mr. Dennison 

Forbes article, ‘‘Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity 

Generation Than Oil and Gas Combined,’’ by Niall McCarthy, 

January 25, 2017 ................................................................................... 82 

Statement in Response to Dr. Mason ...................................................... 83 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Gosar 

Financial Times article, ‘‘China’s demand for electric vehicles charges 

copper,’’ February 12, 2019 ................................................................... 75 

Financial Times article, ‘‘Australia hopes to cash in on new cobalt 

rush,’’ February 12, 2019 ...................................................................... 76 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Graves 

January 2019 Electricity Prices by State ................................................ 58 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Lowenthal 

Energy Jobs—Current Employment Statistics from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, February 13, 2019 ..................................................... 80 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON CLIMATE CHANGE: 

PREPARING FOR THE ENERGY TRANSITION 

Tuesday, February 12, 2019 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 

room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Alan S. 

Lowenthal, [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lowenthal, Levin, Cunningham, Brown, 

Huffman, Gosar, Lamborn, Westerman, Graves, Cheney, and Hern. 

Also present: Representatives Case and Neguse. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Welcome, everybody. We are now in the first 

Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee in the 116th 

Congress. I want to welcome everyone. I am really looking forward 

to all of us working together. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on climate 

change and preparing for the transition to a clean energy economy. 

This is where we are starting from today. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to myself as the Chairperson and the Ranking 

Minority Member, or my dear friend, Mr. Gosar. 

I ask unanimous consent that all other Members’ opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted to 

the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. today. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE 

OF CALIFORNIA 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. To begin with, I would like to thank my partner 

and congratulate Ranking Member Gosar on his Subcommittee 

leadership position. We have developed a good relationship. I 

served as the Ranking Member with Mr. Gosar previously, and I 

found it very positive. I think we work very well together—not 

always agreeing on things, but we work together well on things. 

We also have mutual likes—tamales, coffee—as I just took some, 

as well as opportunities to work together on this Subcommittee. I 

look forward to sharing with the members of this Committee ways 

on how we can work together. I am going to mention one of those 

things in the statement. 

I think—I haven’t checked with anyone in the Capitol, the historians, but I think this is the only Subcommittee with both the 

Chair and the Ranking Member who are doctorates but don’t have 

a doctorate in juris prudence. You know, we are a psychologist and 

a dentist. Exactly what the Congress needs at this moment is a 

psychologist. 
2 

Before I turn to the topic of today’s hearing, I want to emphasize 

that, even though we are not going to have any shortage of policy 

disagreements on this Subcommittee, it is my intention to run it 

in ways that keep discussions thoughtful and respectful, based 

upon facts, not putting people down, and with an eye to wherever 

we can find agreement, let’s go for it. If we can’t find agreement, 

let’s respect each other and understand that. 

This Subcommittee is going to have a tremendously important 

role in our country’s debate over energy and climate. I know it is 

doubted by some of my colleagues. I think that is their position 

where they are starting, not all, who say we have no jurisdiction 

over climate change and no reason to discuss it. Well, I totally disagree with that point of view, and I think that is just not right. 

In addition to the tremendous impacts from climate change that 

are affecting our public lands, these lands are responsible for nearly one-quarter of the Nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, which we 

have jurisdiction over. They are also home to some of the best renewable resources in the country, if not on this planet, which we 

have jurisdiction over. We are talking about geothermal. We are 

talking about large-scale solar. We are talking about major offshore 

wind which is beginning to become a reality. 

Managing our Nation’s vast energy resources, addressing the 

health and the environmental impacts of energy production, and 

understanding the role of public lands in mitigating climate change 

are just some of the issues we will discuss. 

I want this Subcommittee to be a forum where we can discuss 

these issues and develop solutions that have the buy-in from the 

communities across the country, because we are really talking 

about beginning to embark on an adventure where we will not 

solve it all here. We have to have buy-in from our communities. 

In the coming weeks, I look forward to meeting with individuals 

on this Subcommittee to get to know them, to discuss your goals 

and priorities. But I have also talked to my Ranking Member about 

maybe periodic—maybe once a quarter—having an off-the-record, 

informal, no press, no public prepared statements way of getting to 

know each other, whether they are round tables we could find 

someplace, where we can really hear each other’s story. What are 

you passionate about? What do you want to do? Why are you here? 

The more you know each other’s story, the more difficult it is to 

dehumanize in this situation. We have enough differences that we 

don’t need to dehumanize each other in that process. We need to 

hear and respect where people are coming from. Plus, it makes it 

the most enjoyable parts of a committee if we kind of know the 

other members and why they are here and what they—it makes 

the formal aspects, which we will be focusing on, more interesting 

to do and more fun. 

So, when I meet with you individually, I want to ask about 

some—we are not going to do a lot of them. We are going to do 

some where it is off the record, folks. You come when you want to 

come. You don’t prepare anything. You want to share who you are 

and who you are in relationship to some of these issues that are 

important to you and your community, not to the committee or to 

anybody else. 
3 

I really look forward to that. And plus, Paul said he is going to 

help us with making sure we have the tamales and coffee. So, we 

are going to work on that. 

I would also like to give a warm welcome to our witnesses and 

thank them for testifying this morning. This month, in the entire 

Natural Resources Committee, we are discussing the impacts of 

climate change, whether it is tribes we are talking about, oceans, 

national parks, forests, wildlife. All of these are seeing huge consequences, and I think from most people’s perspective, the worst is 

yet to come. 

There must be changes in how we produce and use energy in this 

country. And there is no doubt that a transition away from fossil 

fuels to zero-emission energy sources is essential if we are to leave 

a recognizable world for our grandchildren and greatgrandchildren. They are usually not at the table. But these are 

issues that they have to be considered at the table from now on, 

that anything that we do has to understand how it is going to have 

that impact. 

I think this transition has to happen quickly. My colleagues on 

the other side of the aisle may not feel the same urgency. That is 

why we have different—not that they are any different, but they 

may not feel the same urgency. They may not worry or they may 

have different concerns about the disruption of jobs and what this 

means for the economy or that their local economies will be greatly 

affected or it doesn’t really impact them as much. 

I hope in using science and listening to each other, that we grow 

more, that we come closer in looking at we don’t have a lot of time. 

Time is not on our side, and we need to figure out what we can 

work together on and how we can move forward. 

One of the things I think we all are going to agree upon is the 

need to help the people that are most impacted by that transition, 

that there are different parts of the country that are going to be 

impacted the most. And we don’t want to leave people out of that 

transition, and what is happening is not new. We have already 

gone through—in 1943, we had over half a million coal miners in 

the country; 130,000 in West Virginia alone. And for decades, 

Appalachia and workers and families that call this region home 

supplied the United States with coal that kept the lights on, powered the world’s largest economy, and were instrumental in 

winning World War II and protecting democracy. So, we are talking 

about something that is part of the Nation’s fabric. 

But today, there are barely one-tenth as many coal mining jobs. 

It has not been due to government policies. It is because of the 

sense of the economics that is going on, automation that is going 

on and other alternatives. But the cause of it is irrelevant. What 

is really relevant, I think right now, not that it is all irrelevant in 

the causes because it is not. But the real thing is the effect that 

there are out-of-work coal miners. Their families are unsure of 

what they are going to do for a living. Whole communities are practically vanishing, and if we use as the mantra the solution is to 

provide false hope that there is going to be a resurrection of coal, 

we are not doing our responsibility. We are not acting responsibly. 

The solution is going to be to provide new opportunities for these 

workers and new options for towns to grow and thrive. As we move 
4 

toward clean energy, other regions of the country are going to be 

impacted in a different way, and we are going to have to understand how we are going to deal with that. Some areas are already 

preparing for this. 

Wyoming, a major coal-producing state in the Nation, just 

recently released an ambitious 20-year plan to diversify their economy and to reduce the state’s over-reliance on coal. We do have 

doubters and those that think we should be doubling down now on 

fossil fuel. I think personally that is a recipe for even more hardship if we double down, whether it is because of climate change, 

resource depletion, or normal boom-or-bust cycles of fuel prices. 

Putting all your chips on fossil fuels I think now is a bad bet, and 

we need to at least address those issues. We need to support 

American communities and workers with the same effort and 

urgencies that we need to confront climate change. And I think 

that there is one sense that we are hearing is there is an urgency 

to what we do, and we have to deal with that. 

Thank you. And I will assure you in the future I will not talk 

this long. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowenthal follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources will come to order. Good 

morning, and welcome to the first Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee 

hearing in the 116th Congress. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on climate change and 

preparing for the transition to a clean-energy economy. 

To begin, I’d like to congratulate Ranking Member Gosar on his Subcommittee 

leadership position. We’ve developed a good working relationship over the past few 

years, in Congress and on this Subcommittee. We have already sat down together 

to discuss our mutual love for tamales, coffee, as well as opportunities to work 

together on this Committee. I look forward to talking to you more on our shared 

priorities and ways we can work together moving forward. 

I haven’t actually checked this, but I believe this is the only committee or subcommittee in the House with a Chair and Ranking Member with Doctorates other 

than a JD. I don’t know about you, but I think what the country needs now is a 

psychologist and a dentist. 

Before I turn to the topic of today’s hearing, I want to emphasize that even 

though we will have no shortage of policy disagreements on this Subcommittee, it’s 

my intention as Chairman to run this Subcommittee in a way that keeps the discussion thoughtful and respectful, based on facts, and with an eye toward finding 

agreement whenever possible. 

We have moved a number of bills through this Subcommittee on a bipartisan 

basis in the last two Congresses, and I want to thank Ranking Member Gosar for 

working with our side on many of those bills, and I intend to continue and build 

on that cooperation in this Congress. 

This Subcommittee has a tremendously important role in our country’s debate 

over energy and climate. I know this is doubted by some of my colleagues on the 

other side, who say we have no jurisdiction over climate change and no reason to 

discuss it. That is flat-out wrong. 

In addition to the tremendous impacts from climate change that are affecting our 

public lands, those lands are responsible for nearly one-quarter of this country’s 

greenhouse gas emissions. They also are home to some of the best renewable 

resources in this country, from geothermal to large-scale solar to offshore wind. 

Managing our Nation’s vast energy resources, addressing the health and environmental impacts of energy production, and understanding the role of public lands in 

mitigating climate change are just a few of the critical issues we will discuss. 

I want this Subcommittee to be a forum where we discuss these issues and develop legislative solutions that have the buy-in from communities across the 

country. 
5 

In the coming weeks I look forward to sitting down individually with each 

member of this Subcommittee, from both parties, to get to know them and discuss 

their own goals and priorities in Congress and in this Subcommittee. 

I would also like to hold periodical, off-the-record, roundtables with the members 

of the Subcommittee to help foster frank and honest conversation to help all of us 

understand each other’s approach, interest, and, priorities. 

Finally, I want to give a warm welcome to our witnesses and thank them for 

testifying this morning. 

This month in the Natural Resources Committee we are discussing the impacts 

of climate change. Tribes, oceans, national parks, forests, and wildlife are already 

seeing huge consequences, and unfortunately worse is yet to come. 

There must also be changes in how we produce and use energy in this country. 

There is no doubt that a transition away from fossil fuels to zero-emission energy 

sources is essential if we are to leave a recognizable world for our grandchildren, 

our great-grandchildren, and beyond. 

I believe this transition must happen quickly. My colleagues on the other side 

may not feel the same urgency. Whether this is because of the worries over disruption of jobs and their local economies or something else entirely, I hope the 

scientists, and storms, and floods, and climate refugees convince them there is no 

time to waste. I assure you—we can push for a zero-carbon energy future and have 

economic growth. 

One thing we certainly agree on is the need to help people who may be left behind 

or left out as this transition occurs. 

This is not new. In 1941, there were nearly 550,000 coal miners in this country, 

with roughly 130,000 in West Virginia alone. 

For decades, Appalachia and the workers and families that call this region home 

supplied the United States with the coal that kept the lights on and powered the 

world’s largest economy. Appalachian coal miners were instrumental in winning 

World War II. 

Today, there are barely one-tenth as many coal mining jobs. This hasn’t been due 

to any government policy. It was because of economics and automation. But the 

cause is irrelevant. The effect is thousands of out-of-work coal miners, families unsure what their children will do for a living, and whole communities practically 

vanishing. 

The solution to this is not to provide false hope that there will be a resurrection 

of coal. The solution is to provide new opportunities for workers and new options 

for towns to grow and thrive. 

As we make the necessary transition to clean energy, other regions and other 

workers will face some of the same challenges. We cannot simply sit back and 

watch. We must take actions to help those who may be hurt. 

Some areas are already preparing. Wyoming recently released an ambitious 20- 

year plan to diversify their economy and reduce the state’s over-reliance on coal. 

Some, however, believe they should double down on fossil fuels and hope for the 

best. This is a recipe for even more hardship. Whether it’s because of climate 

change, resource depletion, or just the normal boom-and-bust cycle of fuel prices, 

putting all your chips on black gold is a losing bet. 

We need to support American communities and workers with the same effort and 

urgency that we need to confront climate change. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. I now recognize Mr. Gosar for his opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. 

And, yes, my good friend Dr. Lowenthal brings a smile every 

morning. And as a recovering dentist, I will tell you: A smile tells 

me everything I need to know. A smile tells me you are happy with 

yourself; you are willing to engage. If you are willing to engage, 

you are willing to communicate. If you are willing to communicate, 

you can solve a problem. So, if you want to solve a problem, smile. 

So, thank you again, and thank the witnesses for being here. 
6 

Before I get into my opening statement, Mr. Chairman, I would 

like to reflect on the Majority’s non-compliance with Committee 

Rule 4(c) by failing to provide a public memo on the scope of today’s hearing. Without a memo, the public is kept in the dark and 

members of this Committee are unable to prepare for an informed 

debate. I ask my Democratic colleagues to please return to a transparent process so that we can do the deliberative work of this body 

in a more effective manner. 

I think my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree that 

legislating shouldn’t be done in the dark. 

Now, for the matter at hand. The title of this hearing, ‘‘Climate 

Change: Preparing for the Energy Transition,’’ implies our country 

is on the cusp of a sweeping transformation into a green economy 

and that communities with vibrant energy economies today should 

be planning accordingly. This implication is manifested by the dramatic socialist resolution that was introduced last week, the Green 

New Deal. This proposal calls for net-zero emissions in the next 10 

years through Federal mandates, 100 percent clean and renewable 

energy, a phaseout of plane travel. And according to the bills accidentally uploaded frequently asked questions, guaranteed economic 

security for all those unable or unwilling to work. 

This is just what it sounds like: a socialist fairytale right up 

there with ‘‘if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.’’ 

Let me be clear. Though the Green New Deal may not be our 

primary topic today, the Majority will see this hearing to bolster 

the case for why and how we can replace 6-figure energy jobs with 

bioenergetic hemp farms and wind-powered coffee shops through a 

Federal takeover of the country. 

Indeed, many members of this Committee have co-sponsored this 

radical resolution, including the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. 

Grijalva, as well as my friend and Chairman of this Subcommittee, 

Mr. Lowenthal, and fellow Subcommittee members, Mr. Huffman 

and Mr. Neguse. 

We will hear testimony today from several witnesses regarding 

their efforts to create jobs in the Appalachia and the Mountain 

West outside of the fossil fuel industry. I appreciate their efforts 

and their commitment to getting Americans back to work, particularly after so many Americans were laid off from their high-paying 

energy jobs after the regulatory assault of the previous administration. 

I do believe there are wonderful opportunities that can help regions that are dependent on traditional sources to diversify their 

economies and to prevent devastation afflicting regions like 

Appalachia due to failed Federal mandates. 

Despite what the Majority’s intent with this hearing, I want to 

assure the American people about our energy economy and its importance for the foreseeable future. From the 10.3 million jobs in 

the United States supported by the oil and gas economy to the geopolitical certainty we can provide our European, Asian, and other 

allies, and to continued domestic investments, such as 

ExxonMobil’s announcement last week of a $10 billion LNG export 

facility in Texas, conventional energy sources have played an overwhelmingly positive role in defining our country. Innovation in 

these fields has reduced emissions. At the same time, production 
7 

has increased. Moreover, energy demand in the United States and 

around the world is strong. The void left by America would be filled 

by opportunistic countries with far worse environmental standards 

if the United States exited the conventional energy market. Even 

saying that, these words feel ridiculous, but these are strange 

times. 

Let’s take a moment to talk about what a green economy really 

means. If I may borrow a term, an inconvenient truth about renewable energy is a need for vast amounts of critical minerals and rare 

earth elements to make them work. For example, wind power requires neodymium and dysprosium, and demand for these minerals 

is expected to go up by 700 percent to 2,600 percent, while solar 

panels rely almost solely on minerals the United States currently 

imports from countries like China, despite being a Nation blessed 

with many of the resources that can be mined here. 

In the last several years, America has experienced an energy 

renaissance. U.S. natural gas, oil production and exports are at 

record levels. In 2017, the United States also led the world in 

carbon emissions reductions. This occurred because of American ingenuity and in spite of anti-energy policies of the previous administration and seemingly the agenda of the new House Majority. 

Delusional Federal mandates proposed in the Green New Deal 

will only topple America’s dominance in the energy economy, 

creating unemployment, high energy costs, and weakening our position globally. It would be a mass tax and a mass displacement of 

the poorest among us. 

My Democratic colleagues in the past have claimed to support an 

all-the-above energy strategy. It turns out this was just an election 

year talking point as many now wage war on nuclear energy, 

natural gas, and even hydropower. 

The irony with the Green New Deal’s facts page proposing an 

end to the use of nuclear energy is nuclear energy is one of the 

cleanest and most reliable sources in America. 

I am glad we are able to highlight the good work our witnesses 

are doing back in Appalachia and across the country. But we 

should be discussing ways to remove red tape, empower job 

creators, pursue innovative technologies that bolster our strong status as the leader in emissions reductions. If the Majority has their 

way and the policies of the green dream somehow are magically enacted, then the economic plight of Appalachia will be a microcosm 

of the rest of our great Nation. 

And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. And I take it you won’t be a cosponsor. 

Dr. GOSAR. No, I don’t think so. You can probably take that to 

the bank. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Paul. 

Now, I would like to introduce today’s witnesses. 

But first I would like to ask unanimous consent for Congressman 

Case and Congressman Neguse to sit on the dais and participate 

in this morning’s hearing. 

Hearing no objections, so ordered. 
8 

I am going to introduce our first witness. First, we have Chandra 

Farley. Ms. Farley is the director of Just Energy, the Just Energy 

program for the Partnership for Southern Equity. 

Our second panelist is Sarah Shrader. Ms. Shrader is the owner 

and co-founder of Bonsai Design and the president of the Outdoor 

Recreation Coalition of the Grand Valley. 

Next, we have Dr. Bill Bissett. Dr. Bissett is the president and 

the CEO of the Huntington Regional Chamber of Commerce. 

Our fourth witness is Peter Hille. Mr. Hille is the president of 

the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development. 

Our fifth witness is Brandon Dennison. Mr. Dennison is the 

founder and the CEO of Coalfield Development Corporation. 

And, finally, we have Dr. Joseph Mason. Dr. Mason is a professor 

in the Department of Finance at the Louisiana State University. 

Let me remind our witnesses that, under our Committee Rules, 

they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes but that their 

entire statement will appear in the hearing record. When you 

begin, the lights on the witness table in front will turn green. And 

then, after 4 minutes, the yellow light will come on. Your time will 

then have expired after 1 more minute when the red light comes 

on, and I will ask you to please complete your statement. 

I am also going to allow the entire panel to testify before 

Members up here on the dais begin questioning. 

I will now recognize Ms. Farley to testify. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CHANDRA FARLEY, DIRECTOR, JUST ENERGY, 

PARTNERSHIP FOR SOUTHERN EQUITY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 

Ms. FARLEY. Thank you. 

Honorable Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, and 

members of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 

Resources, thank you for inviting me here today. 

My name is Chandra Farley, and I am the Just Energy director 

at the Partnership for Southern Equity based in Atlanta, Georgia. 

I am honored to provide this testimony in support of a just and 

equitable transition to the clean energy economy. 

We know with data-informed certainty that systematically 

disenfranchised under-resourced communities and communities of 

color in the South bear a disproportion burden of the negative impacts of the changing climate and carbon-based energy production. 

Three of the top five biggest carbon polluters are in the South. This 

is compounded by the fact that four southern cities, Memphis, 

Birmingham, Atlanta, and New Orleans, hold the greatest energy 

burdens for low-income households but face the greatest barriers to 

weatherization assistance and energy efficiency programs that can 

reduce these high burdens. 

Also, the Southeast region serves as home to 84 percent of all 

U.S. counties that experience persistent poverty. This is defined as 

a county in which at least 20 percent of the population experiences 

poverty for three decades or more. Pile on the fact that the South 

experiences a higher frequency of billion dollar weather and 

climate disaster events than any other region, we can begin to 

contextualize the constant struggle and mounting barriers that historically marginalized communities face in this era of changing 

climate and rapid energy transition. 
9 

Despite bearing an inequitable portion of negative impacts due 

to climate change and carbon-based energy production, 

disenfranchised communities are virtually unrepresented in the 

energy planning and decision-making processes that drive inequitable outcomes in energy regulation, distribution, and policy. 

While unfamiliar to many citizens, these policies significantly impact household economic stability and impinge upon the overall 

quality of our air, water, and other natural resources that affect 

our health and well-being. 

Directly related to the health and well-being stressors of carbonbased energy production is the rising cost of energy. The resulting 

energy burden or percentage of household income spent on energy 

bills is a crippling financial burden for working families. According 

to the American Council for Energy-Efficient Economy, the energy 

burden on African American and Latino households with lower 

incomes is up to three times as high as others. 

When you consider that the median energy burden in the 

ACEEE sample was 3.5 percent, we can see the paralyzing effects 

of increasing energy costs on many families’ ability to thrive. With 

eliminated funding for weatherization assistance programs and 

financial barriers to cost-saving energy efficiency upgrades, the 

mounting cost of energy bills translate to unimaginable choices for 

our working families and senior citizens. Do you pay the light bill 

and go without your medicine, or do you buy groceries or heat your 

home? 

Collectively, these conditions stem from the underlying forces of 

structural and institutional racism that are embedded in our land 

use policies and energy systems. From the siting of carbon-based 

energy production facilities and the resulting negative health 

impacts to the disproportionate burden of rising energy costs on 

low-wealth communities, these societal barriers have hampered the 

opportunity for marginalized communities to lend their perspective 

to the shaping of their clean energy future and fully benefit from 

rapidly expanding clean energy markets. For instance, only 7 

percent of solar workers in 2017 were African American while the 

percentage of solar workers in the United States grew 168 percent 

since 2010 according to The Solar Foundation. 

Against the backdrop of global climate change, these disparities 

have driven equity and justice to the forefront of the energy transition conversation and made Just Energy a top priority. When utilized as a framework for mobilizing advocacy around energy equity 

issues, Just Energy represents an equity ecosystem of frontline 

communities, subject-matter experts, houses of worship, youth 

movements, and academia organizing together to ensure that the 

benefits of a clean energy economy include fair prices, freedom 

from negative health impacts, and access to thriving wage employment. We believe that this approach is central to the energy equity 

movement and that the future of our communities is dependent 

upon collective action toward an equitable inclusive just energy 

future for all. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Farley follows:] 
10 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHANDRA FARLEY, JUST ENERGY DIRECTOR, PARTNERSHIP

FOR SOUTHERN EQUITY

We know with data-informed certainty that systematically disenfranchised, underresourced communities and communities of color in the South bear a disproportionate burden of the negative impacts of the changing climate and carbon-based 

energy production. Three of the top five biggest carbon polluters in the power sector 

are in the South where investments in consumer-directed clean energy continue to 

lag. This is compounded by the fact that four southern cities—Memphis, 

Birmingham, Atlanta and New Orleans, hold the greatest energy burdens for lowincome households but face many barriers to the energy efficiency programs that 

can reduce these high burdens. Also, the Southeast regions serve as home to 84 

percent of all U.S. counties that experience persistent poverty (defined as a county 

in which at least 20 percent of the population experiences poverty for three decades 

or more). Pile on the fact that the South experiences a higher frequency of billiondollar weather and climate disaster events than any other region, we begin to 

contextualize the constant struggle and mounting barriers that historically underresourced and marginalized communities face in this era of changing climate and 

energy transition. 

Despite bearing an inequitable proportion of negative impacts due to climate 

change and carbon-based energy production, disenfranchised communities are virtually unrepresented in the energy planning and decision-making processes that 

drive inequitable outcomes in energy regulation, distribution and policy. While unfamiliar to many citizens, these policies significantly impact household economic stability and impinge upon the overall quality of our air, water and other natural 

resources that affect our health and well-being. This is evidenced by a report from 

the NAACP noting that 68 percent of African-Americans live within 30 miles of a 

coal-fired power plant. In addition to lower property values, proximity to these coal 

plants carries health risks such as increased infant death, heart disease, lung 

disease, asthma attacks and asthma associated deaths. Plus, the disproportionate 

impacts reach the healthcare and education sectors as emergency room visits, hospitalizations and missed school days (that leads to missed work and job insecurity 

for parents) all increase due to these harmful, life-threatening emissions. 

Adding to the worsening impacts of climate change is carbon-based energy production. Climate change pressures on the energy system result in increased demand for 

electricity as heatwaves worsen, power failures caused by storms and flooding increase and system failures and inefficiencies caused by extreme heat mount. These 

shocks and stressors are exacerbated by the destruction of local economies due to 

short-sighted, extractive practices by the coal, oil and gas industries. With fossil 

fuels still supplying nearly two-thirds of the United States’ electricity, the increased 

demand will increase the carbon emissions that disproportionately impact 

marginalized communities. 

Directly related to the health and well-being stressors of carbon-based energy production is the rising cost of energy. The resulting ‘‘energy burden,’’ or percentage 

of household income spent on energy bills, is a crippling financial burden for 

families with lower incomes. According to the American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE), the energy burden on African-American and Latino 

households with lower incomes is up to three times as high as other homes. In my 

home state of Georgia, nearly 300,000 households with incomes of below 50 percent 

of the Federal Poverty Level pay 41 percent of their annual income for their home 

energy costs. When you consider that the median U.S. energy burden across the 

cities in the ACEEE sample was 3.5 percent, we can see the paralyzing effects of 

increasing energy costs on family’s ability to thrive. With limited funding for weatherization assistance programs and financial barriers to cost-saving energy efficiency 

upgrades, the mounting costs of energy bills translate to unimaginable choices for 

working families and senior citizens. Do you pay the light bill and go without your 

medicine? Do you buy groceries or heat your home? 
11 

Figure 1: City of Atlanta energy burden. Source: Farley, C., Garret, C., & O’Neil, M. (2018). Atlanta: 

Equity and Policy Overview. Presentation, New York, New York. 

Collectively, these conditions stem from the underlying forces of structural and 

institutional racism that are embedded in our land-use policies and energy 

systems—from the siting of carbon-based energy production and the resulting negative health impacts, to the disproportionate burden of rising energy costs on underresourced communities and communities of color. Against the backdrop of global 

climate change, a reckoning with the South’s history of racial inequality is driving 

equity and justice to the forefront of the energy transition narrative. 

In order to frame the intersection of race and energy and act on the resulting inequitable impacts, the Partnership for Southern Equity (PSE) created the Just 

Energy Initiative to focus on energy equity. Founded in 2008, PSE was established 

to advance policies and institutional actions that promote racial equity and shared 

prosperity for all in the growth of metropolitan Atlanta and the American South— 

a region riven by racial, economic and class disparities. While equal rights under 

the law, or equality, have afforded many opportunities to those previously denied 

‘‘certain unalienable rights,’’ an equity agenda works to combat these disparities and 

advance just and equitable outcomes that are sensitive to the needs and circumstances of disenfranchised populations. As one of four strategic focus areas including equitable development, economic inclusion and health, PSE defines ‘‘energy 

equity,’’ or Just Energy, as the fair distribution of the benefits and burdens from 

energy production and consumption. Utilized as a framework for mobilizing advocacy around energy equity issues, individuals, businesses and organizations representing frontline communities, subject-matter experts, houses of worship, youth 

movements and academia are working together and organizing to forge collective 

action toward a more equitable, inclusive, clean energy future for all. 

Certainly, advocacy for energy equity and climate justice issues focused on the 

South are gaining an increasing amount of attention in the public, private and philanthropic sectors. However, our frontline communities must quickly learn to 

advocate on their own behalf as many traditional environmental conservation institutions struggle to make inroads because they often lack the cultural competency 

to authentically confront the South’s history of racial supremacy and exploitation. 

Centuries of oppressive power structures have stifled even modest attempts by communities of color to organize, generating an inherent mistrust of anyone seeking to 

do so even within communities much in need of advocacy. These societal barriers 

have hampered the opportunity for marginalized communities to lend their perspective to the shaping of their clean energy future and fully benefit from rapidly expanding clean energy markets. For instance, only 7 percent of solar workers in 2017 

were African-American while the percentage of solar workers in the United States 

grew 168 percent since 2010 according to The Solar Foundation. On the deployment 

of solar technology itself, a report published in the Nature Sustainability journal 

found that census areas with over 50 percent African-American or Hispanic populations have close to 40 percent less solar panel installations than white-majority 

census tracts, even when controlling for household income. These examples further 
12 

demonstrate the impact of societal barriers on the ability of marginalized Americans 

to access clean energy benefits such as lower bills, more jobs and cleaner air. 

By highlighting the inequities present across the energy sector and connecting the 

dots between energy, racial injustice, economic disinvestment, health disparities and 

other associated equity challenges, PSE has been able to organize with community 

to channel their civic power for energy equity advocacy. Strengthened by the deep 

relationships resulting from the organizing as well as education and engagement, 

coalition building and leadership development offerings, PSE is building a 

‘‘Southern Equity Ecosystem’’ positioned to connect, educate, and build power with 

all who support a just and equitable transformation of the energy sector. A sector 

that no longer depends on the extreme extraction of human, natural and economic 

resources from distressed communities, but one that supports a regenerative, clean 

energy economy rooted in shared principles of social, environmental, economic and 

racial justice. 

To advance this reality, the Just Energy Circle (JEC) anchored by PSE was 

created in 2013. The mission of the JEC is to build power with communities and 

encourage participation in developing clean energy solutions that benefit everyone. 

The JEC also seeks to inspire new, diverse, authentic leadership that is recognized 

in prominent decision-making positions in both civic and private sectors. We aim to 

establish structures that ensure clean energy opportunities are available to all, including low-income protections, fair prices, freedom from negative health impacts 

and access to thriving wage employment. We represent an equity ecosystem of 

diverse business, political, and community representation and interests. We believe 

that this approach is central to the energy equity movement and that the future 

of our communities is dependent upon ‘‘Just Energy’’ for all. 

Building upon this vision, the JEC is guided by the following principles: 

• We believe that community partnerships are vital for the equitable 

progression toward self-sufficient people and neighborhoods. 

• We believe in access to high-quality energy at a fair price for all. 

• We believe in transformational relationships and sustainable solutions for 

ever-pressing issues in the American South. 

• We believe in transparency and accountability for energy providers and policy 

makers. 

• We believe that equity is the superior growth model for the American South. 

• We believe in honoring the idea that all people must have a part to play in 

our emerging clean energy economy. 

• We believe in utilizing and leveraging a combination of the best field and 

scientific research to find the best energy solutions. 

Amplifying the knowledge shared amongst our partners, we work collaboratively 

to build political and community capital to champion the racial, social, environmental and economic benefits that clean energy investments can produce when centered in equity. Many organizations committed to advancing more equitable 

outcomes have fought hard for national, state and local level climate and energy 

policies designed to lower energy costs, strengthen local economies and build 

healthier, more resilient communities. However, first and most impacted communities remain the least likely to benefit from the clean energy advancements and 

energy efficiency policies and programs that can reduce the burden of rising energy 

costs and offset the harmful effects of climate change and carbon-based energy 

production. 

As demonstrated by the generational consequences and disproportionate burdens 

of energy policy decisions, the South is undoubtedly on the frontlines of struggles 

for climate justice, economic justice, racial justice, and inclusive democratic participation. Nevertheless, communities spanning from the Gulf Coast to Appalachia continue to advance equity and opportunity through education and engagement on 

energy, climate and environmental justice. As the subject-matter knowledge base 

grows across the region, so does the number of well-informed, first-person advocates 

prepared to mobilize for expanded investment in clean energy, energy efficiency and 

other renewable energy strategies that support economic development for lowwealth communities. 

Without a doubt, preparing for the energy transition must also address the 

harmful, disproportionate impacts of climate change and carbon-based energy production. Especially in the Southeast, which is at significant risk to four particular 

climate change-related hazards: drought, flooding, hurricane force winds, and sealevel rise. But what about the energy system itself? How will we truly be able to 
13 

confront the systemic disenfranchisement and under-resourcing of communities of 

color without addressing the underpinnings of the energy system as a whole? 

Any equity-centered climate solutions strategy must include the democratization 

of our energy systems. Energy democracy is a foundational component of a just and 

equitable transition from a carbon-based energy economy to a regenerative, clean 

energy economy grounded in racial, economic and social justice. Energy Democracy 

is centered on the premise that you can’t build a new energy economy on an old 

energy model. As discussed in the book, Energy Democracy: Advancing Equity for 

Clean Energy Solutions, we must not only champion the technological strategies 

that will decarbonize the energy system, but we must also transform the system 

itself. Nathaniel Smith, the founder and Chief Equity of Officer of PSE defines true 

equity as a way, not a what. In this vein, we understand that clean energy for all 

is but one step on the journey toward a decentralized energy system built upon the 

principals of cooperative economics and community-based decision making for 

resource allocation. Ultimately, this community-determined, energy equity ecosystem will strengthen household economic stability and build healthier, wealthier 

communities. 

Now more than ever, it is time for an intentional expansion of the South’s civic 

engagement infrastructure to ensure authentic inclusion at all points of the energy 

transition. Historically disenfranchised, under-resourced communities and communities of color are increasingly hungry to speak and act; not only for transition, but 

transformation of the energy system. We stand ready to wield our civic power in 

demand of equitable access to the benefits of the clean energy economy. The future 

of our communities is dependent upon ‘‘Just Energy’’ for all. 

RESOURCES

2017 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Large Facilities. Retrieved from 

https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do. 

ACEEE. (2016). Data Gauge Impact of Energy Costs on Low-Income, AfricanAmerican, Latino, and Renter Residents; Low-Income Households in Memphis, 

Birmingham, Atlanta, New Orleans, Providence, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Philadelphia, 

Kansas City, and Cleveland Suffer Heaviest ‘‘Energy Burden’’. Retrieved from https:// 

aceee.org/press/2016/04/report-energy-burden-low-income. 

Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Mapping. Retrieved from https:// 

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/mapping. 

Drehobl, A., & Ross, L. (2016). Lifting the High Energy Burden in America’s Largest 

Cities: How Energy Efficiency Can Improve Low Income and Underserved 

Communities. Retrieved from https://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/ 

researchreports/u1602.pdf. 

Fairchild, D., & Weinrub, A. (2017). Energy Democracy: Advancing Equity in Clean 

Energy Solutions. Island Press. 

FSC’s HEAG—Affordability Gap Data. (2017). Retrieved from http:// 

www.homeenergyaffordabilitygap.com/03a_affordabilityData.html. 

National Solar Jobs Census—The Solar Foundation. Retrieved from https:// 

www.thesolarfoundation.org/national. 

Sunter, D., Castellanos, S., & Kammen, D. (2019). Disparities in rooftop 

photovoltaics deployment in the United States by race and ethnicity. Nature 

Sustainability, 2(1). doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0204-z. 

Oxfam America. (2009). Exposed social vulnerability and climate change in the US 

Southeast. Retrieved from https://policy-practice.oxfamamerica.org/static/oa3/files/ 

Exposed-Social-Vulnerability-and-Climate-Change-in-the-US-Southeast.pdf. 

What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?—FAQ—U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/ 

faq.php?id=427&t=3. 

Wilson, A. (2012). Coal Blooded Putting Profits Before People. Retrieved from http:// 

www.naacp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CoalBlooded.pdf. 

Zach, E. (2018). How Persistent Poverty Masks the Reality of Many Rural Poor. 

Retrieved from https://caseygrants.org/evn/how-persistent-poverty-masks-reality-ofmany-rural-poor/. 
14 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

Our second panelist is, as I mentioned, Sarah Shrader. Ms. 

Shrader is the owner and co-founder of Bonsai Design and the 

President of the Outdoor Recreation Coalition of the Grand Valley. 

Welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF SARAH SHRADER, OWNER AND CO-FOUNDER, 

BONSAI DESIGN; PRESIDENT, OUTDOOR RECREATION 

COALITION OF THE GRAND VALLEY, GRAND JUNCTION, 

COLORADO 

Ms. SHRADER. Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, 

and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you so 

much for the opportunity to discuss rural economic change in 

western Colorado today. 

I live in a town called Grand Junction on the western slope of 

the Rocky Mountains. Our community is 74 percent public lands 

and is named after the junction of two mighty rivers, the Gunnison 

and the Colorado, that flow through the center of our town. Our 

valley has been on the leading edge of change that is playing out 

in rural communities across the United States. 

Like many other rural communities in America, our area has had 

a volatile economic history driven largely by the fossil fuels industry, oil, gas, coal, shale, and uranium. Each wave of extraction has 

provided jobs and prosperity only to be followed by the inevitable 

bust when commodity prices fall or policies change. 

This boom-and-bust cycle of extraction takes a toll on the economy and the psyche of our community. It creates a sense of hopelessness that persists even into new boom cycles because we are 

trained to believe that economic prosperity is fleeting and 

temporary. 

The results over time have been devastating. Our county’s medium household income is $13,000 below the state average and 

56 percent of jobs where I live pay less than $17.50 an hour. A full 

22 percent of children live in poverty compared to 15 percent in the 

state. 

An extraction-based economy also inadvertently diminishes the 

importance of a college education. The number of kids graduating 

high school who obtain any kind of post-secondary education is 20 

percent below the national average. At a time when companies 

chase skilled and educated work force, we are at a significant competitive disadvantage. Yet, the economic reliance on extraction industries has been changing in Grand Junction in the past few 

years. A new trend is emerging as our community shifts toward diversified employment, an outdoor-centric identity, a growing 

university, and an economy that has the potential to break this 

insidious cycle of poverty. 

In 2004, my family relocated to Grand Junction, and shortly 

after, we started our company, Bonsai Design, out of our basement 

deploying a small crew to build aerial adventures from ziplines to 

challenge courses, aerial playgrounds, and canopy tours all over 

North America. Now we are a turnkey operation with over 50 

employees that provides everything from concept design to engineering, installation, training, inspections and maintenance, and 

we even manufacture our own components. 
15 

Like many other outdoor rec manufacturers in our community, 

we are proud to work with local fabricators, machinists, and employees that have historically worked for the oil and gas industry. 

Our employees and subcontractors have grit, tenacity, and a strong 

work ethic, and they love creating outdoor adventure experiences 

for people to enjoy for years to come. 

Bonsai also works in similar communities which, like ours, have 

been long dependent on extraction and are now diversifying. Our 

clients are, for example, the Boy Scouts of America jamboree site 

in Mount Hope, West Virginia, where we built 26 Bonsai courses 

between 2011 and 2013. Our company is currently working with 

several municipalities, including the city of Rocklin, California, in 

an old quarry, and the city of Farmington, New Mexico, as well as 

Pipestem State Park in West Virginia. These communities are rebranding themselves as outdoor adventure hubs. 

The outdoor recreation industry is a powerhouse economic force 

in America at almost 3 percent of the GDP. In Colorado, it is a 

$62.5 billion industry employing over 500,000 Coloradans. In our 

community alone, the outdoor rec industry contributes over 

$300 million annually and thousands of jobs. And rural communities all over the country are realizing the important role that the 

outdoor recreation industry could play in helping their economies 

thrive. 

In addition to providing jobs, the outdoor recreation industry in 

Grand Junction is leading efforts to redevelop and ignite our riverfront on the Colorado River. 

Long neglected, the riverfront was populated with junkyards, old 

tires and appliances, and an old uranium mill. We are turning a 

barren stretch of land into a business park surrounded by green 

space, a river recreation area, and an amphitheater with miles of 

trails around, a place where businesses can thrive and residents 

and visitors can enjoy the outdoors right in the heart of town. 

The irony in a community like ours is that we have focused 

below the surface of the land to find economic prosperity, yet the 

absolute best part of western Colorado is the access to public lands 

and wild spaces for recreation on the surface. In our community, 

you can hunt, fish, paddle the rivers, mountain bike, ski, rock 

climb and hike within minutes of your front door. Our community 

is now looking at outdoor recreation, a sustainable use for our 

lands, to drive the economy. The outdoor recreation industry brings 

pride and opportunities back to a community that has struggled for 

decades. 

Essential to this transition is that we protect our public lands 

and act swiftly to combat climate change as the economy in these 

areas depends on it. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Shrader follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SARAH SHRADER, OWNER AND CO-FOUNDER, BONSAI

DESIGN; PRESIDENT, OUTDOOR RECREATION COALITION OF THE GRAND VALLEY

Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss rural 

economic change in western Colorado. I live in Grand Junction, which is the largest 

community between Denver and Salt Lake City. This ‘‘Grand Valley,’’ in Mesa 

County, Colorado—with Palisade to the east and Fruita to the west—is defined by 
16 

vast red rocks and high desert vistas, an 11,000-foot snow-capped mesa home to 300 

natural lakes, with the mighty Colorado and Gunnison Rivers flowing through its 

heart. The Grand Valley has been on the leading edge of a change that is playing 

out in rural communities across the western United States. 

ECONOMIC HISTORY ON THE WESTERN SLOPE

Like many other western communities, our area has had an unsteady economic 

history throughout the 20th century, driven largely by the extractive fossil fuels industry. Historically, this industry has been the core economic driver in our community. This sector of economic activity has included oil, gas, shale development, coal 

mining, and the mining and milling of uranium and vanadium. Each of these waves 

of extractive development has provided jobs and prosperity when commodity prices 

have been high. Each period of prosperity has been followed by the inevitable bust 

when commodity prices fall or policies change. The damage in lost jobs, income, and 

associated social problems puts a tremendous strain on the community. This boomand-bust cycle of extraction has taken a toll on not only the economy, but also the 

psychology of our community. Bust cycles create a sense of hopelessness that persists even into boom cycles, because it trains us to believe that economic prosperity 

is temporary. Furthermore, the pollution and other impacts to public land from the 

extraction industry threaten the quality of life and environmental attributes that 

are so closely connected to our region’s emerging economic success as a center for 

outdoor recreation and magnet for new industries such as tech or advanced 

manufacturing. 

The results over time have been devastating. Mesa County’s median household 

income is $13,000 below the state average. Fifty-six percent of jobs here pay less 

than $17.50 per hour. A full 22 percent of children here live in poverty, compared 

to 15 percent for the state. And the cycle is very hard to break. Without quality 

work force, it’s hard to grow the economy, which makes it hard to improve schools, 

which makes it harder to improve the work force. Furthermore, an inadvertent consequence of dependence on an extraction economy is that it temporarily diminishes 

the importance of diverse skill sets and a post-secondary education. Over time, communities like these end up with significantly less of the work force having a higher 

education. Locally, the number of kids graduating high school who obtain any kind 

of post-secondary education is 20 percent below the national average. In a time 

when companies chase a skilled and educated work force, we are at a significant 

competitive disadvantage. 

Like many states in the United States, Colorado’s rural areas are struggling. 

Rural economies often depend on one industry. If that industry suffers economically, 

the entire community is left without a contingency plan. Sustainable economic success comes from a diversified economy, and many rural communities across the 

United States have not had these opportunities. Businesses are incentivized to grow 

and relocate to urban and suburban areas where there is a better work force and 

more infrastructure and commerce. But this has left large swathes of our country, 

mostly in rural areas, behind. 

The economic reliance on extraction industries—and the inevitable boom-and-bust 

cycle accompanying it—has been changing here in the past few years. A new trend 

is emerging as the Grand Valley shifts toward an outdoor-centric identity and economy that has potential to break the insidious cycle of poverty described above. 

BONSAI DESIGN

In 2004, my family relocated to Grand Junction when my husband was offered 

a job as an airline captain with a regional airline. Shortly after, we started Bonsai 

out of our basement, deploying a small crew in the field to build aerial adventures, 

from ziplines to challenge courses, playgrounds, and canopy tours all over North 

America. To date, we’ve installed more than 500 ziplines, drawing tens of thousands 

of adventure seekers each year. We are a turnkey operation, providing everything 

from concept design to engineering, installation, training, inspections and maintenance, and component manufacturing. 

As our company grew and the North American aerial adventure industry flourished, we began innovating, testing, and manufacturing our own components like 

braking systems, trolleys, and other equipment. We also have been a part of developing and creating regulations for safety and participant experiences in the United 

States. Our company continues to grow, designing and constructing projects across 

the country, and becoming a leader in creating standards and efficiencies within the 

industry. Our notable projects include the Boy Scouts of America Jamboree site at 

the Summit Bechtel Reserve in Mt. Hope, West Virginia, where we built 26 courses 

between 2011–2013. To this day, that property has the most ziplines in one place 
17 

1https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Trails/SCORP/Final-Plan/SCORP-AppendixF-Economic 

Contributions.pdf. 2https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/energyoffice/energy-colorado. 

3https://www.coloradomesa.edu/business/documents/mesa-county-economic-newsletter-q4- 

2018.pdf. 4https://www.gjcity.org/contentassets/b29a975bdf804d5aa8ad258be6eb5b36/northstarreport. 

pdf. 

in the world. We also have built our courses in ski areas all over the country. 

Currently, we are working with several municipalities, including the city of Rocklin, 

California and the city of Farmington, New Mexico, as they work to rebrand their 

communities as outdoor adventure hubs in their regions. These communities, too, 

have long been dependent on extraction and are now diversifying. 

Bonsai currently has over 50 people on the payroll, with 24 based at our headquarters in Grand Junction. Most of our employees are hired locally, with a talent 

pool emerging from outdoor enthusiasts as well as energy and construction workers. 

We are also proud to work with local fabricators, machinists, and engineers to 

create inspiring adventures for participants. Many highly skilled vendors, 

subcontractors, and workers who have historically worked for the oil and gas industry are now working with Bonsai. 

And we are not alone in building an emerging growth company in the Grand 

Valley. From manufacturers like Leitner-Poma and MRP, to agritourism businesses 

like Rooted Gypsy Farms and Carlson Vineyards, to service providers like 

Powderhorn Mountain Resort—the outdoor recreation industry is a growing force in 

western Colorado. In the Grand Valley alone, the outdoor industry contributes more 

than $300 million annually to the local economy, providing thousands of jobs. 

THE OUTDOOR RECREATION INDUSTRY IN COLORADO

The outdoor recreation industry is a $62.5 billion dollar industry in Colorado 

alone, employing about 511,000 Coloradoans.1 Meanwhile, the entire energy sector 

generates about $14.9 billion and creates jobs for about 274,000 people.2 In Mesa 

County, the oil, gas, and mining sector currently accounts for only about 3 to 4 

percent of local employment.3 There has been a statewide effort to develop our outdoor recreation economy, and Colorado was one of the first states in the Nation to 

establish an Office of Outdoor Recreation to nurture the industry. Now there are 

over 10 similar offices in other states, and they are working together nationally to 

develop best practices in helping states and communities diversify their economies 

with outdoor recreation. Parks and protected public lands form a critical infrastructure for this emergent sector. 

In cooperation with and complementary to these statewide efforts, we developed 

a local Outdoor Recreation Coalition (ORC) to encourage and educate local elected 

leadership to the important role that the outdoor recreation industry could play in 

diversifying our economy and improving health and wellness. The ORC is a grassroots organization that represents a voice for not only outdoor recreation manufacturers, service and event providers, and retailers, but also for those who envision 

our valley developing into a thriving and vibrant economy for young families and 

growing businesses to relocate. Our mission is to expand and enhance the economy 

of the Grand Valley through collaborative support and promotion of outdoor recreation businesses and resources. 

During the ORC’s first year, we worked on recreational development along the 

Colorado River and efforts to increase world-class mountain bike trails, as well as 

the recruitment of new businesses into the area. We were the first coalition of this 

kind in the state, and almost immediately accrued statewide recognition. When we 

connected with Luis Benitez, Director of Colorado’s Outdoor Recreation Industry 

Office, the ORC became an example of what we could do across the state in rural 

communities to promote the outdoor recreation industry and help rural economies 

grow and thrive. We have built relationships with then-Governor John 

Hickenlooper, Senators Michael Bennet and Cory Gardner, and current Governor 

Jared Polis, who have encouraged the promotion of the outdoor recreation industry 

and rural economic development. 

A business climate analysis in 2015 4 found that Mesa County possesses qualities 

unique to its location that are hard to duplicate and highly valued by local businesses. These include a strong sense of place; unique physical region; and outdoor 

activities such as river sports, skiing, climbing, hiking, camping, road biking, and 

mountain biking. Further, 74 percent of the county is public land. The nearby opportunities for outdoor activities not only bring people and companies to the area, but 

also make Mesa County a unique place to live. Our public lands have fueled growth 
18 

5https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Trails/SCORP/Final-Plan/SCORP-Executive-Summary.pdf. 

6https://protectourwinters.org/take-action/pow-colorado/. 

in the outdoor recreation sector, and the access that we enjoy to the outdoors will 

continue to make our area a desirable place to live. 

Outdoor recreation is not only a robust sector, but a growing one. Since 2014, 

total economic output and tax revenue from outdoor recreation in Colorado nearly 

doubled, and jobs increased by almost 200,000. Outdoor recreation is ingrained in 

Colorado’s culture, landscape, and quality of life, as well as its economic stability.5

The irony in Grand Junction is that we have focused below the surface of the land 

to find economic prosperity. It has given some, yes; but as we have learned, it was 

a Faustian bargain. With a pivot to outdoor recreation, we are now looking at a 

sustainable use of our lands to drive the economy—without the punishing boomand-bust vagaries of an extraction economy. 

Parks and protected public lands form a critical infrastructure for this emergent 

sector. And the threat of climate change poses an existential risk to the outdoor 

recreation industry, with our winter recreation sports already significantly impacted, losing an estimated $154 million in lost revenue and 1,900 fewer jobs statewide in low snowfall years.6

This growth in the local outdoor recreation industry occurred in tandem with 

development in our local higher education opportunities. Our community is home to 

one of the Nation’s fastest growing institutions of higher learning, Colorado Mesa 

University, which now serves over 11,000 students each year. Naturally, a thriving 

university plays a critical role in diversifying our economy, enhancing the vibrancy 

of our town, and helping employers like Bonsai have access to top-notch talent 

across a variety of academic programs. It’s not a coincidence that students from all 

over the country choose CMU so they can paddle the river and bike our trails. 

Recreation has become increasingly important to such students, and our incoming 

work force in general. Doctors, executives, software developers, and business owners 

are now choosing communities with wild spaces ripe for recreation over higher paying jobs in urban areas. The quality of life an outdoor-centric community provides 

is compelling for the emerging work force. 

A DIFFERENT PATH: RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENT

In addition to providing local jobs, the outdoor recreation industry is leading 

efforts to redevelop and ignite Grand Junction’s riverfront on the Colorado River. 

Long neglected and blighted, the riverfront was populated with junkyards, abandoned equipment, and an old uranium mill and Superfund Site. The community has 

worked hard to redevelop the riverfront, establishing a Riverfront Trail and encouraging parks and redevelopment. 

A central piece of the transition for our river has been the Riverfront at Las 

Colonias Business Park. With the city of Grand Junction, Bonsai is working to turn 

a barren stretch of land that was once home to literally tons of uranium mill 

tailings into a 15-acre business park featuring outdoor industry businesses like 

Bonsai Design, along with an amphitheater, green space, river recreation area, and 

boat ramp. Soon, it will also have a zipline over the Colorado River. This publicprivate partnership will attract other outdoor businesses and provide a space for 

residents and visitors alike to come together and enjoy the outdoors right in the 

heart of town. 

SUMMARY

Our community understands that the key to wealth is diversifying our economic 

base. Energy, tech, health care, and manufacturing jobs are crucial to economic 

vibrancy on the Western Slope. And these industries have a work force that demands access to recreation and the outdoors—both of which the Grand Valley has 

in abundance. We will continue building connections to our outdoor amenities and 

protecting the public lands that surround us in order to invest in our economy and 

the next generation. The outdoor recreation industry brings pride and opportunities 

back to a community that has struggled for decades. Even at a time when legacy 

industries, such as coal, are in decline, we are optimistic about what our future will 

look like. 

Thank you for your time today. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bissett. 
19 

STATEMENT OF BILL BISSETT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

HUNTINGTON REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, 

HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA 

Dr. BISSETT. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Gosar, members of 

the Committee, my name is Dr. Bill Bissett. I am the president and 

CEO of the Huntington Regional Chamber of Commerce. Please 

know that my chamber represents more than 550 businesses and 

more than 30,000 employees in our region. 

It is also important to remember that West Virginia is the only 

state completely contained within Appalachia. And as an 

Appalachian, we like to think that where I am from is a gateway 

to a wonderful place that we call Appalachia. 

Economically, I bring you good news today from West Virginia. 

Since my return home to my home state more than 2 years ago, 

we have gone from catastrophic job losses and declining state revenues to job growth in a state that is now stable and growing financially. Much of this previous economic downturn related to a severe 

decrease in the production of fossil fuels. But we are now 

witnessing a rebirth in both coal and natural gas production. 

With coal, we continue to be concerned with our Nation’s inability to build new coal-fired power plants. Until this fact changes, the 

domestic market for steam coal, coal used to create electricity, will 

continue to decrease as coal plants are retired. 

However, the story is not often told that, in the southern coal 

fields of West Virginia, the economy is doing well due to metallurgical coal, or coal that makes steel, which is also known as met 

coal. This coal, which sells at a higher price and burns much hotter, is in great demand both in the United States and around the 

world. 

As we Americans discuss not only new infrastructure but also 

the maintenance of roads, bridges, and other large structures, large 

amounts steel will be needed, and I would hope that that steel 

would be made in the United States. And to make that steel, I 

would want us to use met coal from West Virginia. 

To the north in West Virginia, we see an expansion of natural 

gas production and tremendous investments in our state’s future. 

From new wells to new pipelines, the jobs revenue and additional 

economic development related to this production of natural gas has 

spiked optimism and opportunity in our state. 

While I bring you good news economically from West Virginia, it 

comes with a caveat. As I talk to business leaders and job providers 

back home, many of them are thrilled to see this uptick, but they 

also find it fragile. In West Virginia, in the heart of Appalachia, we 

worry that, as a global issue like climate change is addressed, we 

worry that it will damage our economy in West Virginia far greater 

than any other state. 

My chamber is located outside the coal fields in West Virginia, 

but we are all too familiar what a downturn to coal production does 

to our regional. At a time when our country and the world needs 

steel and electric, met and steam coal production provides highpaying jobs not just for coal miners but engineers, lawyers, accountants, machinery workers, and numerous other service jobs 

that are dependent on the mining of coal for their existence. 
20 

While we have witnessed the last downturn, we worry that 

actions here in Washington will damage West Virginia’s rebounding economy, job growth, and long-term economic development. 

I believe and would suggest that many of my fellow West 

Virginians believe that we can produce coal and natural gas while 

also creating new economic opportunities for our citizens. We 

simply do not have to sacrifice one industry to create new 

opportunities. 

Some final thoughts. As a person fascinated with how we electrify this country every day in a reliable, low-cost way, I would suggest to you that what works for one state might not work well for 

other states. What works for Arizona and its economy probably 

doesn’t work well for West Virginia. We are very different places. 

When the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, we still 

need to power our homes and businesses, and fossil fuels, especially 

through combine cycle plants using both coal and natural gas, can 

provide this critical backbone of that electricity production. 

In my opinion, we need all forms of energy production. To make 

windmills and solar panels, you are going to need a lot of materials 

that come from underground, and that involves extraction of 

minerals and the use of land. As a senior engineer told me early 

in my career, every form of energy production has an economic and 

environmental cost to it. 

I think everyone in this room and on this panel would agree that 

no one wants to create poverty and hopelessness by their actions. 

As many of us Appalachians try to tell our stories beyond our borders, we worry that the future of our region and how impediments 

to our ability to produce natural resources will return us to what 

was a very dark period in my home state and in Appalachia. 

As climate change is a global issue, we must consider its impact 

in a global way and with a global solution. Sacrificing the economic 

future of West Virginia and Appalachia will have little impact on 

global man-made carbon, but you will succeed in creating more 

poverty, more hopelessness, and an uncertain future for those of us 

lucky enough to call West Virginia home. 

Thank you again for allowing me to share my thoughts with you 

today. It has been an honor. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bissett follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. BILL BISSETT, PRESIDENT & CEO, HUNTINGTON

REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman, members of the House Natural Resources Committee—my name 

is Doctor Bill Bissett and I am the President and C.E.O. of the Huntington Regional 

Chamber of Commerce in my hometown of Huntington, West Virginia. 

Please know that my Chamber represents more than 550 businesses and 30 

thousand employees in our region. It is also important to remember that West 

Virginia is the only state completely contained within Appalachia, and, as an 

Appalachian, we like to think that where I’m from is the gateway to this wonderful 

place we call Appalachia. 

Economically, I bring you good news from West Virginia. Since my return to my 

home state more than 2 years ago, we have gone from catastrophic job loses and 

declining state revenues to job growth and a state that is now stable and growing 

financially. Much of this previous economic downturn related to a severe decrease 

in the production of fossil fuels, but we are now witnessing a rebirth in both coal 

and natural gas production. 

With coal, we continue to be concerned with our Nation’s inability to build new 

coal-fired power plants. Until this fact changes, the domestic market for steam 
21 

coal—coal used to create electricity—will continue to decrease as coal plants are 

retired. However, the story that is not often told is that, in the southern coalfields 

of West Virginia, the economy is doing well due to metallurgical coal, or coal that 

makes steel, which is also known as met coal. This coal, which sells at a higher 

price and burns much hotter, is in great demand both in the United States and 

around the world. As we Americans discuss not only new infrastructure but also the 

maintenance of roads, bridges and other large structures, large amounts of steel will 

be needed, and I would hope that we would use steel made in the United States. 

And to make that steel, I would want us to use met coal from West Virginia. 

To the north in West Virginia, we see the expansion of natural gas production and 

tremendous investments in our state’s future. From new wells to new pipelines, the 

jobs, revenue and additional economic development related to the production of 

natural gas have spiked optimism and opportunity in our state. While I bring good 

news to you economically from West Virginia, it comes with a caveat. As I talk to 

business leaders and job providers back home, many of them are thrilled to see this 

uptick, but they also find it fragile. In West Virginia, in the heart of Appalachia, 

we worry that, as a global issue like Climate Change is addressed, it will damage 

the economy of West Virginia far greater than any other state. 

My Chamber is located outside of the coalfields in West Virginia, but we are all 

too familiar with what a downturn in coal production does to our region. At a time 

when our country and the world needs steel and electricity, met and steam coal production provides high-paying jobs, not just for coal miners, but engineers, lawyers, 

accountants, machinery workers, and numerous other service jobs that are dependent on the mining of coal for their existence. While we have withstood the last 

downturn, we worry that actions here in Washington will damage West Virginia’s 

rebounding economy, job growth, and long-term economic development. 

I believe, and would suggest that many of my fellow West Virginians believe, that 

we can produce coal and natural gas while also creating new economic opportunities 

for our citizens. We simply do not have to sacrifice one industry to create new 

opportunities. 

Some final thoughts. 

• As a person fascinated with how we electrify this country every day in a 

reliable and low-cost way, I would suggest to you that what works for one 

state might not work for other states. What works for Arizona and its economy probably doesn’t work well for West Virginia. We are very different 

places. When the wind doesn’t blow and sun doesn’t shine, we still need to 

power our homes and businesses, and fossil fuels, especially through combined cycle plants using both coal and natural gas, can provide this critical 

backbone of electricity production. 

• In my opinion, we need all forms of energy production. To make windmills 

and solar panels, you’re going to need a lot of materials that come from 

underground. And that involves the extraction of minerals and the use of 

land. As a senior engineer told me early in my career, every form of energy 

production has an economic and environmental cost to it. 

• I think everyone in this room and on this panel can agree that no one wants 

to create poverty and hopelessness by their actions. As many of us 

Appalachians try to tell our story beyond our borders, we worry about the 

future of our region and how impediments to our ability to produce natural 

resources will return us to what was a very dark time in my home state and 

in Appalachia. As Climate Change is a global issue, we must consider its impact in a global way, and with a global solution. Sacrificing the economic 

future of West Virginia and Appalachia will have little impact on global manmade carbon, but you will succeed in creating more poverty, more hopelessness, and an uncertain future for those of us lucky enough to call West 

Virginia home. 

Thanks you again for allowing me to share my thoughts with you today. It has 

been an honor. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hille. 
22 

STATEMENT OF PETER HILLE, PRESIDENT, MACED, THE 

MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY ECONOMIC 

DEVELOPMENT, BEREA, KENTUCKY 

Mr. HILLE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members of the 

Subcommittee, my name is Peter Hille. I am the president of 

MACED, and I am glad to be talking with you today about a just 

transition to a new economy for coal-impacted communities. 

This is a map of Appalachia showing the economically distressed 

counties in red. They fall into the bottom 10 percent of all the 

counties in the Nation. And this map has remained largely unchanged for decades. The long history of coal mining in Appalachia 

did not create prosperous communities because, in the early days, 

these were not jobs that paid well. You load 16 tons, and what do 

you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. That is why Lyndon 

Johnson declared war on poverty from a front porch in eastern 

Kentucky. 

By the end of World War II, we had 75,000 coal mining jobs in 

Kentucky. But in the 1950s, the jobs began to be mechanized. Over 

the next several decades, coal production went up and down, and 

mostly up. But as the jobs became more technical, they paid better. 

But with bigger machines, more coal could be produced with fewer 

workers. 

On this chart, the upper line shows production. The lower line 

shows jobs declining. Then, in 2012, something unprecedented happened. For the first time, natural gas per BTU became cheaper 

than coal. When these lines crossed, the coal industry collapsed. 

Suddenly we lost 10,000 jobs, half the remaining jobs of mining in 

our state. This has been a very real tragedy for the miners, their 

families, their communities, and all the other businesses that relied on those earnings. 

But this is a tragedy that sits on top of a disaster. The disaster 

is the fact that, even before we lost those 10,000 jobs, this region 

had been economically distressed for generations. 

So, the question is not how do we replace those 10,000 mining 

jobs and get back to where we were; the question is, how do we go 

forward? How do we build a new economy for Appalachia, an economy that is more diverse, resilient, sustainable, and equitable, because the old economy was none of those things. 

We call this just transition. And the justice we call for in this 

transition is based on the reality that these communities and communities like ours literally fueled the growth of this great Nation. 

And they sacrificed lives, families, health, water, prosperity, even 

as they gave us the timber that built our towns, the coal that fired 

our industries, and the steel that made our cars. 

They are owed a debt, and we can repay that debt with the new 

investments that are needed to grow the new economy. We must 

reinvest in our communities, many of which have lost more than 

half of their population to out-migration. We must make them 

places where the young people growing up there want to stay, 

where those who went off to college or their first job want to come 

back, where people who left to find work and had successful careers 

somewhere else might come back to retire, and where the tourist 

who comes to visit decides they would like to stay. 
23 

All of the amenities and resources needed to revitalize these 

communities are themselves economic drivers, creating jobs and 

livelihoods: the local food restaurant, the coffee shop, the farmers 

market, the craft brewery, housing, health care, and the quality of 

life that many people are looking for today. 

So, we envision an economic transition driven by entrepreneurs 

whose businesses create goods and services to drive diverse local 

economies and focus on sectors that not only generate economic activity but also generate benefits for the community. 

For example, at the nexus of food and energy, Gwen Christon 

owns a grocery store at a crossroads in Letcher County, Kentucky. 

She invested half a million dollars in energy efficiency and now 

saves $40,000 a year in utility costs. The store looks so much better 

that her sales are up 7 percent, and she has hired two more fulltime workers. 

Here is Scott Shoupe. Scott is a fourth-generation coal miner. 

But after 22 years in the mines, he is now participating in our new 

energy interns program, which is funded by an ARC power grant. 

Scott is learning to do energy audits and retrofits and plans to 

start his own energy efficiency business. 

This is Tim Robinson. He started a drug treatment program that 

now has facilities across eastern Kentucky. We financed one of 

those centers and also implemented energy efficiency measures 

that resulted in enough savings for them to buy a new van. 

There are many more examples to share, but the important thing 

is this: There is hope in these communities, and there are people 

who are digging in hard to create a brighter future. Investments 

like the Appalachian Regional Commission’s power grants, the 

AML pilot program, and the proposed RECLAIM Act represent important investments that can support these grassroots efforts. 

And as we build this new economy, we need to ensure that it 

creates a future with opportunities for all, meeting diversity with 

equity, and that we attend to the sustainability that is needed for 

our children and our grandchildren to thrive and for our planet to 

survive. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hille follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER HILLE, PRESIDENT, MACED, THE MOUNTAIN

ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BEREA, KENTUCKY

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members of the Subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to present this testimony about our work and the conditions in 

coal impacted communities. MACED is a Community Development Financial 

Institution certified by the CDFI Fund of the U.S. Treasury. We manage a loan 

portfolio of nearly $20 million invested in small business across Appalachian 

Kentucky. We are deeply engaged in a range of initiatives to advance a Just 

Transition to a new economy for coal impacted communities in Appalachia and 

beyond. 
24 

This is a map of Appalachia showing the economically distressed counties in red. 

They fall into the bottom 10 percent of all the counties in the Nation as measured 

by per capita income, poverty rate and 3-year average unemployment. Despite this 

map has remained largely unchanged for decades. That doesn’t negate the value of 

vast investments that have been made—there have been many improvements and 

much work has been done. The Appalachian Regional Commission has been a key 

player ever since it was created and recent increases to its budget through the 

POWER Initiative have helped a lot. But we still have a long way to go. 

The long history of coal mining in Appalachia did not create prosperous communities partly because in the early days these were not jobs that paid well—‘‘You load 

16 tons and what do you get, another day older and deeper in debt.’’ That’s why 

Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty from a front porch in eastern 

Kentucky. 
25 

At the end of WWII, we had 75,000 coal mining jobs in Kentucky. But in the 

1950s the UMWA signed an agreement with the mine operators for the mines to 

be mechanized. Over the next several decades coal production went up and down, 

overall increasing significantly until recent years (blue line above). And as the jobs 

became more technical, they paid better, a high school graduate could make $60,000 

to $80,000 per year, making these some of the best-paying jobs in the region. But 

with long-wall mining machines underground, then the advent of strip mining and 

finally mountaintop removal mining, more coal could be produced with fewer 

workers. On the chart above, lower line shows how jobs continued to drop relative 

to production. By 2011 we were down to fewer than 20,000 jobs. 

Meanwhile, the dominance of coal largely displaced other large scale approaches 

to economic development that would have created a more diverse and resilient economy. Through decades of boom and bust in the coal industry, it was too easy to believe, with each downturn, that coal would come back. There was little effort put 

into developing other sectors of the economy, not enough major investment in education, health care, child care, housing and civic infrastructure. To the extent we 

did see progress, it was often the result of relatively small local efforts or the work 

of regional non-profits supported largely by private philanthropy. 

We also saw significant retrenchment on the part of both private philanthropy 

and the Federal Government in rural America in general and Appalachia in particular as attention and resources were redirected to pressing problems in urban 

areas. Disparities in essential new economy assets like broadband and cell service 

compounded the other problems cited above. All these factors contributed to a 

growing sense among rural people that they were being left behind. 

Almost 20 years ago, then-Governor Paul Patton, himself a former coal operator, 

made this observation: ‘‘As much as coal has meant to us, it still has not built for 

us a self-sustaining economy. It’s got to be more varied—got to be more broad. In 

the early 1970s we had an economic developer’s dream come true. We had more 

high tech jobs than we could ever imagine in the coal industry, and it still didn’t 

solve the chronic problems of the region. So we have to build that basic economic 

foundation.’’ But we didn’t do that, and it set the scene for what came next. 
26 

In 2012, something unprecedented happened. For the first time, natural gas, 

became cheaper than coal as a result of the boom in fracking. The graph above 

shows the prices for coal and natural gas in MMBTUs. When these lines crossed, 

the coal industry collapsed. Suddenly we lost 10,000 jobs, half of the remaining coal 

mining jobs in our state. Bankruptcies of several major coal companies followed as 

natural gas took on an increasing share of electrical generation. 

The collapse of the coal industry has been a very real tragedy for the miners, their 

families, their communities and all the other businesses that relied on those earnings, from grocery stores to car dealers to home builders. It has also devastated local 

government budgets, as they saw reduced local tax revenues compounded by a sharp 

decline in coal severance taxes which they had come to rely upon as a significant 

source of revenue for local services. 
27 

The collapse of the coal industry is a tragedy, but it is a tragedy that sits 

on top of a disaster. That disaster is the fact that even before we lost those 10,000 

jobs, this region had been economically distressed for generations. These economic 

realities have predictable correlates in other areas as well—low educational attainment, among the worst health statistics in the Nation, and demographic shifts due 

to outmigration because of a lack of good paying jobs, resulting in a population that 

is disproportionately made up of the very old, the very young, and many who are 

unable to participate in the labor force. We also face the same opioid epidemic that 

plagues many other rural areas. All of that was true before the collapse of the coal 

industry. 

So the question is not how do we replace those 10,000 or more jobs, and get back 

to where we were. The question is how do we go forward, how do we build a new 

economy for Appalachia and for other coal impacted communities—an economy that 

is more diverse, resilient, sustainable and equitable. Because the old economy was 

none of those things. 

A diverse economy will rely on many small businesses in different sectors. These 

provide the goods and services needed in the community and keep more money 

circulating in the local economy. 

A resilient economy will be less reliant on a large single industry so we are not 

vulnerable to sudden shifts in that sector as we have been in the past. 

A sustainable economy will be built on balance rather than unchecked growth, 

respecting the natural ecologies of place—air, land, water, people and culture. 

An equitable economy will provide opportunities for all and, perhaps even more 

importantly, the benefits of the economy will be more widely shared. We need to 

address all the ways that people have been marginalized, including race, age, 

gender and gender identity, ethnicity and socio-economic status. 

We call this Just Transition. And the justice we call for in this transition is 

based on the reality that our communities, and communities like ours, literally 

fueled the growth of this great Nation. And they sacrificed—lives, families, health, 

water, prosperity—even as they gave us the timber that built our towns, the coal 

that fired our industries, the steel that made our cars. 

These communities are now bearing the brunt of global changes in the energy 

economy. They are owed a debt for the sacrifices they have made, and we can repay 

that debt with the new investments that are needed to grow the new economy. We 

must reinvest in our communities, many of which have lost more than half of their 

population to outmigration. We must make them places where the young people 

growing up want to stay; where those who went off to college or their first job want 

to come back; where people who left to find work and had successful careers elsewhere might come back to retire; and where the tourist who comes to visit decides 

they’d like to stay. 

All of the amenities and resources needed to revitalize these communities and 

make them attractive and livable places are themselves economic drivers creating 

jobs and livelihoods—the farmers market, the local foods restaurant, the coffee shop, 

the music venue, the craft brewery, the retirement community, housing, healthcare, 

and recreation all contribute to a quality of life that many people are looking for 

today. 

So we envision an economic transition driven by entrepreneurs whose businesses 

create goods and services to drive diverse local economies, and focus on sectors that 

not only generate economic activity but also generate benefits for the community. 

The dynamic relationship between entrepreneurial ecosystems, enterprises, 

market sectors and community benefits are captured in MACED’s Economic 

Transition Model (following page). This model recognizes that investment in key sectors cannot only generate economic activity but also results in additional benefits 

to the community and the people who live there. For example, local healthcare 

facilities provide jobs, but also make care more accessible if residents don’t have to 

travel to get the care they need—and the dollars spent on health care remain in 

the community. Similarly, retrofits to increase energy efficiency create jobs for the 

installers while also making homes healthier, safer and more comfortable and make 

businesses more profitable. The reduction in carbon output benefits all of us. 

Similar multiple benefits apply to the other market sectors identified in the model. 
28 

The five gears in this model represent the dynamic relationship between the 

entrepreneurial ecosystem, enterprises and markets. The entrepreneurial ecosystem 

supports new entrepreneurs, who in turn create enterprises that produce goods and 

services, which feed into markets. 

The small arrows pushing the gears represent active measures that can be implemented to accelerate the process and magnify the impacts. At the right-hand side 

of the model are promising market sectors that MACED has identified and the additional community. 

A functioning entrepreneurial ecosystem generates new entrepreneurs and also 

builds models for success in communities, which raises local capacity. Enterprises 

create goods and services that feed into markets, but also produce jobs and local 

spending power that help support local markets. 

The five arrows at the bottom (increased community capacity, livelihoods for 

families, sustainable local economies, diverse regional economy and stronger 

communities) are all results of the various 

Examples 

There are many examples of exemplary work that illustrate the potential to grow 

a new economy: 

At the nexus of local food and energy, Gwen Christon owns a grocery store at a 

rural crossroads in Letcher County, Kentucky. She invested half a million dollars 

in energy efficiency and now saves $40,000 a year in utility costs. The upgrade was 

financed with a $100,000 USDA REAP grant and $400,000 in financing from 

MACED. The energy savings cover the debt service. The store looks so much better 

that her sales are up 7 percent and she has hired two more full-time workers. 

The energy savings have also helped her cut some of her prices which also contributes to the increased sales. The next nearest grocery store is 10 miles away, so 

without this store the surrounding area would be a food desert. By including more 

local produce in her store, Gwen is also helping to support local growers, keeping 

more money circulating in the local economy. 
29 

Scott Shoupe is a fourth generation coal miner. After 22 years in the mines he 

is now participating in MACED’s New Energy Interns program, funded by a 2016 

ARC POWER grant. Scott is learning to do energy audits and retrofits, and plans 

to start his own energy efficiency business. Commercial energy retrofits can pay for 

themselves, often rapidly, by reducing both the energy usage and the demand 

charges on the utility bills. One grocery warehouse in Kentucky is now saving 

$100,000 per year after investing $200,000 in a lighting retrofit. 

MACED’S New Energy Interns were recently featured in a video by Fortune 

Magazine: 

https://maced.org/energy/new-economy-work-featured-by-fortune-magazine/ 

New Energy Interns in Yes! Magazine: 

https://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/energy-conservation-jobs-come-to-coal-country 

-20181005 

This is Tim Robinson, pictured here with Congressman Hal Rogers. Tim started 

a drug treatment program that now has facilities across eastern Kentucky. MACED 

financed one of those centers and also implemented energy efficiency measures that 

resulted in enough savings for them to buy a new van. 

https://www.arccenters.com/ 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkiWwO3TFFY 

MACED Program Innovations 

How$martKY is a MACED program that provides residential on-bill financing 

for energy efficiency retrofits. The customer pays nothing upfront, the utility pays 

the contractor, and places a charge on the customer’s bill to recover the investment, 

plus interest. The annual savings are greater than the charge on the bill, so the 

customer comes out ahead and the utility benefits from the demand reduction. 

Contractors get jobs and the customer gets a healthier and more comfortable home. 

Everybody wins. 

Energy Efficient Enterprises (E3) provides energy efficiency for commercial enterprises as well as the financing needed to implement the measures. Payback for 

commercial efficiency is often much faster than residential retrofits due to reduction 

in demand charges alongside of the reduction in kWh usage. Currently MACED is 

developing a new financing tool to support solar installations for small commercial 

enterprises. Rising electric rates are increasing the interest in solar for these businesses in our region. 

Creative application of capital is needed to support economic transition in 

economically distressed regions. MACED has been pioneering several tools designed 
30 

to allow us to finance start-ups and business. We have created a Venture Capital 

Loan Fund that can make higher risk investments and offer flexible repayments so 

as not to cash-starve the enterprise in the early stages. We have also created a collateral support fund as a donor-advised fund at a regional community foundation. 

Another innovation is our crowd-match loan through which we can match crowdsourced capital (from platforms like Kiva or Kickstarter) one-to-one up to $10,000 

with a loan that doesn’t require credit score or collateral. We use the ability to 

crowd source the other funds as a proxy for the credit-worthiness of the enterprise. 

The CDFI Fund and the ARC POWER fund have provided important support for 

these innovations. 

New Federal Investment 

The Appalachian Regional Commission’s POWER Initiative, the AML Pilot Grants 

and the proposed RECLAIM Act are important examples of how new Federal investment can support work on the ground in these communities. POWER has added 

capacity to organizations large and small across the coalfields of Appalachia and 

spurred new and expanded programs to support entrepreneurship and a range of 

innovative approaches to economic transition. A recently announced AML Pilot 

Grant for the town of Benham in Harlan County will upgrade and expand facilities 

there related to coal heritage tourism. We appreciate the fact that programs like 

this have gotten, and continue to get, support from both sides of the aisle. 

There are many more examples to share, but the important thing is this—there 

is hope in these communities, and there are people who are digging in hard to 

create a brighter future. 

Investments like the ARC POWER grants, the AML Pilot Program and the 

RECLAIM Act represent important investment that can support these grassroots efforts. And as we build this new economy, we need to ensure that it creates a future 

with opportunities for all, meeting diversity with equity, and that we attend to the 

sustainability that is needed for our children and grandchildren to thrive, and for 

our planet to survive. 

Links for more information 

Information about MACED programs 

• https://maced.org/ 

• ACED Five-year Impact Report: 

https://maced.org/wp-content/uploads/MACED-ImpactReport_Nov2018_final_ 

sm.pdf 

• Fortune Magazine video featuring MACED’s New Energy Interns: 

https://maced.org/energy/new-economy-work-featured-by-fortune-magazine/ 

• Strategies for Just Transition: 

https://maced.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/MACED_strategy_briefs_ 

web.pdf 

Appalachian Regional Commission reports 

• Distressed Counties maps FY2002–FY2019: 

https://www.arc.gov/research/MapsofAppalachia.asp 

• Appalachian Coal Industry Ecosystem: 

https://www.arc.gov/assets/research_reports/CIESummary-AppalachianCoal 

IndustryEcosystemAnalysis.pdf 

• Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: 

https://www.arc.gov/research/researchreportdetails.asp?REPORT_ID=147 

• Additional reports: 

https://www.arc.gov/research/ResearchReports.asp 

Appalachia Funders Network 

• https://www.appalachiafunders.org/ 

Kentucky Coal Data from the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet 

• http://energy.ky.gov/Pages/CoalFacts.aspx 
31 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thanks. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Dennison to testify. 

STATEMENT OF BRANDON DENNISON, FOUNDER AND CEO, 

COALFIELD DEVELOPMENT, HUNTINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA 

Mr. DENNISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 

Committee members. 

Investing in the economic revitalization of the communities that 

have been extraction-based, that have sacrificed the most to fuel, 

this country must be front and center in the shaping of policy addressing climate change. Doing so cannot be an afterthought. 

As I think about this issue, I think about Wilburn. Wilburn is 

an on-the-job trainee with Coalfield Development. He was a miner 

for 17 years in Mingo County, West Virginia. And like so many 

other miners, in 2015, he was laid off when his mine shut down. 

He had to go on public assistance, something he would tell you he 

hated to do but had to do to feed his family. 

Coalfield Development was able to put Wilburn back to work 

through a sustainable agriculture business that we incubated. This 

business converted a former mountaintop removal mine site into a 

sustainable farm where we sell fresh food products throughout the 

region. 

Wilburn and his fellow crew members work by what we call our 

33–6–3 model: 33 hours a week of paid work, just like you would 

for any other business; but 6 hours a week of higher education 

classroom time working toward an associate’s degree; and 3 hours 

a week of personal life skill development. 

At the end of their 2.5 year contract, crew members transition 

from being unemployed and in need of public assistance to being 

trained workers with an associate’s degree. We have started new 

businesses in biobased manufacturing, solar, construction, arts and 

culture in retail sectors. We have helped start over 50 new businesses and retrained over 800 formerly unemployed people. 

The farm where Wilburn works sits next to an active mountaintop removal site. And one morning, without trying to be profound, 

Wilburn was feeding the hens and the hogs. And you could see the 

active mountaintop removal happening just a couple acres away. 

And this is a process of huge equipment, equipment the size of a 

building moving just massive amounts of earth, what is called overburden. And the overburden tumbles down these steep ledges, and 

massive dust clouds go up. 

And Wilburn looked up and watched this happening. And he 

said: Well, I reckon that there is the past, and this here is the 

future. 

The coal industry will never again be the dominant industry it 

once was. And this fact creates deep pain for those of us living in 

Appalachia, especially our miners. The transition away from coal, 

which is already underway, by the way, isn’t just creating an 

economic crisis. It is a social crisis directly related to the opioid 

epidemic. And it is an environmental crisis leaving massive scars 

on our landscape that have to be dealt with. 

But the fact that coal isn’t coming back doesn’t mean that 

Appalachia has no future. The void left by coal’s collapse is actually 

making room for new entrepreneurial spurts to grow up. And 
32 

Appalachia can be a vital contributor in the fight against climate 

change. And Appalachia is no more guilty of contributing to climate 

change than most people in this country who have had to flip on 

their lights at night. 

With smart Federal policy and investment, our country can accelerate these new sprouts of entrepreneurship. We need a national 

just transition task force to give focus. We need to create a national 

program to support coal communities in transition. The power program is a great start. We can grow from there. And we need to 

pass Federal legislation, exactly what Peter mentioned, that improves conditions for former coal workers and distressed 

Appalachian communities especially relating to the black lung 

crisis. 

If we don’t pay attention to the economic hurt of extraction communities and invest in solutions that show there is a viable path 

forward, we will only deepen the division in our country. We in 

Appalachia need to know we are valued, and the country needs to 

know we have more to offer than just coal. Too often, when discussing economic transitions, policy makers announce: ‘‘Well, we 

can just retrain those people.’’ 

And I do need to say that that is always way easier said than 

done. 

There are thousands of laid-off miners who have participated in 

Federal training programs. They got a new certificate. But it 

doesn’t matter because there aren’t businesses left to take that certificate and get employed in. 

So, at Coalfield Development, we have had to be much more 

holistic. We have to create new businesses at the same time as 

training new employees to staff those businesses and have a modern work force. We need maximum flexibility at the ground level 

to pull this off. 

Wilburn is one of thousands of miners whose life was rocked by 

the shutdown of his mine. But at age 45, he is about to become a 

college graduate. He has helped us start an entire new business 

that sells food products throughout the region. Wilburn has transformed a moment of crisis into a transformational opportunity for 

himself and his family. With your support, an entire region can do 

the same. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dennison follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRANDON DENNISON, CEO, COALFIELD DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION

Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today. 

My name is Brandon Dennison. I am the founder and CEO of Coalfield Development Corporation, As a non-profit, Coalfield serves as an umbrella for a family of 

social enterprises in southern West Virginia. Coalfield is working to rebuild the 

Appalachian economy from the ground up, trying to show what a healthier and 

more diversified economy can look like in a place long, long dominated by the coal 

industry. 

The transition from coal is happening. And it has to happen. For economic, environmental, and social reasons, our communities must make this transition. But 

while there’s lots of talk about ‘‘greening our economy’’ and ‘‘transitioning off coal,’’ 

there’s much less understanding about how hard this really is. Today, I want to provide concrete examples of what a just transition can and should look like. 
33 

THE VIEW FROM APPALACHIA

Wilburn is an on-the-job trainee, a crew member with Coalfield Development. 

Wilburn worked for 17 years as a coal miner in Mingo County, West Virginia. Like 

so many other coal miners, Wilburn was laid off in 2015 and had to be placed on 

public assistance. 

Coalfield was able to put Wilburn back to work on a sustainable agriculture 

project, which converted a former mountaintop removal mine into an active farm. 

Today, local farmers sell fresh and healthy food products from this site throughout 

West Virginia. Wilburn and his fellow crew members work by our 33–6–3 model 

each week: 33 hours of paid work, 6 hours of higher education, and 3 hours of lifeskills development. 

At the end of their 2.5 year contract, crew members transition from being unemployed and in need of public assistance, to trained workers with an Associate’s 

Degree. Many have even developed business plans for new start-ups. This model has 

been proven to work. It’s been used to start new businesses in the bio-based manufacturing, solar, construction, arts and culture, and retail sectors. Coalfield Development has helped start over 50 new businesses and created 190 new jobs. We’ve 

retrained over 800 formerly unemployed people. 

The farm where Wilburn worked sits next to an active mountaintop removal mine. 

As we fed hogs and chickens each morning, equipment the size of buildings moved 

massive amounts of dirt (called over-burden) off of high, steep ledges, as dust clouds 

ballooned up into the sky. One morning as he worked, without meaning to be profound, Wilburn watched as this over-burden tumbled down. He then looked over at 

new crops growing up on our site and said, ‘‘I reckon that there is the past, and 

this here is the future.’’ 

THE DECLINE OF COAL

I’m here today as a young man born and raised in West Virginia. My wife and 

I are raising our 2-year-old son in West Virginia, and we’re expecting another boy 

in a matter of weeks. Coalfield Development was born out of much love by West 

Virginians for West Virginians. And my view from the ground—deep in coal 

country—is this: Coal is not coming back. 

The coal industry will never be the dominant industry in Appalachia that it was 

for generations. This fact creates deep pain for those of us living in Appalachia, especially for our miners. The transition away from coal is creating an economic crisis, 

causing high unemployment and low labor participation. It’s creating a social crisis, 

leading to an addiction epidemic. And it’s creating an environmental crisis, as closed 

coal mines leave scarred and polluted landscapes in their wake. 

We know the coal industry is shrinking, and institutions from the government’s 

own Energy Information Administration to Standard and Poors—and more—all 

agree: 

1. The U.S. coal-mining industry is in a permanent structural decline. 

The industry is facing a new market order, and it can’t compete with less 

expensive and more flexible rival fuel sources. For these reasons, it won’t 

likely regain its once-predominant market position. This shift in markets is 
34 

1https://platform.mi.spglobal.com/web/client?auth=inherit#news/article?id=49528076&key 

productlinktype=2. 2http://ieefa.org/ieefa-report-u-s-likely to-end-2018-with-record-decline-in-coal-fired-capacity/. 

occurring because the economics of coal-fired generation no longer make the 

same sense they once did. A decade and a half ago, coal provided more than 

50 percent of all fuel for U.S. power generation. Today that share is less than 

30 percent. Renewables have taken a bite out of coal’s traditional hold on 

power markets. In an outlook published just last month,1 the Energy 

Information Administration sees 24 gigawatts of new, renewable generation 

capacity coming on-line this year, 46 percent from wind, 18 percent from 

solar, the rest from natural gas—and none from coal. 

2. Initiatives to reverse coal’s decline are unlikely to succeed. The structural changes in the U.S. domestic coal market have caused the industry to 

scramble to regain its footing by promoting expansion of exports and by embracing the potential of ‘‘clean coal,’’ or carbon capture and sequestration 

(CCS) projects. Neither the export nor the CCS initiatives have a very good 

chance of succeeding. In addition, hoped-for regulatory relief in the guise of 

Federal policy reversals has been realized only theoretically. While the Trump 

administration has moved to ease emissions restrictions on power plants and 

environmental rules on mining, neither activity has slowed the decline of coal. 

There are still far fewer coal-mining jobs today than there used to be—the 

overall trend is toward fewer and fewer—and coal-fired power generation is 

less competitive than it was 2 years ago. 

3. More plants and mines will close as the economics of coal-fired power 

generation no longer make sense. According to research from the Institute 

for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a leading energy markets think 

tank, at least 36.7GW of coal-fired capacity stand to be retired from 2018 

through 2024—117 units in total—and that is a highly conservative estimate.2 Announced retirements will cut coal-fired capacity by at least 15 

percent through 2024, a figure that very likely understates the trend. Fully 

two-thirds of 2018’s retirements were only announced in 2017, a clear indication that utilities have shortened their lead time on closures. 

4. A resurgence in coal mining is unlikely. Further restructuring of the coal 

mining industry appears inevitable in the face of a shrinking customer base, 

fleet overcapacity, and intense competition—mainly from natural gas and renewables. The structural decline of the coal industry will drive more coal-fired 

power plants out of business. A resurgence in coal production—regionally or 

nationally—is unlikely. Domestic demand for coal will continue to drop, export strategies will not save producers, carbon capture and storage schemes 

meant to sustain the industry are not viable, and regulatory relief will continue to prove ineffective. Without a robust customer base of the type it has 

historically had, the U.S. coal industry will continue to contract and consolidate. As demand for coal continues to shrink, so too will production. 

AN ACTION AGENDA FOR CONGRESS

But hidden in the pain and fear is opportunity and renewal. Like Wilburn converting a former surface mine into a sustainable farm, we can find the solutions to 

our problems within these very problems themselves. The national attention on 

Appalachia—and the plight of former coal workers and the economic hurt of coal 

communities—presents an opportunity. Congress should immediately act to: 

1. Create a national just transition task force. A smart, just, and fair transition away from coal will be difficult, and the transition will affect the entire 

country, in places where coal mining and coal plants are closing. While 

Appalachia has been first and hardest hit, other regions aren’t far behind. We 

could and should learn from other countries, like Canada and Germany, and 

create a national just transition task force, which could comprehensively assess this energy and economic transition, and work with leading public and 

private sector partners to identify relevant regional solutions. This effort 

should put grassroots organizations and for-profit innovators in leadership 

positions. 

2. Create a national program to support coal communities in transition. 

In 2015, President Obama introduced his POWER + program, a portion of 

which made economic and work force development grants available to help 

support coal communities in transition. POWER focused on economic development and diversification; the effort wasn’t just about creating new jobs, but 
35 

3https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/saving-the-heartland-place-based-policies-in-21stcentury-america/. 4https://www.npr.org/2018/07/19/630470150/black-lung-rate-hits-25-year-high-in-appalachiancoal-mining-states. 5https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-351. 

it focused on diversifying and strengthening local economies, so they could 

more resilient. While pieces of this original program still exist, total funding 

allocations are small. Congress could immediately put resources to work, and 

build off of the excellent work of the Appalachian Regional Commission, 

which has awarded more than $120M since 2015 to innovative strategies, like 

Coalfield, that have the potential to scale and be replicated. 

The Appalachian Regional Commission is a particularly effective Federal 

agency and represents the kind of ‘‘place-based’’ policies that can have an outsized impact.3 Regional entities such as Appalachian Regional Commission 

are more in touch with the on-the-ground complexities and nuances in ways 

national agencies just can’t be. 

POWER funding created opportunities that allowed people to stay—being 

Appalachian is our culture and our identity. We just have to make sure that 

jobs exist for the miners and affected community members that have been 

trained. That’s why Coalfield Development has worked closely with a solar 

company, Solar Holler, which has recently hired eight of the workers we’ve 

trained. These programs work if the private sector (and other potential job 

creators) are engaged from the beginning. 

In places like West Virginia, we put all our eggs into one basket—ironically 

made of coal. When the bottom fell out, we were stuck in black slurry. Now, 

many ask, ‘‘What’s the next big thing? What can replace coal?’’ But I believe 

this is the wrong question. Relying too heavily on one industry is how we 

ended up with some of the highest poverty rates in the country. The right 

solution isn’t to find one new industry, but to support entrepreneurs 

and new businesses in a diversified number of financially, 

environmentally, and socially sustainable fields. At Coalfield Development, we’re pioneering what these diversified sectors can look like. Federal 

investment in solutions and communities like ours can help us scale create 

solutions to our economic challenges. 

3. Pass Federal legislation that improves the conditions of former coal 

workers and distressed Appalachian communities. The most important 

efforts focus on helping miners suffering from black lung disease, promoting 

reclamation by stimulating economic development, and connecting rural and 

urban areas by improving broadband access. 

Black Lung 

There is another issue related to addressing the legacy cost of coal mining as we 

work through this economic transition. Rates of black lung disease have hit a 25 

year high in Appalachian coal mining states.4 One in five veteran working coal 

miners in Central Appalachia now has this fatal and incurable disease. Since 2000, 

the rate of black lung disease has doubled across the United States. The 

Black Lung Disability Trust Fund pays for benefits to coal miners disabled by black 

lung and their surviving spouses in cases where the miners’ employer has gone 

bankrupt or not been found responsible. But because of congressional inaction, this 

Trust Fund is in jeopardy. The Trust Fund is supported by a small excise tax paid 

on coal sold domestically, at a rate that was unchanged for more than three 

decades. But Congress failed to extend the tax rate before the end of 2018, and it 

has now been cut by more than half. This will create a long-term financial crisis 

for the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund unless it’s corrected. A May 2018 Government Accountability Office report projected that, if the tax rate were to be slashed, 

the Trust Fund’s revenue would be unable to cover beneficiary payments and administrative costs as soon as 2020 and Trust Fund debt would balloon to over $15 

billion by 2050.5 I urge members of this Committee to work toward extending the 

black lung excise tax immediately. 

The RECLAIM Act 

We must restore the lands degraded and polluted by the coal mining industry. As 

we’ve found at Coalfield, there’s economic opportunity in reclamation. The 

RECLAIM Act, which would open up $1B for reclamation, has the potential to create thousands of new jobs, and stimulate millions more in local economic development activity across the country. According to the Department of the Interior’s 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, the RECLAIM Act could 
36 

6https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b04532. 

7http://appvoices.org/resources/AML-RAC/AML_RAC_report_Many_Voices_Many_Solutions-11- 

13-18-lo-res.pdf. 8https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-states/west-virginia/stories-inwest_virginia/natural-climate-solutions-in-west-virginia/. 

create 4,600 direct jobs in areas hard hit by losses in the coal industry. Reclamation 

of abandoned mine lands generate thousands of other jobs in agriculture, recreation, 

tourism, renewable energy, and retail. The RECLAIM Act doesn’t use a cent of taxpayer money. It imposes no new fees or taxes. 

Miners can be put back to work restoring the land they love. As Wilburn’s fellow 

crew member, himself a former surface miner, remarked one day: ‘‘I just blow the 

mountains up, and now I’m putting them back together.’’ And importantly, these 

sites, if properly restored, can help mitigate climate change by capturing carbon and 

connecting diverse ecosystems. Indeed, over 1,200 miles of streambed have been permanently destroyed by mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia alone. More than 

1 million acres of mountaintop have been blown up. Enough mountaintop has been 

removed in West Virginia alone to bury all of Manhattan.6

The RECLAIM Act uses existing funds to create jobs and clean up dangerous 

mines. The RECLAIM Act was originally introduced in February 2016, then again 

introduced last Congress as H.R. 1731 and reported out of the House Natural 

Resources Committee in October 2017. Still, largely because of industry opposition, 

it has not progressed despite its bipartisan support in both chambers. The AML 

Fund has an explicit purpose to clean up dangerous and polluting mines that were 

left behind by coal operators over 40 years ago and continue to burden surrounding 

communities. The RECLAIM Act simply releases these funds so that long overdue 

cleanup can happen now. 

I’d like to extend my thanks to the House Natural Resources Committee for 

passing the bipartisan RECLAIM Act in the 115th Congress. Chairman Lowenthal, 

I know you were a co-sponsor of that legislation, as were a number of other members of this Subcommittee. RECLAIM would also catalyze longer term economic 

growth in coal communities by helping to lay a foundation for the building new industries in parts of the country that badly need a broader economic base. 

AML Pilot Program 

The flexibility and innovation aspired to by RECLAIM has been tried out through 

the AML Pilot program, launched in 2015. This program chose six states in which 

AML funds were allowed to be used on projects having a ‘‘nexus’’ between minecleanup and economic development. For example, in West Virginia we’ve been able 

to kick-start an aquaponics facility, solar installations, and quality housing development on former minelands. 

Coalfield Development recently worked with partners throughout Central 

Appalachia to identify and develop 20 development projects in communities plagued 

by abandoned mine lands.7 Projects would cost over $38 million; however, if these 

projects were funded, total economic output from project spending would be valued 

at nearly $84 million. These projects would provide over $22 million in wages to employees, support nearly 543 full- and part-time jobs across the region, and improve 

regional GDP (value-added) by over $44 million. Further, most projects plan for 

direct/on-site employment after construction/development. See the Reclaiming 

Appalachia report for more info. 

These proposals (as well as projects that have already been funded) demonstrate 

the potential for jobs and broader community benefits through innovative mine 

reclamation. Importantly, restoring these lands can contribute significantly to reductions in greenhouse gases. The Nature Conservancy reports: 

A study by The Nature Conservancy and others showed that ‘‘natural 

climate solutions’’—such as growing taller trees, improving soil health, protecting grasslands and restoring coastal wetlands—can amount to 37 

percent of the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere needed in the 

next few decades. 

In West Virginia, the third most forested state in the United States, there 

is massive potential to contribute to these natural climate solutions. And 

the Central Appalachians is one of the most critical landscapes in the 

country for this important work. 

In 2012, The Nature Conservancy completed a study of all the forests on 

the East Coast, identifying the areas predicted to withstand the growing 

impacts of climate change and help ensure nature’s survival. Among the 

most resilient landscapes were highland forests in West Virginia.8
37 

9https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/10/16/1622190/0/en/Generation-West-VirginiaMountwest-Jobcase-Partners-Launch-Training-Program-to-Build-Tech-Talent-Pipeline.html. 

While AML Pilot and other Federal programs have been helpful, there is a need 

for improvement in execution. In many places, implementation of the program 

should increase public awareness and outreach, increase transparency in application 

criteria, review, and decision making, and increase emphasis on projects including 

a mine reclamation component. It’s important that Federal dollars not be allowed 

to go to politician’s pet projects, but rather engage community members and advance truly worthy projects that actually have that key ‘‘nexus’’ mentioned above. 

National Rural Broadband 

Finally, we must connect our communities. Integral to stimulating economic development, particularly in rural places, is access to broadband. While the F.C.C. and 

Rural Utilities Service provide broadband subsidies, and private sector companies 

like Microsoft are rolling out programs, a coordinated, national broadband plan 

could go a long way in helping creating new opportunities in economically distressed 

areas like Appalachia. 

A group in West Virginia called Generation West Virginia has launched an important new program called NewForce. NewForce is a tuition-free, in-person, teambased intensive tech training program in Huntington, West Virginia.9 It was created 

by employers, community colleges, and non-profits to ensure West Virginians have 

the right tech skills for companies who are ready to hire in the Mountain State. 

Through the intensive 6-month curriculum, NewForce students work together, receive mentorship, and graduate with in-demand software development skills and direct connections to jobs. The program finishes with a Job Interview Day where the 

program’s employer partners interview NewForce graduates for open positions. But 

a robust broadband infrastructure is needed for this to really take off. A coordinated, national broadband initiative targeted at rural areas could jump start 

economic development. Congress can make that happen. 

THE NEED FOR A NEW WAY OF DOING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

You must understand just how deep and real the pain and hardship is that has 

been caused by the coal industry’s decline. Usually, when discussing economic transitions, policy makers announce: ‘‘Well, we can just retrain those people.’’ The reality is this is so much easier said than done. There are hundreds of laid-off miners 

who got certified in new trades, but it doesn’t matter because there are not many 

businesses outside the coal industry and therefore not many jobs to be entered with 

that new certification. Some ask, ‘‘Why can’t those people just move away?’’ Well, 

for one that questions totally ignores that value of community and culture and identity. But that question also ignores the economic realities of ‘‘land-poor’’ homeowners 

and the unaffordability of relocating to high-cost urban areas. 

The right question isn’t, ‘‘How do we retrain those people?’’ The right question is, 

‘‘How we strengthen these places which have given our country so much and have 

so much more to give?’’ There are smart and much-needed government investments 

that we’ll need to answer this question, but we aren’t asking for handouts. 

Ultimately, we need market-driven solutions that are financially sustainable. We 

haven’t lost sight of this, and it’s why creating new businesses is central to our 

strategy. 

A question that drives me crazy is, ‘‘Why do those people vote against their own 

interests?’’ By ‘‘own interests’’ the questioner usually means government programs. 

Well, we don’t want to have to depend on government programs to feed our families. 

We are proud to have powered this country’s development for generations, and we 

want to keep doing so. 

The problem has never been our work ethic. The problem is that we put all our 

eggs in to one basket made of coal, and when the bottom of that basket fell out we 

found ourselves stuck. Now, many ask, ‘‘What’s the next big thing? What can replace coal?’’ This is the wrong question. Relying on one industry too heavily is how 

we got some of the highest poverty rates in the country. So, the solution is not to 

find one new industry, but to support entrepreneurs and new businesses in a diversified array of sustainable fields. By sustainable, I mean financially sustainable, 

environmentally sustainable, and social sustainable. At Coalfield Development, 

we’re pioneering what these diversified sectors can look like. We and our partner 

organizations are not asking for charity. We’re pitching an investment opportunity. 
38 

10For a thorough analysis poverty in Appalachia and the Federal Government’s role in it, read 

Uneven Ground: Appalachia Since 1945 by Ronald D. Eller (2008) University of Kentucky Press. 11https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/special_reports/w-va-still-owned-by-absenteecompanies-report_says/article_f3dd4a64-19a1-59b7-bc6d-ee2b49d6bd9b.html. 

Poverty in our region is complex. Even when coal was booming, we were still one 

of the poorest regions in North America.10 Such socio-economic challenges are 

wrapped up in issues of power, equity, and fairness. For example, huge swaths of 

West Virginia land is owned by corporate land holding companies.11 It’s very difficult for fresh investment and redevelopment to occur when this is the case. Strategies for our region can’t just be about one industry at one point in time. Strategies 

for our region have to be about justice and opportunity. 

Simply using government dollars to ‘‘retrain’’ people is not enough. There has to 

be a broader place-based strategy which simultaneously creates new businesses and 

provides the wrap-around support needed by workers to overcome poverty. 

In developing such programs, much flexibility will be needed for local innovation 

to flourish. By local I do not mean state governments, I mean place-based, grassroots organizations. Program income requirements should be loosened. More general 

operating funds should be granted to organizations trying to survive in extremely 

distressed economic environments. Public/private partnerships should be encouraged, not discouraged. In many ways, this work is more like early phase, basic research and development. This is economic research and development to test what 

is possible and what isn’t in this complex places. Put more directly, those of on the 

ground trying to improve conditions for our place need to be allowed to be as innovative and entrepreneurial as is necessary for real opportunity to flourish. 

SUMMARY

While I’m here to say that coal is not coming back, I’m also here to say that 

doesn’t mean Appalachia has no future. In fact, the void left by coal’s collapse has 

made room for new sprouts of entrepreneurship and innovation. While the shortterm prognosis is a painful transition off coal, if we can approach this transition 

smartly and fairly, the long-term outlook is really bright. 

Appalachia has important assets the rest of the country needs: large swaths of 

forests that are carbon sinks, a dedicated and creative work force, a unique and distinctive culture, and a good quality of life within driving distance of a significant 

portion of the country’s population. We can realize our bright future, albeit with a 

little help and outside investment. But our leaders hold us back from realizing our 

bright future when they promise coal will return. This only dampens the latent entrepreneurial spirit that lies dormant among our hills and hollers. But that spirit 

is there. 

Wilburn is one of thousands of former miners whose life was rocked by the shut 

down of his mine. But at age 45 he’s about to become a college graduate. He’s helping us start a sustainable business called Refresh Appalachia, which is selling fresh, 

healthy produce throughout the region. Wilburn has transformed a moment of crisis 

in his life into a transformational opportunity. 

Now you have the opportunity to do the same. 

Please don’t ignore the economic hurt in Appalachia—or in any other coal communities across the country. To ignore us would only mean deepening the fissures that 

are breaking our country apart. 

I hope you’ll consider Wilburn, as you consider my suggestions. Thank you for 

your time. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

And now the Chair recognizes Dr. Mason to testify. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH MASON, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT 

OF FINANCE, LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, BATON 

ROUGE, LOUISIANA 

Dr. MASON. Good morning. 

Thank you, Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, and 

members of the Committee for holding this hearing to discuss this 

very crucial transition. 
39 

The Green New Deal resolution seeks, among other things, to 

achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just 

transition for all communities and workers while ensuring clean air 

and water, a sustainable environment, and justice and equity. 

While laudable, those objectives conflict in dimensions that just 

can’t be reconciled. 

In recent years, wind turbine and transmission line sites located 

far from population centers have largely been developed. Further 

development will require working with communities and citizens to 

ensure a fair and just balance of access and resource generation 

closer to cities and homes. 

Such a process takes time, and jobs will not be created until that 

process comes to a conclusion. A fair and just process will take 

many years. There will be jobs dealing with batteries and generation technology, but those will be environmentally dirty in different 

ways. Rechargeable batteries, including lead acid, nickel, metal 

hydride, nickel cadmium and lithium ion batteries, all contain toxic 

materials that are hazardous to human health and the environment if disposed of inappropriately. 

Wind turbines use considerable amounts of rare earth elements 

to build permanent magnets and electric generators; solar photovoltaic installations use similar ingredients. All of those are either 

valuable, in short supply, or both. 

Rather than mining those from conflict areas of the world like 

the Democratic Republic of the Congo, they can be obtained 

through recycling. But jobs and industries related to that recycling 

will require handling concentrated quantities of heavy metals and 

other carcinogenic and mutagenic materials risking humans lives 

as well as soil and groundwater contamination. 

Without occupational safety rules, we risk exposing workers in 

those new jobs to both new and known safety hazards like we did 

when exposing miners to black lung disease, construction workers 

to asbestos exposure, and workers and residents of nearby neighborhoods to birth defects and cancer arising from chemical and 

heavy metals. 

Residential solar contracts already involve terms similar to those 

that caused the recent real estate bubble, bust, and recession. 

Without consumer protection from rampant development, mandating green energy without protecting consumers violates the 

notion of a just and fair transition. 

While the green bond sector is booming, there is no assurance 

that investments funded in the sector are really green in any 

meaningful sense. Bonds and funds selling on the popularity of the 

green moniker usually underperform their benchmarks and charge 

high investor fees. Like the tech bubble glamour stocks in the 

1990s, a green investment bubble could arise that, when popped, 

could devastate the sector and forestall needed development, hurting both jobs and the environment. 

If the proposed mandate of carbon neutrality cannot be met with 

production cuts, then achieving that goal will have to rely upon offsets. But offsets aren’t locally green and sometimes arise from poor 

policy making and fraud. It is not clear that the United States 

should accept other countries’ offsets, but there is currently no 

mechanism by which to accept or reject their fiat permits. 
40 

Diplomacy will be necessary to establish eligibility requirement, 

and that will take time. 

The proposed mandate will alter international patterns of trade 

and strategic resources and disrupt global supply chains. As markets adapt to the new patterns of energy resource trade, market 

failures will occur. Because energy affects every consumer and 

business in the Nation, such failures may be even more disruptive 

than the recent credit crisis. Even without market failures, the 

mandate will impose widely varying effects upon states and their 

citizens as some states pay more of the price for the adjustment 

than others. 

Because those costs are a complex function of existing fossil fuel 

use as well as energy imports from other states, the sponsors of 

this resolution cannot today say which states will suffer worse 

losses and which others will not. And they cannot, therefore, guarantee the social or distributional justice that they claim, or even 

the basis by which such justice will be meted out. 

The New Deal created jobs in an economy with more than 20 

percent unemployment. We don’t have 20 percent unemployment. 

According to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, unemployment is low, and prices are near 2 percent inflation. We are in a 

good place. 

The proposed resolution is not a New Deal, nor do we necessarily 

need a New Deal. A better historical roadmap might be the 

National Monetary Commission. Following the financial panic of 

1907, Congress convened the Commission to study in depth best 

central banking practices around the world in order to make 

recommendations for meaningful reform. The result of that investigation, the Federal Reserve System, still stands as a major innovation that is one of the leading central banks in the world in 

terms of both effectiveness and stability. Our environment deserves 

the same thought and consideration. 

In closing, I would like to note I was first included in the congressional greenhouse gas debate almost 10 years ago now. I agree 

that the issue is more important 10 years on, absolutely. I applaud 

Chairman Lowenthal’s remarks about the need to begin a meaningful discussion here to lead this process forward. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Mason follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH R. MASON, LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND

THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Economics is built upon comparative statics. Statics is the comparison of one 

economic equilibrium with another. While it is easy to say that one equilibrium is 

better than another, the question of how we make the transition is important. Thus, 

I want to acknowledge that this hearing is crucial to the Nation’s economic wellbeing. 

According to the proposed resolution, the Green New Deal seeks: 

(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just 

transition for all communities and workers; 

(B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic 

security for all people of the United States; 

(C) to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to 

sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century; 

(D) to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come—— 
41 

1 Rand, Joseph and Hoen, Ben. ‘‘Thirty years of North American wind energy acceptance 

research: What have we learned?’’ Energy Research & Social Science 29 (2017), 135–148. 2 Id. 

3 Id. 

4 Cain, Nicholas L. and Nelson, Hal T. ‘‘What drives opposition to high-voltage transmission 

lines?’’ Land Use Policy 33 (2013), 204–213. 5 Rand and Hoen (2017). For a more complete review of constraints to wind power development, see the U.S. Department of Energy, Wind Vision: A new era for wind power in the United 

States. 2015. 

(i) clean air and water; 

(ii) climate and community resiliency; 

(iii) healthy food; 

(iv) access to nature; and 

(v) a sustainable environment; and 

(E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and 

repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, communities of color, 

migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural 

communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, 

people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘frontline 

and vulnerable communities’’) 

Mandating ‘‘net-zero greenhouse gas emissions’’ over a 10-year period alone, however, will not ensure a smooth transition. Mandates will not curtail CO2 emissions 

and encourage the push to renewables. Often, in fact, mandates instead produce 

perverse incentives. 

The proposed mandate also runs counter to the other resolution goals regarding 

fairness and equality. The tension arises because the only way to achieve the mandate in such a short period of time will be to take rights and property from some 

citizens and reallocate that to others. 

I. Green Jobs Will Take a Long Time to Develop and Will Involve Handling 

Toxic Metals That Are the Dirty Foundation of Green Energy 

A. Rapid Development and Planning for Wind Turbines, Solar Farms, and HighVoltage Lines Will Alienate Local Citizens and Violate Distributional Justice 

Jobs related to green technologies will take a long time to develop. For instance, 

jobs related to wind turbine installations and high-voltage electrical infrastructure 

can only be made available after a long planning process. 

A 30-year old research agenda regarding opposition to wind projects by local citizens yields interesting insights into citizens’ thinking. A recent academic paper 

summarizing such research suggests that while, ‘‘North American support for wind 

has been consistently high,’’ the strict interpretation of opposition cannot be tied 

solely to NIMBY behavior by local residents or lack of concern for the environment.1

Distance from turbines obviously matters, but its effect is unclear, and sound and 

visual impacts are tied to annoyance and opposition. 

Less obvious, however, are conclusions that suggest that the strongest influences 

on successful placements relate to the process by which wind turbine sites are selected. Sound and visual impacts can be overcome if those aspects are not ignored, 

but are acknowledged. ‘‘Issues of fairness, participation, and trust during the development process influence acceptance,’’ and ‘‘[v]iewing opposition as something to be 

overcome prevents meaningful understandings and implementation of best 

practices.’’ 2

All that said, however, the authors note that ‘‘[i]mplementation of research 

findings into practice has been limited.’’ 3 Similar research finds nearly identical intricacies to citing high-voltage transmission lines required for green energy 

installations.4

Those points are important because, ‘‘the ‘low hanging fruit’ wind sites (those that 

have good wind resources and are close to loads and transmission, yet far from communities) have largely been developed, implying that future wind development 

likely will happen increasingly near communities.’’ 5

Up to now, considerations regarding reactions of local citizens to wind turbine 

placements and high-voltage infrastructure have not been a significant concern. The 

Green New Deal 10-year mandate, therefore, means that wind turbine installations 

and needed transmission towers will be coming to residents’ neighborhoods soon, 

regardless of local concerns. The proposed policy is almost designed to alienate local 

citizens in the name of unfunded federalism. The costs of such policies—like those 
42 

6 Renjie Chen et al. ‘‘Toward sustainable and systematic recycling of spent rechargeable 

batteries.’’ Chemical Society Reviews, 47 (2018), 7239–7302. 7 Id. 

8Sanderson, Henry. ‘‘Cobalt hits 2-year low as DRC ramps up supply.’’ Financial Times, February 5, 2019. 9Sanderson, Henry and Hume, Neil. ‘‘Glencore to cut workers at key DR Congo copper and 

cobalt mine.’’ Financial Times, February 8, 2019. 10 Renjie Chen et al. (2018). 11 Valeroa, Alicia; Valerob, Antonio; Calvob, Guiomar; and Ortegoa, Abel. ‘‘Material bottlenecks in the future development of green technologies.’’ Renewable and Sustainable Energy 

Reviews 93 (2018), 178–200. (Citations omitted.) 

incurred by locals in the Camp Fire—will be borne by locals while the benefits will 

be enjoyed elsewhere. Such dispersion violates concerns of distributional justice and 

fairness, counter to the bill’s own stated goals. 

B. Green Energy Curtails CO2 , but Increases Concentrations of Other Pollutants 

That Damage Soil and Water 

While it is obvious that wind turbines don’t produce when the wind doesn’t blow 

and solar doesn’t produce when the sun doesn’t shine and many have suggested 

batteries as a solution, few have thought about where the batteries come from or 

the batteries’ own impact on the environment. 

Batteries pollute. Rechargeable batteries, including lead-acid, nickel-metal 

hydride, nickel-cadmium, and lithium-ion batteries, all contain toxic materials. 

‘‘Spent rechargeable batteries contain heavy metal elements, including nickel (Ni), 

cobalt (Co), and [lead] Pb, which are hazardous to human health and the environment if disposed of inappropriately. . . . Ni, Co, and Pb are all classified as carcinogenic and mutagenic materials. In addition to heavy metals, the organic and strong 

acid/alkaline electrolytes of rechargeable batteries are also polluting.’’ 6

So, while the Green New Deal promises clean air, little attention is being paid 

to increased concentration of other pollutants in the quest to decrease CO2. 

C. Resources Needed for Green Energy Will Require Transportation and Handling 

of Toxic Materials in High Concentrations in Trade With Conflict Nations 

Worldwide 

Large-scale battery production also consumes other scarce resources. Among the 

above-mentioned elements, ‘‘Co is considered strategically important because it is 

widely used in industry and by the military.’’ 7 Yet, Co, in particular, is in short supply and some two-thirds of that comes from one of the poorest countries in the 

world, the Democratic Republic of Congo, under contract to Glencore. Illustrating 

the Democratic Republic of Congo’s global influence, the Financial Times reported 

last week that Co prices ‘‘hit their lowest level in 2 years after a supply surge from 

the Democratic Republic of Congo,’’ after falling some 40 percent since November 

2018.8 The Democratic Republic of Congo’s uncertain political environment, demanding increased royalties and taxes on international mining companies, has led 

mining companies such as Glencore to reduce their exposure to the sector.9

Resource pressures have led to increased concerns about materials recycling. Yet 

U.S. battery recycling programs are lax in comparison with those in the EU and 

China.10

It is important to recognize further that such recycling concerns are not only 

about the environment. The needs span all manner of green technologies not just 

batteries. ‘‘Wind power demands important amounts of rare earth elements (REE) 

like neodymium and dysprosium to build permanent magnets for electric generators 

and some studies have shown that demand of both elements might increase by 700 

percent and 2600 percent, respectively, in the next decades. Additionally, solar photovoltaic demands high quantities of silver for electrical connections, and other 

materials like cadmium, tellurium, or indium are used for manufacturing p-n 

junctions in solar thin film technologies like CIGS or CdTe. Solar thermal power 

(STP) also requires silver for manufacturing reflectors or nickel and molybdenum 

for manufacturing high strength steel alloys needed in structures.’’ 11

All of those are in short supply, but little of those are recycled. ‘‘[C]urrent 

recycling rates of some of these materials are almost negligible because more often 

than not the specific required recycling processes do not pay off. [Even where recycling is profitable], current recycling rates are still very low. For instance, less than 

3 percent of the lithium contained in a battery is currently recycled. . . . [Still] only 

42 percent of the total battery waste mass can be recycled with current available 

technology. . . . As a result, the concern regarding the impact of green technologies 
43 

12 Valeroa et al. (2018). (Citations omitted.) 13Mendelsohn, Mike. ‘‘Raising capital in very large chunks: The rise of solar securitization.’’ 

PV Magazine, November 16, 2018. 14 ABS New Issue Report, ‘‘Mosaic Solar Loan Trust 2019–1,’’ Kroll Bond Rating Agency, 

February 6, 2019. 15 Id. 16https://www.icmagroup.org/green-social-and-sustainability-bonds/green-bond-principles-gbp/. 

on raw material availability is becoming an important issue for countries aiming at 

guaranteeing their sustainability and for the development of green technologies.’’ 12

There will be jobs. But these will be no better (and arguably, worse) than those 

in the existing fossil fuels sector. Those jobs will deal with the new pollutants from 

green energy sources. Even recycling programs—to the extent that those are mandated—will require handling concentrated quantities of heavy metals and other carcinogenic and mutagenic materials, risking human lives and soil and groundwater 

contamination. It would only make sense to put in place occupational safety rules 

to deal with new environmental hazards before mandating energy goals. Otherwise, 

we may repeat prior problems like those arising from black lung disease, asbestos 

exposure, birth defects and cancer arising from chemical and heavy metals disposal, 

and the failed remediation efforts of the EPA’s Superfund, all in the name of CO2

reduction. 

II. The Green Brand Is Already Being Co-Opted 

The Green New Deal sets as a goal ‘‘net-zero greenhouse gas emissions,’’ but does 

not define what that means. Green is already a marketing tool in many sectors and 

even where the term is defined, it leads people to charge high fees and do bad 

things in the name of ‘‘green.’’ 

A. Solar Installations Face a Complex Web of Laws and Regulations That Are Not 

Being Taken Into Account in the Mandate 

Take, for instance, the residential solar industry. Many homes have installed 

solar panels. But a large number of those have been bad deals for consumers and 

investors alike. 

Solar contracts are causing a variety of frictions in the real estate industry, some 

of which may turn out to be systemic. For instance, the contractual arrangements 

surrounding the installations—often in the form of loans or leases and contracts to 

provide energy to the grid via net metering arrangements—may not transfer with 

the home because they are technically independent of the property upon sale. Ancillary negotiations can be necessary to effectuate such transfer, but those negotiations 

can delay closing and raise the costs of real estate transactions. 

Consumer and business solar installation contracts are sold and securitized just 

like subprime mortgages, with the cash-flows ‘‘sliced and diced’’ and sold to investors so that the company can sell more solar installations. In 2017, solar 

securitizations topped $1.5 billion and in 2018, they topped $2 billion.13 The sector 

continues to grow rapidly. 

In January 2019, Mosaic—which has over $1 billion in securitizations outstanding—completed its largest solar securitization to date. Mosaic’s consumer loans 

are regulated by, ‘‘CFPB, FTC and various state agencies. Loans originated by 

Mosaic must comply with applicable Federal and State law including (but not limited to): Truth in Lending Act (‘‘TILA’’); Truth in Advertising; Fair Credit Reporting 

Act (‘‘FCRA’’); Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (‘‘FDCPA’’); Equal Credit 

Opportunity; [and] Privacy and Data Security Laws.’’ 14 While securitization is not 

in and of itself bad, one of the key risk factors noted in Mosaic’s securitization is 

that the loans and leases can contain unique features like payments that rise over 

time, which ‘‘may potentially invite the scrutiny of consumer protection 

regulators.’’ 15

Green energy installations, therefore, intertwine with consumer protections and 

energy transmission regulations in a web of Federal and state combinations whose 

interaction will be affected by the proposed mandate. Mandating green energy without protecting consumers in those sectors, therefore, violates the notion of a ‘‘just 

and fair transition.’’ 

B. Green Bond Funds Sell at a Premium and Charge High Fees for the Brand 

Although there is no established formal criteria for the qualification of a green 

bond, the development of the International Capital Market Association ‘‘green bond 

principles’’ has promoted a modicum of agreement in the sector.16 Those principles, 

while voluntary, have formed a process around transparency and disclosure with 
44 

17The World Bank at https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/news_ext_content/ifc_external_ corporate_site/news+and+events/news/perspectives/perspectives-i1c2. 18 Reichelt, Heike and Keenan, Colleen. The Green Bond Market: 10 years later and looking 

ahead. Washington, DC: The World Bank, December 2017. 19Mullin, Keith. ‘‘ LatAm green bonds—Building Momentum.’’ Environmental Finance 

(supported by the World Bank and the Swiss Federation). 20Giannasca, N. ‘‘New York Public Service Commission’s ESCO order set for preliminary injunction hearing.’’ Energy and Environmental Law Blog. May 4, 2016. ‘‘. . .to ensure that these 

products contribute to greater renewable energy achievement . . . energy labels are based on 

the environmental attributes of the energy purchased by the load serving entity and are not 

affected by the separate purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (‘‘RECs’’). Currently, to meet 

this requirement the ESCO must guarantee that at least 30 percent of the energy provided to 

the customer will be generated by deliverable renewable energy resources, including biomass, 

biogas, hydropower, solar energy, and wind energy, and will include renewable attributes.’’ 

[Emphasis added.] 21Mason, Joseph R. ‘‘Financial regulation and fraud in CO2 markets.’’ Research Handbook of 

Investing in the Triple Bottom Line, Sabri Boubaker, Douglas Cummings and Doc Nguyen, eds., 

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2018, 9–28. 

four specific components, namely Use of Proceeds, Process for Project Evaluation 

and Selection, Management of Proceeds, and Reporting. 

While green investment funds have proved popular with special interests they ignore simple marketing realities: when something is more popular it can be sold for 

a higher price. Existing fossil-free funds’ demonstrated performance history shows 

that the funds usually underperform even their own chosen benchmarks and charge 

high fees to investors. Like the tech bubble ‘‘glamour stocks’’ in the 1990s, a green 

investment bubble could arise that—when popped—could devastate the sector and 

forestall needed development of green technologies. 

Despite such concerns, green bond issuance is growing rapidly. The World Bank 

reported that green bond issuance grew from almost nothing in 2012 to over $150 

billion in 2017.17 After being initially led by supra-nationals like the World Bank 

and International Monetary Fund, volumes have shifted to ‘‘a wide range of issuers 

including corporates, banks and local authorities. While 50 percent of supply has 

come in Euro-denominated format, other bonds have been issued in USD, GBP, 

SEK, CAD, AUD and others including PEN’’ (Malaysia).18 Issue currency is dominated in some regions by USD because the United States is the largest investor 

country worldwide. For instance, over 85 percent of Latin American green bonds 

issued since the inception of the green bond market were denominated in USD.19

C. Green Power Isn’t Always Green: Offsets Cannot be Relied Upon to Decrease 

Global CO2 Emissions 

The troubling aspect of the USD concentration is that the United States is the 

key market for many of the green products produced by some nations. One of those 

products is CO2 offsets. 

If the proposed mandate of carbon neutrality cannot be met with production cuts, 

then achieving that goal will have to rely upon offsets. But offsets, at best, aren’t 

locally green (merely reflecting somebody else’s green achievements) and, at worst, 

merely reflect unjust enrichment and outright fraud. 

For instance, in February 2016, the New York State Public Service Commission 

issued its ‘‘Order Resetting Retail Energy Markets and Establishing Further 

Process,’’ which, in part, required that companies selling renewable energy packages 

to consumers actually obtain such energy from such sources rather than just using 

offsets purchased from the market.20 While the issue remains unsettled, the point 

is that green energy should actually come from green energy sources, not just offsets 

purchased from somewhere else. 

The reasoning behind the requirement is sound, because it is often not clear 

where the offsets come from or whether they are meaningful. For instance, EU 

Clean Development Mechanism (‘‘CDM’’) projects are granted carbon credits based 

on the extent to which the project is expected to result in fewer emissions than 

would otherwise have occurred. ‘‘Companies, therefore, have an incentive to either 

inflate the estimate of emissions that would have occurred without the project or 

claim that the project will reduce emissions by more than it actually does.’’ 21

According to Mason (2018): 

In order to constrain firms from mischaracterizing their projects, the CDM 

mechanism requires third-party validation and verification before a project 

receives carbon credits. Third-party verification is carried out by Designated 

Operation Entities (‘‘DOEs’’) certified by the CDM Executive Board. Even 
45 

22 Id. (Citations omitted.) 

independent third-party auditors, however, may be susceptible to bribes or 

collusion to manipulate the results. 

In 2008 and 2009, respectively, the U.N. temporarily suspended two independent organizations—Norwegian company Det Norske Veritas and Swiss 

firm SGS—after ‘spot checks found flaws in their methodologies’. At the 

time, these two companies were dominating the validation/verification 

market (see Szabo, 2008). Investigations showed that both companies had 

approved projects without sufficient review. 

The U.N. inspection found one company had a flawed review process, inadequate preparation and training of their auditing staff, and an overall 

failure to assign auditors with the proper technical skills. The other was suspended after an inspection raised concerns about staff qualifications and the 

quality of its internal reviews. 

In a follow-up review in 2009, the five largest DOEs’ validation processes 

were scored on an A-to-F scale. None received a score higher than a D. 22

Even when they are valid, offsets are usually issued as part of a political process 

to spur economic development. Using offsets judged as a valid tradeoff for development in one country as a basis for achieving carbon neutrality in another runs the 

risk of ‘‘robbing Peter to pay Paul,’’ with no net decrease in global emissions. 

III. Energy Is Provided in a Complex International Marketplace 

The point of the above is that setting a mandate before setting the rules of the 

game—or even some of the rules of the game—is a recipe for disaster. That disaster 

will relate to highly complex markets that supply inputs to every home and business 

in America and the world. Such a disruption could have far larger effects on economic growth and green development than even the recent credit crisis. Sound 

rules, therefore, are more important than a blanket mandate. 

The production and delivery of energy takes place within a complex system of 

three interacting layers: (1) the physical layer consisting of the hard assets used for 

production, transportation, and storage of primary energy sources, and for the transformation of one form of energy into another; (2) markets for energy that consist 

of interacting spot, forward, option and long-term structured transactions; and, (3) 

the system of national laws, regulations, and international treaties. Federal energy 

policy, market policy, and infrastructure policy, therefore, go hand in hand so that 

policies in one area affect the others. 

A. Infrastructure Policy Will Involve Not Just Local, But Global, Decisions 

Changes to Federal policy will affect not just local, but global energy infrastructure. Energy markets have evolved through history into a highly integrated, global 

system. In any such system, shocks such as the proposed energy mandate propagate 

across different geographic locations and specific commodity markets through very 

complicated and constantly evolving channels of transmission. 

For instance, the graph above shows global oil and natural gas trade routes in 

2017. If the United States uses less oil, those trade routes will change as other 

countries use the oil we produce as well as that which we choose not to import. 

Nearly every country views energy as a strategic resource. As a result, global 
46 

23Stafford, Philip and Sheppard, David. ‘‘Trader blows Ö100m hole in Nasdaq’s Nordic power 

market,’’ Financial Times. September 13, 2018. 

treaties and trade relationships will affect such flows, necessitating negotiations and 

international diplomacy regarding such changes. 

B. Market Trading Will Require Policy, Too 

Energy products are actively traded, in which the market transactions can be 

financial or physical. Financial transactions are settled in cash, while physical contracts are settled in delivery of the related commodity. Infrastructure is crucially related to delivery, in that delivery cannot occur without scheduling necessary 

infrastructure well in advance. Thus, there exists a fundamental inter-relationship 

between infrastructure and markets. 

In addition, there exist several market layers of derivatives products, including 

futures, options, and swaps that may be combined with each other in a wide variety 

of combinations. Those often trade in conjunction with a wide variety of weather 

derivatives that are associated with resource demand. 

Such products are traded on organized markets around the world. Many such 

markets have consolidated in recent years, providing financial market efficiency by 

virtue of centralized trading that can more efficiently drive out price anomalies. 

Such consolidation, however, does not prevent market failures. Electricity 

markets, for instance, use complex arrays of products to trade around probable 

shortfalls in production and infrastructure. 

Sometimes traders and markets get things wrong. For instance, last fall a trader 

on NASDAQ’s Nordpool electricity market left the exchange holding over Ö100 

million in trading losses.23

Nasdaq said the size of his positions blew through several layers of safeguards designed to protect the clearing house from hefty losses. 

The catalyst for the trading loss was a series of backfiring bets on the price 

difference between German and Nordic power markets, according to multiple 

sources in the industry. Mr Aas’s trades were positioned for the gap between 

the two to narrow, but instead it widened sharply to a level 17 times larger 

than normal. 

That move was triggered, in part, by a jump in the price of carbon allowances in Europe that have been the best performing commodity so far this 

year and a source of bumper profits for hedge funds and investment banks. 
47 

24 Id. 25 Condon, Christopher; Oguh, Chibuike; and Boesler, Matthew. ‘‘Fed’s Powell Says Economy 

in ‘Good Place’ With Low Unemployment,’’ Bloomberg, February 6, 2019. 

Rising carbon prices, which are trading at a decade high, have dragged up 

natural gas and electricity markets in continental Europe. 

At the same time, a forecast of wetter than previously anticipated weather 

in the Nordic region, where hydropower is a big contributor to electricity 

supplies, pushed prices on the so-called Nordpool market far lower. 24

There will be high-stakes trading in energy around the transition. Policy uncertainties, weather uncertainties, and market risks will commingle to create risky 

conditions in the very energy markets that U.S. consumers and businesses rely upon 

every day for their energy needs. A disruption to those markets can devastatingly 

cripple U.S. prosperity and economic security, two of the main goals of the 

resolution. 

C. Different States Will Be Affected Differently 

Disruptions to trade and costs will also be felt differently across the United 

States. The mandate will require states to reduce fossil fuel use by 55 percent to 

150 percent of their current consumption (see below). Such wide differentials will 

have varying effects upon states and their citizens, with states facing costlier transitions paying more of the price than others. 

The costs imposed upon individual states in the transition are a complex function 

of fossil fuel production, fossil fuel reliance, and infrastructure that supports the 

transition in any chosen geographical region. Any one state should not be penalized 

if sufficient regional infrastructure does not exist to support its own transition. 

Because those costs are a complex function of local fossil fuel use as well as 

energy imports from other states, the sponsors of this resolution cannot, today, say 

which states will suffer worse losses than others and cannot, therefore, guaranty social or distributional justice (or even the basis by which such justice will be meted 

out). 

IV. Summary and Conclusion 

The New Deal created jobs that left a lasting imprint on American infrastructure, 

such as the San Francisco Bay Bridge, the Lincoln Tunnel, and the Hoover Dam. 

Those projects provided jobs in an environment of more than 20 percent unemployment, nationally. We don’t have 20 percent unemployment today. According to Fed 

Vice Chairman Jerome Powell, ‘‘The U.S. economy is now in a good place. At the 

moment, unemployment is low, prices are near 2 percent inflation, so we’ re in a 

good place now.’’ 25

While unemployment may be high in some areas, those areas are not necessarily 

where any new jobs will be. Moreover, the skills required for any new jobs are not 

guaranteed to be associated with any skills possessed by workers displaced in the 

transition. Even assuming enough new jobs are created to make up for the old jobs, 

new jobs requiring different skills will render workers in the old sectors obsolete 

and leave a ‘‘lost generation’’ behind. 
48 

26The change in the value of the dollar is measured from 1935 to the most recent year available, 2017. See https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/result.php?year_source =1935&amount=1&year_result=2018. 27 Id. 28Mason, Joseph R. ‘‘Reconstruction Finance Corporation Assistance to Financial Institutions 

and Commercial & Industrial Enterprise in the U.S. Great Depression, 1932–1937.’’ Resolution 

of Financial Distress, Stijn Claessens, Simeon Djankov, and Ashoka Mody, eds., Washington: 

World Bank Press, 2001, 167–204. 29The change in the value of the dollar is measured from 1935 to the most recent year available, 2017. See https://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/uscompare/result.php?year_source 

=1935&amount=1&year_result=2018. 30Mason (2001). 31 Id. 32 Id. 

The proposed mandate is no foundation for a New Deal. The funding and aid provided in the real New Deal took place in a very different institutional environment. 

The RFC—created by President Hoover as the main means of New Deal funding— 

was a flexible mechanism that ultimately allocated more than $50 billion in stimulus money (about $900 billion in 2017 dollars using a CPI-based inflator, $2.1 

trillion using the value of a consumer bundle, or $13.2 trillion using the relative 

share of GDP26). 

Such flexibility was crucial for success in a time of economic emergency. The flexibility was achieved by making the RFC part of the Executive branch of the U.S. 

Government so that changes in the scale or scope of RFC powers could be enacted 

by Executive Order. 

The ‘‘operation was too large to fund directly out of Federal budget allocations, 

so the RFC was founded as a government-owned corporation with an initial appropriation from Congress and the right to borrow more money from the public at 

large.’’ 27 Because it was not part of the government, it was not required to adhere 

to Civil Service regulations for hiring and promotion and was not subject to congressional General Accounting Office audits.28

RFC decisions were largely made at local levels. Field office managers had authority to approve loans up to $100,000 (about $1.8 million in 2017 dollars using a CPIbased inflator, $4.3 million using the value of a consumer bundle, or $26 million 

using the relative share of GDP29). In practice, each field office was almost completely independent and only major problems were taken up with Washington.’’ 30

Like a private equity firm, there were, two guiding principles. First, RFC programs only gave credit or other assistance to ‘‘reasonably sound institutions.’’ 31

Second, successful RFC programs often ‘‘took a measure of control over institutions 

to calm junior creditors and nurse firms to profitability and recovery over the long 

run. . . . If a field office showed a profit, everything was fine; if not, someone would 

be detailed from Washington to see what was the matter, and possibly a new field 

office manager would be appointed.’’ 32

The government didn’t just give money away in the New Deal. It made money. 

Maybe, if we give the environment the attention that the President and Congress 

gave the New Deal back in the 1930s, we could come to a more meaningful solution. 

The current mandate does not show sufficient depth of thought to set a foundation 

upon which to move forward. 

In order to establish such a foundation, a better historical analogy might be the 

National Monetary Commission. Following the Financial Panic of 1907, Congress 

convened the Commission to study best central banking practices around the world 

in depth in order to make recommendations for meaningful reform. The result of 

that investigation, the Federal Reserve System, still stands as a major innovation 

that is one of the leading central banks in the world in terms of both effectiveness 

and stability. 

Our environment deserves the same thought and consideration. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

And I want to thank the panel for their testimony. I remind the 

members of the Committee, as a Committee Rule, we impose a 5- 

minute limit on questions. 

I am going to now begin to recognize Members for any questions 

they may wish to ask. 
49 

I am going to defer my questions and begin with Congressman 

Levin for the first set of questions. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Chair Lowenthal. I appreciate you holding today’s hearing. And I am pleased that our Committee 

continues to discuss the broad impacts of climate change. 

This month so far, we have held hearings highlighting both the 

incredibly important science that underpins our understanding of 

climate change as well as the way our communities have been 

directly affected by the changing climate. 

Dealing with climate change in a bold and aggressive way is no 

fairytale. Doing nothing and expecting this problem to take care of 

itself is the real fairytale. Our discussions have clarified the urgent 

need to accelerate the country’s clean energy production in order to 

reduce greenhouse gas intensive fossil few use. I would also add 

that the carbon footprint of renewables is negligible when 

compared to fossil fuels. As an example, the carbon emissions per 

unit of PV electricity is one-tenth or less of even the most efficient 

natural gas power plant. 

A change to renewables is absolutely essential. However, we 

must account for the way that this change will affect communities 

across the Nation and ensure a just transition. Clean energy production is an incredible economic opportunity that should be shared 

by all, especially those that have been dependent on fossil fuel 

production. 

Further, we need to account for communities of color, rural communities, and others who haven’t historically been afforded equal 

economic opportunities. In California, our economy has grown because of the clean energy revolution. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues and friends on this 

Committee to ensure as many communities as possible can share 

these benefits. 

With that, I do have a couple of questions for Mr. Dennison and 

Mr. Hille. And I would be interested to get both of your perspective 

on this. 

Mr. Dennison and Mr. Hille, in his written testimony, Dr. Mason 

says, and I quote, ‘‘Even assuming enough new jobs are created to 

make up for the old jobs, new jobs requiring different skills will 

render workers in the old sectors obsolete and leave a ‘lost generation’ behind.’’ 

Mr. Dennison and Mr. Hille, what is wrong with this mentality? 

Should we, as a society, just write off coal miners or oil and gas 

workers as a ‘‘lost generation’’? 

Mr. DENNISON. No. The solar energy already employs more than 

the oil industry and the coal industry combined in our country. 

That is a key point. At Coalfield Development, we incubated the 

first solar installation company in southern West Virginia. Our 

first crew chief was a former underground miner whose skills 

parlayed actually quite well. He was already a licensed electrician. 

Because of the nature of the equipment that he worked in, it only 

took 2 months to get him trained up. And the work ethic is phenomenal. Work ethic is not our problem. And because we can be 

adaptive and creative and we have that gumption and grit, I don’t 

think the current work force has to be obsolete, no. 
50 

Mr. HILLE. I would add that, because of the technical nature of 

these jobs, as Brandon said, there is a very fast adoption curve. 

There is also a lot of work in addition to the work in renewables 

in energy efficiency, and that can also be picked up very quickly. 

The former miners that we have been working with in our new 

energy interns program go through 6 months of training at the end 

of which they are certified by the Business Professionals Institute, 

BPI certified, in order to do this same work. Some of them have 

been placed with housing organizations working on some of the deficient housing stock that we have in Appalachia. And also, some 

of them are interested in starting their own new businesses, which, 

as you know, is the path to prosperity and the great American 

Dream. 

I will just mention too that this is an investment that pays for 

itself. When you do energy efficiency, particularly commercial 

energy efficiency, that can pay for itself very quickly, because commercial energy meters charge both a demand rate and a usage 

rate. And when you implement efficiency measures, you reduce 

both of those. Often the demand rate is half of a commercial energy 

bill. 

As an example, we helped a grocery warehouse in London, Kentucky, do a lighting retrofit. It was a $200,000 investment. 

They are saving $100,000 a year on their utility costs. It paid for 

itself in 2 years, and they are now seeing that as a direct add to 

their bottom line. 

A lot of this new investment can pay for itself. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Hille and Mr. Dennison, I thank you both very 

much for your work to accelerate our transition to a sustainable 

economy and for your work on a just transition. 

With that, Mr. Chair, I will yield my time. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Gosar, for 5 minutes. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I would like to enter into the record two articles from 

the Financial Times, ironically today, ‘‘China’s demand for electric 

vehicles charges copper.’’ That is always great for my state because 

we are known as the Copper State, one the five C’s. And ‘‘Australia 

hopes to cash in on new cobalt rush.’’ 

I would like to have those entered in the record. 

By the way, for everybody that is wondering why I have this up 

there, anybody want to gather what that is? That is a nodule of 

rare earth that comes from the Mojave Desert in my district. It is 

particularly high in nvidium, by the way. OK. 

Mr. Dennison, you made some comments, that we need to correct 

the record. You said that there were by far more solar jobs in the 

country. That is not correct. The oil and gas natural industry supports 10.3 million U.S. jobs and nearly 8 percent of the U.S. 

economy. As of 2017, 250,271 American workers worked in the 

solar industry. This is 9,000 jobs fewer than in 2016. AWEA has 

or this wind area has 105,000. So, be careful with the facts. 

And, by the way, this is from the Solar Foundation, so these are 

facts from yours. 

And I am really glad that you brought up the overburden area 

because it is very pertinent to these things, these rare earths, 
51 

because overburden has been found to have lots of rare earths that 

are attainable here. 

I mean, repurposing miners for the new advent of that mining 

industry is very, very important to me, particularly when we are 

so dependent on these. 

Dr. Mason, you mentioned in your testimony that renewable 

technology, such as wind farms and solar panels, require various 

critical minerals and rare earth elements to function. The Green 

New Deal calls for the United States to run exclusively on clean 

and renewable energy in 10 years. 

Can you remark how the global market for critical minerals may 

respond to a surge in demand of this magnitude? And, also, talk 

to me about who controls the marketplace for these rare earths. 

Dr. MASON. Well, the article in the Financial Times this morning 

was very, very interesting in that regard. It named zero American 

companies involved in the Democratic Republic of Congo. If you are 

familiar with the results of their elections that were kind of muscled through last week, you will note they are not democratic at all. 

It also focused on the artisanal mining, people just digging in the 

ground to get this valuable cobalt to sell it to make more money 

than they can make from anywhere else. You can call that small 

business if you want and entrepreneurial, but it is tremendously 

dirty. There are no safety regulations. We have children working 

in these artisanal mines, just as we had in West Virginia many, 

many years ago, and tried to regulate out the United States and 

did so ultimately successfully with safety regulations. 

These metals are extremely valuable. They are in demand 

throughout the world. China is beating us to the rush, as are 

European mining conglomerates operating in these countries with 

virtually no safety regulations or environmental protections, and 

those need to be calculated in to the overall environmental footprint, not just carbon footprint, of these technologies. 

And I would also like to note, even with regard to the carbon 

footprint of solar, that doesn’t factor in what is called the rejected 

energy, as long as we keep wasting energy and having it go out in 

the form of unused heat, which is where 66 percent of energy goes, 

according to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. We are 

going to be in the same problem for a long time. 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, in fact, you bring it up, that we are going to 

be 100 percent dictated. I mean, China has this policy, One Belt, 

One Road, and they are actually extorting much of the discipline 

and oversight and control of these rare critical minerals. You bring 

up the causticness of particularly smeltering these rare earths. 

They are bound, so current technology uses high concentrations of 

sulfuric acid, in which China is very lackadaisical. The United 

States is much more disciplined within it. 

In fact, a good friend of mine right now is experimenting with 

high concentrations of citric acid in order to extract it. So, we do 

these better than anybody else in the world, and if new technology 

is so predicated upon it, we ought to be investing in this. And overburden is one of those areas, if I am not mistaken. Am I not 

correct, Dr. Mason? 

Dr. MASON. Yes, absolutely. All energy is dirty. We need to 

conserve energy. 
52 

Dr. GOSAR. I am running out of time, but I have always been one 

of those that believes in all of the above. In fact, my good friend 

actually has a power company in north Scottsdale that runs on 

solar during the day and gas at night, utilizing that baseload principle. Not all energy is the same. You have to be able to have a 

continual output, wattage, along those lines, to make sure that 

everybody—when they flip the switch, they can actually have 

power. 

With that, I will yield back and wait for a second round. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Gosar. 

Before I recognize Mr. Brown, I would like to say, my staff has 

just supplied me—at the risk of just taking it to another level, this 

discussion between Mr. Dennison and Mr. Gosar, in terms of exactly the jobs that are impacted—and my understanding, if we are 

talking about direct jobs, that is, jobs where people are hired in or 

by the oil and gas industry, versus direct jobs in solar, there are 

approximately 150,000, at this moment, direct jobs where people 

are hired by the industry in oil and gas, and 50,000 direct jobs 

where they are hired by the industry in coal, which is still less 

than the 242,000 which are directly hired by solar at this moment. 

But there is a discussion, and I think it is a reasonable one, in 

terms of the impact and those are the direct jobs. 

Dr. GOSAR. If the gentleman would yield. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Certainly. 

Dr. GOSAR. A lot of those jobs are for the construction of solar 

fields, so they are temporary. They are not long lasting. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. I appreciate that. It is important that we kind 

of clarify and we realize how complex these issues really are. 

Representative Brown, you have 5 minutes. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the spirit of 

Representative Bishop who is not here today, I am not going to 

read my statement, yes, indeed. Although I may make reference to 

it, or refer to it, I should say. 

So, for the record, this hearing is not about the Green New Deal. 

This hearing is about what are some of the things we need to do 

to account for, make adjustments—as the energy sector continues 

a kind of conversion or transition to renewable energy sources and 

whether we are on the same pace that we are on or whether we, 

through legislation and policy changes, accelerate that pace. It is 

important for us to ask and answer the questions, what does it 

mean for the labor force; what does it mean for poor and communities of color; and how does everyone benefit from this conversion, 

regardless of the rate in which it occurs. 

My question, which I think almost anyone can speak to—but, Mr. 

Dennison, I certainly would like to hear your thoughts; Ms. Farley, 

yours; and Ms. Shrader, yours—what are some specific, and, Mr. 

Dennison, you mentioned the 33–6–3 model. What are some specific Federal authorizations or appropriations, whether in higher 

education, work force development, or Federal procurement, that 

can assist the development of that work force as we convert from 

carbon-based to renewable energy sources, or that assist the 

creation of businesses, that might replace a coal industry in a particular community? What are some of the specific Federal authorizations and appropriations that we might consider? 
53 

Thank you. 

Mr. DENNISON. I would be happy to answer that. For the record, 

I am quoting a Forbes article from January 25, 2017, with my figures. It is specific to electricity generation, specific to that process, 

but also a lot of pipeline jobs, a lot of gas jobs—— 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Dennison, are you responding to—— 

Mr. DENNISON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BROWN. Not on my time, please. 

Mr. DENNISON. The 33–6–3, the Appalachian Regional 

Commission has been indispensable. It is an example of a placebased Federal policy that I think is really important to this transition, rather than broad policies that treat every region the same. 

I will also say the RECLAIM Act is a really important piece of legislation for our region, and so is the reauthorization of the 

Abandoned Mine Lands Program in the first place. 

Something that happened a few years back was the AML Pilot 

Program for my lands, which allowed for much more local flexibility, to be innovative and to help start some new businesses. I 

think that level of flexibility really is critical. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. 

Ms. FARLEY. Thank you. I would also offer—we talked a lot about 

energy efficiency today, and just like reduce, reuse, and recycle, 

that first R is reduce. I think when we have conversations about 

the energy transition, we must remember the importance of energy 

efficiency and the role energy efficiency plays in reducing our demand and consumption for energy first. 

And there are many opportunities on the national, state, and 

local level to support energy policies, specifically focused on increasing energy efficiency programs, as well as weatherization 

assistance programs that have often suffered from reduced Federal 

funding. These programs are specifically tied to increased job opportunities in the energy efficiency sector. As we have heard a couple of times today from Mr. Dennison and Mr. Hille, energy 

efficiency can reduce high-energy burdens on working families, 

which, in turn, supports community wealth-building. 

Energy efficiency improves economic stability by increasing 

entrepreneurship and thriving wage/job opportunities. Energy efficiency also increases health by reducing harmful carbon emissions 

that pollute our air. And also again, energy efficiency promotes economic development and community wealth-building—— 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Ms. Farley. I am sorry for interrupting, 

but I do want to hear from Ms. Shrader. These 5 minutes go real 

fast. 

Ms. FARLEY. Sure thing. 

Ms. SHRADER. The outdoor recreation economy is really important in this piece, because I think a lot of rural communities can 

transition to this outdoor recreation economy and then build a diversified economy with manufacturing companies and tech companies and health care right in their communities, in these rural 

places. So, one of the things that is really important to us is to take 

a lead on protecting public lands. 

The reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 

and the public lands package, and also the CORE Act that was just 

introduced by Congressman Neguse and Senator Bennet, is really 
54 

important in making sure that we have a diversified economy that 

is going to be a great place for families to thrive. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. And next, Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the 

witnesses for being here today. 

As the gentleman said, this isn’t about the Green New Deal, but 

obviously everything about energy would play into this idea of a 

Green New Deal. So, I have been trying to look at the scope of 

what we are talking about. If we truly are trying to replace all 

fossil fuels in 10 years, and if we are looking at world energy production or world energy use, the data that I found shows—and this 

was 2006 data, so it is a little bit old—but the world used 471 

quads of energy—a quad is 1 with 15 zeros after it—a quadrillion 

BTUs of energy, and the world use is projected in 2020 to use 500 

quads of energy. 

Of those 471 quads, 408 of it were produced from fossil fuels, and 

only 63 quads of the energy consumed in the world came from 

renewables. So, if you look globally, that is quite a challenge to replace 408 quads—actually, more than that now—of fossil fuels in 

a 10-year time frame. 

But if we look at it just here in the United States—in 2017, the 

United States used 98 quads of energy. And of that, 77 percent of 

it, or 76 quads, came from fossil fuels. And the highest rate was 

from natural gas, about 32 percent; petroleum, about 28 percent; 

and coal, about 18 percent. So, here in the United States, we still 

only have a little over 20 percent of our energy that comes from 

renewables, and that includes nuclear. 

And I know a lot of people don’t like to include nuclear in it. If 

you take the nuclear out, it is only less than 13 percent of all of 

our energy comes from renewables right now. 

So, we are talking about a huge transition to go to 100 percent 

renewables, no fossil fuels in 10 years, especially if we don’t like 

nuclear, which is a very clean form of energy as well. 

But I was interested in what Mr. Dennison said about the number of jobs in solar versus coal and petroleum. He contends that 

there are more jobs in solar now than coal and petroleum combined, which creates a bit of a conundrum, because we are trying 

to figure out what to do with displaced coal workers. And since 

solar is only a tiny fraction of the renewables that are out there 

now, yet there are more people in that field than in coal and petroleum combined, it seems like there would be a huge demand and 

jobs available for these displaced coworkers, if you just train them 

to be in the solar field. 

Can any of our panelists tell me why there is not a huge demand 

for workers in the solar field and why we are having to come up 

with tourism and other forms of employment to help these displaced workers? 

Mr. DENNISON. There is demand. We just certified 20 of them 

last year, and although renewables still make up a small piece of 

the pie, renewables have been the fastest growing piece of the pie. 

There is lots of innovation and investment in renewables. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Dr. Mason, can you address, from an economic 

standpoint, the manpower per million BTUs it takes to do renew-
55 

able energy versus fossil fuel energy? And would there be a lot 

more workers required in the renewable field? 

Dr. MASON. Now you are getting into math that makes more 

sense. From an economic perspective, it is not just number of jobs, 

it is the value of those jobs, whether denominated in dollars or 

denominated in energy production, as you just did with your mathematics. 

The examples quoted here, one required 6 months of additional 

training. It is wonderful that that is provided. I come originally 

from Gary, Indiana, and have faced a severe transition in that 

region of the country through the 1980s and 1990s. Retraining is 

absolutely crucial. We can overcome some of these humps, but currently, none of the legislation plans for that. We have programs in 

place in small places of the country. We do need to expand those 

to make this a meaningful transition. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. If it takes more workers per unit of output, 

won’t that drive the price extremely high? 

Dr. MASON. Well, either the price has to be high or the payment 

to workers has to be low, but we are not neutral with respect to 

price. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I am out of time. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Representative Case, you have 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the courtesy 

of letting me join you today. 

Dr. Bissett—did I say that right? 

Dr. BISSETT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CASE. OK. Thank you. My questions to you have two big 

assumptions built into them, that I am asking you to get beyond 

for a little bit. Number 1, climate change is real; Number 2, energy 

transition is inescapable, it is just when and how we do it. That 

is my working assumption. You may not agree with what I just put 

forward, but I want to focus on, if I am correct, and if Congress 

as a result, a majority of Congress, enacts policies that are purposely designed to move us to renewable energy at the expense of 

coal, and if there is, therefore, a tremendous consequence to the 

businesses and communities that you represent, how do we best 

transition those communities? 

That is my critical question. I am not asking you whether we 

have to transition or not. I am just asking you, for now, how do 

we do it? How do we best do it? 

And as a prelude, just tell me a little bit more about your chamber. You have 550 businesses. How many of those businesses are 

directly or indirectly dependent on coal? 

Dr. BISSETT. When I took the job, Congressman, I didn’t think 

many were, and I quickly learned I was wrong. Again, my chamber 

is outside of the coalfields and a great many are. And again the 

lawyers, engineers, and accountants like I talked about, land holding company, barges, all those things kind of, not the coal mining 

jobs, but the indirect jobs. 

As to your question, my big concern would be that you can’t just 

look at those direct jobs that direct impact, you have to look beyond 

that. 

Mr. CASE. OK. 
56 

Dr. BISSETT. Because when the downturn occurred, Congressman, it really affected us there, and we don’t really mine coal 

where my chamber is located. 

Mr. CASE. I see. So, has your chamber institutionally considered 

the best form of transition for a post-coal energy world? Have you 

actually undertaken the worst-case scenario discussion, from your 

perspective, of how do we best transition? 

Mr. Dennison, in his testimony, had three bullets. His bullets 

were: (1) create a national just transition task force; (2) create a 

national program to support coal communities to include the 

POWER Act; and (3) pass Federal legislation to improve the conditions of former coal workers in distressed communities, to include 

the RECLAIM Act. Is that a good program, from your perspective? 

Do you think that will get the job done? How do we plan for a transition in a way that will best assist other communities that will be 

negatively impacted if we don’t get ahead of the transition now? 

Dr. BISSETT. It is a great question. It will take time to do that. 

Coalfield Development is a dues paying member of my chamber. 

Brandon is a board member of my chamber, and we support a lot 

of his work force development programs and recently adopted a resolution in support of it. 

We may disagree on the position we are in, and I am not trying 

to move away from your assumptions, but Appalachia needs more 

educational team and Appalachia needs livelihoods. And that goes 

back to my concern. When we saw the downturn previously, we 

were wondering when it would stop. Seeing it return now, our concern again is that there are going to be votes made here that will 

put us back in that jeopardy. 

It is a very tenuous time, a fragile time, like I was talking about. 

But, no, we are supportive of other economic development. I think 

we can do both, Congressman. I think we can mine coal, I think 

we can have a new economy. I think we can do it all. Because that 

new economy will benefit from low-cost, reliable electricity generated by natural gas and coal. 

Mr. CASE. I am not sure I agree with your assumption over the 

long term. I think you are taking a bit of a short- to mid-term view 

of it. I am looking out not 10, but 20-plus years. If you had the 

time to plan for some kind of a transition where coal would be not 

acceptable anymore in any major scale, how do we get ahead of 

that? That is really my question, how do we together plan the best 

possible transition here? Going back to one question, you haven’t 

undertaken that scenario within the chamber or anything like that, 

like, how do we actually move beyond this? 

Dr. BISSETT. We haven’t currently, because right now, there has 

been this expansion, this growth, especially in the southern coalfields. Northern coalfields have not been that way in West Virginia, 

but they have had the natural gas—— 

Mr. CASE. Has anybody in the coal industry done this transition 

thinking and planning in the coal communities? Has anybody actually come together for a larger picture, how do we transition out 

of this, if, in fact, we do have to have an energy transition away 

from fossil fuel—— 

Dr. BISSETT. I am sure as they look at long-term investments in 

their coal mines and wells, I am sure there is concern about that. 
57 

But at the same time, the market is currently there and they are 

feeding that market. If they don’t feed it in the United States, they 

are going to feed it internationally. 

Mr. CASE. No, I understand that. That is currently. 

Dr. BISSETT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CASE. And I am trying to think out into the future for the 

most orderly way of doing this as opposed to having circumstances 

thrusted upon you, which is not a very good time to do emergency 

transition planning. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

And now we turn to Representative Graves for your 5 minutes 

of questions. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding 

this hearing, and I appreciate all of your testimony and appreciate 

you being here today. 

Ms. Farley, I represent south Louisiana, and I was looking at 

your testimony where you made mention that Birmingham, 

Atlanta, New Orleans, and Memphis hold the greatest—and I am 

quoting your testimony—hold the greatest energy burdens for lowincome households. 

I pulled some data that we had used last week in a hearing 

showing the different energy prices per kilowatt hours in the 

states. Alabama, for example, is 12.41 per kilowatt hour; Georgia 

is 12.26; Tennessee is 10.79; and Louisiana, coming in at the lowest 

cost in the Nation, is 9.37. Whereas other states—we had the 

governor of Massachusetts here last week who was here advocating 

for renewable policies. The state of Massachusetts is 21.11 cents 

per kilowatt hour, more than double that of Louisiana and nearly 

double that of the other states. 

Other states that are fun to pick on sometimes, Mr. Huffman and 

Mr. Lowenthal, just for fun, 19.9 cents per kilowatt hour. So, I 

guess I am just trying to understand, it seems like lower prices 

would—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Would the gentleman yield for a correction? 

Mr. GRAVES. Can I get an answer first? 

Mr. HUFFMAN. On California? Well, we will get back to that. 

Mr. GRAVES. All right. Does that make sense? It seems like lower 

prices would be helpful versus the higher prices that other states 

have. I just wonder if you could respond to that. 

Ms. FARLEY. Yes, absolutely. Rates alone do not equal bills. 

When we are talking about energy burden, we are talking about 

the fully burdened cost of a bill to households and ratepayers. So, 

yes, there are some states in the South that do boast lower rates, 

but that does not make a bill. 

Mr. GRAVES. It doesn’t, but so if we had Massachusetts rates 

more than doubled, do you think that would make it easier to 

afford? 

Ms. FARLEY. I am not familiar with the numbers of 

Massachusetts. I do applaud their efforts in their shift to renewable energy and saw that testimony last week. But in the South, 

again, while many states and investor-owned utilities boast lower 

than average national rates, rates alone do not equal utility bills. 

There are many fees and sometimes punitive in regards to solar 
58 

across many states in the South that do equal higher bills and, 

ultimately, higher burdens on lower income households. 

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I would ask to submit for the record 

the documents showing the various rates. I am not sure that I understand how energy efficiency would be the burden of, how actions 

of a state could prevent an individual from pursuing energy efficiency improvements in their own homes, but again—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. That will be accepted without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Graves 
59 

Trends & Observations from State Data 

From this data, we can see the state with the lowest electric rates is Louisiana. On 

average, homes in Louisiana pay 9.53 cents per kWh. Residential customers in 

Texas, the country’s largest deregulated market for electricity, pay a relatively low 

price for electricity as well of 11.68 cents per kWh. 

The state that saw the great increase in prices for electricity is Rhode Island. Rhode 

Island customers are paying nearly 20% more for electricity in 2018. 
60 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. And secondly, Mr. Chairman, I would 

ask, while I am doing UCs for fun, this is a document, May 2018, 

from the National Association of State Energy Officials, showing 

that the jobs from coal, natural gas, oil, as compared to solar, 

aren’t even kind of close. As a matter of fact, when you add them 

up quickly, it looks like you are about three times more jobs in 

those fields than in the solar market. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Without objection. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. 

Last, Dr. Mason, I understand you have worked for the Office of 

the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve, European 

Union, and other impressive places and, of course, also professor at 

LSU. So, thank you very much for being here. I just want to quickly ask you to comment on the Green New Deal or other concepts 

where the United States unilaterally takes aggressive actions to reduce emissions, just comparatively talking about the low kilowatt 

hour in Louisiana that largely is a natural gas fuel source for electricity generation. What happens globally when you squeeze the 

United States in terms of emissions, what happens globally when 

you do something like that? 

Dr. MASON. Well, these are strategic resources recognized worldwide, and just socioeconomically, when you start redistributing 

strategic resources around the world, countries will fight for strategic resources. They will fight through negotiating processes, 

through international relations processes, and sometimes even 

physically fight for those resources. 

So, when we start moving around the distribution of those resources, we really put the world at risk in a lot of different ways. 

I am not saying that that should prevent us from doing so. 

Mr. GRAVES. Sure. 

Dr. MASON. I am merely saying that we need to look at this problem in a holistic, multi-dimensional way to even try to understand 

the multiple tentacles that reach out. 

I want to point out that the jobs issue, for instance, is really not 

just an energy jobs issue. It is relating to the hollowing out of the 

middle of America, and that hollowing out is occurring fundamentally through access to education, which isn’t equally attainable in 

the middle of the country right now. We need to develop this 

country overall, and this is a much larger problem than energy, although it kind of starts with energy, because if we have efficient 

energy from a variety of sources, we can better develop. 

So, these things are what we call endogenous process. There are 

various feedback loops involved with them. It is very complex. 

There are sciences dealing with analyzing these. And I think, 

Chairman Lowenthal, please begin those discussions, respectful 

discussions, so that we can work out some of these feedback mechanisms and put in place meaningful policies to not just help coalfields, but expand some of these programs nationwide to the core 

of America, and think about how much that is going to take, where 

the money is going to come from, and let’s get moving. 

Mr. GRAVES. I yield back. Thank you. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Now, Representative Huffman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thanks. 
61 

And, Mr. Graves, the witness gave part of my correction that I 

wanted to send your way, but we have to look at energy bills and 

not just rates. That is super important when you look at a state 

like California that has invested tremendously in energy efficiency. 

Because of those investments, bills have come way down, even 

though if you look at the unit cost of energy in rates, it would appear to be higher. So, I would really urge you to take a look at that 

and then let’s see where the states compare with each other. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. And we will also take your moderate 

temperatures. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Right. We can do all kinds of interesting cultural 

exchanges. I want some of your gumbo. 

I was interested in the discussion that I just caught involving 

Mr. Bissett. And, Mr. Hille, I noticed you shaking your head a little 

bit during some of the testimony regarding this coal renaissance 

that I would argue is kind of a temporary thing. The Trump 

administration has gone out of its way, engaged in herculean 

efforts to breathe life into what I think most other objective observers would say is a dying industry, coal. 

One of the many indications of this huge effort across the aisle 

to prop up coal against all of the other forces that are causing it 

to be a declining industry involves the zombie coal earmark that 

Mr. McClintock and I even worked on in prior years. There was actually this earmark from the height of the cold war that required 

U.S. military bases in Germany to buy a specific type of coal from 

Pennsylvania, and it was not efficient. It was absolutely corporate 

cronyism of the worst order, and Mr. McClintock and I worked together to eliminate that from the Defense budget. 

It is back in this year. And once again, American military bases 

in Germany are buying Pennsylvania coal because Congress says 

they have to and the Trump administration says they have to. So, 

there is an incredible effort to prop up coal for a little while longer. 

I would argue it is a little bit like these warm days in February 

we have here in Washington. The cherry blossoms will kind of start 

to come out, but it is not really spring. 

I want to hear your thoughts, Mr. Hille, because you were 

shaking your head. 

Mr. HILLE. I think what is important to understand about what 

has been a fairly small uptick in coal production is that it is largely 

in metallurgical coal. And I think Bill would agree with me on that. 

And it is important to understand, metallurgical coal is geologically 

a different type of coal that doesn’t exist everywhere. There is some 

in southern West Virginia. There is some in Virginia. There is a 

very narrow band of it in far eastern Kentucky, but most of 

Kentucky’s coal is thermal coal or steam coal, which is used to generate electricity, and that has simply not come back. 

We had a minor increase in 2017 of about 30 jobs in Kentucky, 

and then in 2018, we lost another 200. So, the thermal coal is not 

coming back in Appalachia. And to the extent that it will continue 

to be a part of our energy mix—and it will for some time—it is not 

going to come from Appalachia, because our coal is harder to get. 

It is more expensive to mine. The good accessible seams have been 

mined out, and it is not cost effective to blow off the top of a 
62 

mountain when you can go somewhere else and scoop it off the 

surface of the ground. 

So, Appalachia is not going to be competitive, and that is why 

this work of creating a just transition for these communities is critical, and we have the means and the processes to do that. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. And to not do that long-term transition planning 

just because there appears to still be a market right now, how 

would you characterize that? 

Mr. HILLE. I think short-sighted would be a good way to describe 

it. And, in fact, there are a lot of significant efforts going on. 

Congressman Rogers and then Governor Beshear in Kentucky created the SOAR initiative, which has been a large planning process, 

recognizing that thermal coal wasn’t going to come back, that 

Kentucky coal wasn’t going to come back. 

We have the largest concentration of distressed counties in 

Appalachia, and there is broad recognition that we need to do this. 

And the plan that SOAR has put together is a broad plan and it 

has a strong emphasis on entrepreneurship, as does the 

Appalachian Regional Commission. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. All right, so while I have you, I know you have 

been a huge supporter of solar deployment in Appalachia. Do you 

see a future for broader adoption of solar in the region, and can you 

describe some of the ways the Federal Government can help with 

solar deployment in the region? 

Mr. HILLE. We are actually seeing an interesting uptick in demand for solar in small commercial enterprises. MACED is a CDFI. 

We are a small business lender. We work with our clients to do 

energy efficiency first because that is the low-hanging fruit, but 

many of them are now coming to us first saying, no, I want solar. 

We say, OK, but if you do the efficiency, you don’t have to put as 

much solar on your roof. But they see it as part of marketing. They 

also see it as a way to respond to rising energy bills. I think there 

are probably a lot of things the Federal Government could do to 

support and encourage that. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

I now recognize Ms. Cheney for 5 minutes of questions. 

Ms. CHENEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter 

a document into the record that is titled, ‘‘Overview and Frequently 

Asked Questions’’ that initially appeared on Congresswoman 

Ocasio-Cortez’s website and was submitted to NPR. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

LAUNCH: Thursday, February 7, at 8:30 AM. 

Overview 

We will begin work immediately on Green New Deal bills to put the nuts 

and bolts on the plan described in this resolution (important to say so 

someone else can’t claim this mantle). 

This is a massive transformation of our society with clear goals and a 

timeline. 
63 

• The Green New Deal resolution a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of 

American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero 

greenhouse gas emissions and create economic prosperity for all. It will: 

• Move America to 100% clean and renewable energy 

• Create millions of family supporting-wage, union jobs 

• Ensure a just transition for all communities and workers to ensure 

economic security for people and communities that have historically 

relied on fossil fuel industries 

• Ensure justice and equity for frontline communities by prioritizing 

investment, training, climate and community resiliency, economic and 

environmental benefits in these communities 

• Build on FDR’s second bill of rights by guaranteeing: 

• A job with a family sustaining wage, family and medical leave, 

vacations, and retirement security 

• High-quality education, including higher education and trade 

schools 

• Clean air and water and access to nature 

• Healthy food 

• High-quality health care 

• Safe, affordable, adequate housing 

• Economic environment free of monopolies 

• Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work 

There is no time to waste. 

• IPCC Report said global emissions must be cut by by 40–60% by 2030. US 

is 20% of total emissions. We must get to 0 by 2030 and lead the world 

in a global Green New Deal. 

Americans love a challenge. This is our moonshot. 

• When JFK said we’d go to the by the end of the decade, people said 

impossible. 

• If Eisenhower wanted to build the interstate highway system today, people 

would ask how we’d pay for it. 

• When FDR called on America to build 185,000 planes to fight World War 

2, every business leader, CEO, and general laughed at him. At the time, 

the U.S. had produced 3,000 planes in the last year. By the end of the war, 

we produced 300,000 planes. That’s what we are capable of if we have real 

leadership. 

This is massive investment in our economy and society, not expenditure. 

• We invested 40–50% of GDP into our economy during World War 2 and 

created the greatest middle class the US has seen. 

• The interstate highway system has returned more than $6 in economic 

productivity for every $1 it cost. 

• This is massively expanding existing and building new industries at a 

rapid pace—growing our economy. 

The Green New Deal has momentum. 

• 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Green 

New Deal. 

• Nearly every major Democratic Presidential contender say they back the 

Green New deal including: Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala 

Harris, Jeff Merkeley, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, 

Tulsi Gabbard, and Jay Inslee. 

• 45 House Reps and 330+ groups backed the original resolution for a select 

committee. 

• Over 300 local and state politicians have called for a federal Green New 

Deal. 

• New Resolution has 20 co-sponsors, about 30 groups (numbers will change 

by Thursday). 
64 

FAQs 

Why 100% clean and renewable and not just 100% renewable? Are you 

saying we won’t transition off fossil fuels? 

Yes, we are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases. 

Anyone who has read the resolution sees that we spell this out through a plan that 

calls for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from every sector of the economy. 

Simply banning fossil fuels immediately won’t build the new economy to replace it— 

this is the plan to build that new economy and spells out how to do it technically. 

We do this through a huge mobilization to create the renewable energy economy as 

fast as possible. We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 

years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and 

airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and 

power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul 

transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get 

to net-zero. 

Is nuclear a part of this? 

A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and 

would not include creating new nuclear plants. It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of 

nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible. No one has put the full 10-year plan 

together yet, and if it is possible to get to fully 100 percent renewable in 10 years, 

we will do that. 

Does this include a carbon tax? 

The Green New Deal is a massive investment in the production of renewable 

energy industries and infrastructure. We cannot simply tax gas and expect workers 

to figure out another way to get to work unless we’ve first created a better, more 

affordable option. So we’re not ruling a carbon tax out, but a carbon tax would be 

a tiny part of a Green New Deal in the face of the gigantic expansion of our productive economy and would have to be preceded by first creating the solutions necessary so that workers and working class communities are not affected. While a 

carbon tax may be a part of the Green New Deal, it misses the point and would 

be off the table unless we create the clean, affordable options first. 

Does this include cap and trade? 

The Green New Deal is about creating the renewable energy economy through a 

massive investment in our society and economy. Cap and trade assumes the existing 

market will solve this problem for us, and that’s simply not true. While cap and 

trade may be a tiny part of the larger Green New Deal plan to mobilize our 

economy, any cap and trade legislation will pale in comparison to the size of the 

mobilization and must recognize that existing legislation can incentivize companies 

to create toxic hotspots in frontline communities, so anything here must ensure that 

frontline communities are prioritized. 

Does a GND ban all new fossil fuel infrastructure or nuclear power plants? 

The Green New Deal makes new fossil fuel infrastructure or nuclear plants unnecessary. This is a massive mobilization of all our resources into renewable 

energies. It would simply not make sense to build new fossil fuel infrastructure because we will be creating a plan to reorient our entire economy to work off renewable energy. Simply banning fossil fuels and nuclear plants immediately won’t build 

the new economy to replace it—this is the plan to build that new economy and 

spells out how to do it technically. 

Are you for CCUS? 

We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and restore our 

natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven effective. 

How will you pay for it? 

The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout and extended 

quantitative easing programs. The same way we paid for World War II and all our 

current wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and 

investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit. There is also 

space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment. At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should 

grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what 

will we do with our new shared prosperity. 
65 

Why do we need a sweeping Green New Deal investment program? Why 

can’t we just rely on regulations and taxes and the private sector to invest 

alone such as a carbon tax or a ban on fossil fuels? 

• The level of investment required is massive. Even if every billionaire and 

company came together and were willing to pour all the resources at their 

disposal into this investment, the aggregate value of the investments they 

could make would not be sufficient. 

• The speed of investment required will be massive. Even if all the billionaires 

and companies could make the investments required, they would not be able 

to pull together a coordinated response in the narrow window of time required 

to jump-start major new projects and major new economic sectors. Also, private companies are wary of making massive investments in unproven 

research and technologies; the government, however, has the time horizon to 

be able to patiently make investments in new tech and R&D, without necessarily having a commercial outcome or application in mind at the time the 

investment is made. Major examples of government investments in ‘‘new’’ tech 

that subsequently spurred a boom in the private section include DARPAprojects, the creation of the internet—and, perhaps most recently, the government’s investment in Tesla. 

• Simply put, we don’t need to just stop doing some things we are doing (like 

using fossil fuels for energy needs); we also need to start doing new things 

(like overhauling whole industries or retrofitting all buildings to be energy 

efficient). Starting to do new things requires some upfront investment. In the 

same way that a company that is trying to change how it does business may 

need to make big upfront capital investments today in order to reap future 

benefits (for e.g., building a new factory to increase production or buying new 

hardware and software to totally modernize its IT system), a country that is 

trying to change how its economy works will need to make big investments 

today to jump-start and develop new projects and sectors to power the new 

economy. 

• Merely incentivizing the private sector doesn’t work—e.g. the tax incentives 

and subsidies given to wind and solar projects have been a valuable spur to 

growth in the US renewables industry but, even with such investmentpromotion subsidies, the present level of such projects is simply inadequate 

to transition to a fully greenhouse gas neutral economy as quickly as needed. 

• Once again, we’re not saying that there isn’t a role for private sector investments; we’re just saying that the level of investment required will need every 

actor to pitch in and that the government is best placed to be the prime 

driver. 

Resolution Summary 

Created in consultation with multiple groups from environmental 

community, environmental justice community, and labor community 

5 goals in 10 years: 

• Net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all 

communities and workers 

• Create millions of high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic 

security for all 

• Invest in infrastructure and industry to sustainably meet the challenges of 

the 21st century 

• Clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access 

to nature, and a sustainable environment for all 

• Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and 

repairing historic oppression of frontline and vulnerable communities 

National mobilization our economy through 14 infrastructure and 

industrial projects. Every project strives to remove greenhouse gas emissions and 

pollution from every sector of our economy: 

• Build infrastructure to create resiliency against climate change-related 

disasters 

• Repair and upgrade U.S. infrastructure. ASCE estimates this is $4.6 trillion 

at minimum 

• Meet 100% of power demand through clean and renewable energy sources 
66 

• Build energy-efficient, distributed smart grids and ensure affordable access to 

electricity 

• Upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency 

• Massively expand clean manufacturing (like solar panel factories, wind 

turbine factories, battery and storage manufacturing, energy efficient manufacturing components) and remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions 

from manufacturing 

• Work with farmers and ranchers to create a sustainable, pollution and greenhouse gas free, food system that ensures universal access to healthy food and 

expands independent family farming 

• Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle 

manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out high-speed rail 

at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public 

transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle 

• Mitigate long-term health effects of climate change and pollution 

• Remove greenhouse gases from our atmosphere and pollution through 

afforestation, preservation, and other methods of restoring our natural 

ecosystems 

• Restore all our damaged and threatened ecosystems 

• Clean up all the existing hazardous waste sites and abandoned sites 

• Identify new emission sources and create solutions to eliminate those 

emissions 

• Make the US the leader in addressing climate change and share our technology, expertise and products with the rest of the world to bring about a 

global Green New Deal 

Social and economic justice and security through 15 requirements: 

• Massive federal investments and assistance to organizations and businesses 

participating in the green new deal and ensuring the public gets a return on 

that investment 

• Ensure the environmental and social costs of emissions are taken into account 

• Provide job training and education to all 

• Invest in R&D of new clean and renewable energy technologies 

• Doing direct investments in frontline and deindustrialized communities that 

would otherwise be hurt by the transition to prioritize economic benefits there 

• Use democratic and participatory processes led by frontline and vulnerable 

communities to implement GND projects locally 

• Ensure that all GND jobs are union jobs that pay prevailing wages and hire 

local 

• Guarantee a job with family sustaining wages 

• Protect right of all workers to unionize and organize 

• Strengthen and enforce labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards 

• Enact and enforce trade rules to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution 

overseas and grow domestic manufacturing 

• Ensure public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and eminent domain 

is not abused 

• Obtain free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples 

• Ensure an economic environment free of monopolies and unfair competition 

• Provide high-quality health care, housing, economic security, and clean air, 

clean water, healthy food, and nature to all 

Ms. CHENEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity to discuss 

this issue today of how we transition our communities to a socalled green economy. My state of Wyoming, as I am sure our witnesses know, is the Nation’s largest coal-producing state, and we 

also know in Wyoming that coal is going to continue to be a 
67 

crucially important source of baseload power for the Nation, that 

the reliability is something that simply cannot be replaced, and it 

is a national security issue in addition to an economic issue. 

My constituents are obviously very concerned about this notion 

that we are somehow going to transition over the course of 10 years 

here to an economy that is entirely run on green energy. And 

certainly, they have concerns about the fossil fuel aspect of that, 

but I have to say, one of the issues that people are particularly concerned about is the extent to which we are no longer going to have 

air travel, apparently, according to some of the frequently asked 

question answers we have seen. 

So, I guess I would like to start by asking each witness to tell 

me exactly how they arrived in Washington, DC, for this hearing. 

And it is just a one-word answer, and I will start with you, Ms. 

Farley. 

Ms. FARLEY. On a plane. 

Ms. SHRADER. On a plane. 

Dr. BISSETT. A big white pick-up truck. 

Mr. HILLE. A truck. 

Mr. DENNISON. Plane. 

Dr. MASON. Air and Metro. 

Ms. CHENEY. Thank you very much. I would assume that each 

of the witnesses who believes that we should, in fact, move toward 

net zero emissions, would say that we ought to do so gradually, not 

suddenly. So, I would ask—and again I will start with you, Ms. 

Farley—if you could describe for me, perhaps, exactly how we will 

do that gradually? I would assume we are not just going to wait 

10 years and then all of a sudden tell people they can’t fly, but that 

we will be in a situation where, over the course of 10 years, we 

would somehow gradually work our way out of air travel. And I 

would also have to guess that that would involve some sort of 

prioritization. 

I assume even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who 

support the Green New Deal and perhaps the witnesses who support the Green New Deal wouldn’t advocate, for example, that we 

cancel things like life flights. They wouldn’t advocate that we immediately move away from being able to transport people who have 

life-threatening illnesses by plane, but that there would be some 

other prioritization there. 

So, Ms. Farley, could you tell me exactly how the government 

should prioritize air travel and the gradual move away from all air 

travel? 

Ms. FARLEY. I would depend on the FAA and other Federal agencies that focus on air travel to tackle that question. The Green New 

Deal is a sweeping collection of recommendations and policies—— 

Ms. CHENEY. Thank you very much, Ms. Farley. 

So, the FAA then, I would assume, I guess we are going to set 

up a situation where the FAA then can tell individual citizens 

which of their air travel is worthy and important and which isn’t? 

And it would seem to me, I guess we would then have a situation 

where the FAA could say, for example, you know what, vacation 

travel, that is not essential. We have to make sure that we can do 

the air travel for the people that really need it, so no vacation 

travel. 
68 

Would you say we are going to have some sort of a vacation 

commissar set up in the government to determine what kind of air 

travel makes sense and what kind doesn’t? Ms. Shrader, maybe I 

will go to you on that question. 

Ms. SHRADER. With all due respect, I came here to talk about my 

community and how we have transitioned—— 

Ms. CHENEY. So, you don’t support the Green New Deal then? 

Ms. SHRADER. I haven’t, I am not an expert on the Green New 

Deal. 

Ms. CHENEY. OK. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Will the gentlelady yield for a correction on how 

she is badly mischaracterizing the resolution on the Green New 

Deal? 

Ms. CHENEY. No, I won’t yield, Mr. Huffman. Mr. Huffman, you 

had plenty of time—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. This is fiction. This entire line of questioning is 

fiction. 

Ms. CHENEY. I would like to have my time restored, please, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Let me ask you then, are there any other witnesses on the panel 

who do support the Green New Deal? 

Nobody supports the Green New Deal on this panel? Interesting. 

Ms. FARLEY. I support many of the policies and recommendations 

in the Green New Deal, specifically the support to make sure that 

any climate solution strategy is centered in equity. I do not see 

anything about—— 

Ms. CHENEY. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

Reclaiming my time, I would just say that I think it is going to 

be crucially important for us to recognize and understand, when we 

outlaw plane travel, we outlaw gasoline, we outlaw cars, I think actually probably the entire U.S. military because of the Green New 

Deal, that we are able to explain to our constituents and to people 

all across this country what that really means. And even when it 

comes down to something like air travel, which the frequently 

asked questions say they want to eliminate within the next 10 

years, that means that the government is going to be telling people 

where they can fly to and where they can’t. And I would assume 

I guess that means our colleagues from California are going to be 

riding their bicycles back home to their constituents. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. I am going to yield the first 1 

minute of my 5 minutes to Representative Huffman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. It is not really enough time to fully 

fact check what we just heard, which was an entire line of questioning based on absolute hooey. I am co-sponsor of the Green New 

Deal resolution, and you have to read the resolution, OK? Not take 

extrapolations from some unofficial FAQs that actually were taken 

off an individual Congress Member’s website, because they do not 

reflect what is actually in the resolution. But the notion that any 

of us who are supporting the actual resolution, which you need to 

read, that we want to ban all air travel, that is crazy. That is absolutely crazy. None of us want to do that. 

I was just listening as the gentlelady said that we want to outlaw cars and get rid of the military. There comes a point where this 
69 

type of questioning is so disingenuous and so completely disconnected from anything factual that there ought to be a mechanism 

to strike it from the record. 

So, with that, I yield back. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. And I will resume the rest of my 

time. 

My first question is for Ms. Farley. I am trying to understand or 

for you to help us reconcile some differences. In your written testimony, you talked about, and I will just read the first sentence: ‘‘We 

know that with data-informed certainty that systemically 

disenfranchised, under-resourced communities and communities of 

color in the South bear a disproportionate burden of the negative 

impacts of climate change and carbon-based energy production.’’ 

How do you reconcile that statement with a statement that we 

heard in last week’s presentation, which you indicated you also listened to, where this Committee heard testimony from a witness 

who argued that the increased use of fossil fuels is the best way 

to address high-energy costs in low-income African American communities? This is completely at odds. Can you kind of help us reconcile that difference? 

Ms. FARLEY. Yes, absolutely. I agree that is completely at odds. 

And similar to the rates versus bills question, I believe that it is 

imperative that we understand that costs of energy are not just 

about the energy costs. The disproportionate burdens that people 

in the South and communities of color bear when located within 30 

miles of coal-fired power plants—approximately 68 percent, actually, of African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power 

plant—suffer from low property values, increased accounts of lung 

disease, asthma, and asthma-associated attacks. 

These asthma-associated attacks also impact the healthcare and 

education sectors as emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and 

missed school days from children lead to missed work and job insecurity for their parents. All of these things are increased due to the 

harmful, life-threatening emissions of fossil fuel-based energy 

production. 

So, that is where I would say there is no reconciliation between 

the ability of fossil fuels to provide benefit to under-resourced 

communities or communities of color. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Ms. Shrader, you mentioned in your testimony, how economies 

that are dependent upon commodities such as oil and gas and coal 

are highly vulnerable, repeated cycles of boom or bust. Not the 

image that we hear today, but that has really been what the history has been. And then you offer to us another alternative— 

outdoor recreation and others, in terms of protection of public 

lands, how to use public lands. Does outdoor recreation have the 

similar boom-or-bust cycles? Or can you talk to us about that? Because you are offering a different view of the economy year to year 

also. If you can explain that to us. 

Ms. SHRADER. Yes, that is a great question. We have not seen a 

boom-bust cycle on outdoor recreation because it is an industry 

that is so important, engrained in the quality of life. So, what we 

are seeing in a community like Grand Junction is that we are attracting manufacturing, aviation, tech businesses, to relocate to our 
70 

community because they want the quality of life and the investments we have made in outdoor recreation, and so it is sort of this 

broad scope. 

The other thing that I heard at the beginning was that these outdoor recreation jobs are underpaid and we are just coffee shop 

workers. I would tell you that my company pays 130 percent of the 

Mesa County average salary, and there are other outdoor recreation companies like this, like Leitner-Poma, like Mountain Racing 

Products, I mean, product companies, manufacturers, that do the 

same. So, we are not seeing that boom-bust cycle that is so decimating and devastating for a community in oil and gas. And this 

has been happening for 70 years in Mesa County, so it is really important to transition to this sustainable, diversified economy. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Now I ask Representative Kevin Hern from Oklahoma, you have 

5 minutes to ask questions. And thank you for being so patient. 

Mr. HERN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is great. 

Thank you all for your testimony today, and your honesty, how 

you got here, is good. 

As an engineer and a business person, I strongly believe in data 

and budgets, and I wish we all did. At some point in time, we have 

to pay for this. I am also a member of the Budget Committee, by 

request, because I want to know where all the money goes. Currently we are at $22 trillion in debt, and it is forecast, the next 10 

years, if we don’t do anything, we are going to be at $35 trillion. 

And U.S. small business people appreciate the fact that I am concerned about our national debt, which I think is a travesty. We 

don’t have to have much science to look at that. 

Bloomberg—since we are talking about New Green Deal, 

Bloomberg estimates it is going to cost roughly a trillion dollars a 

year over the next 10 years, the implementation of the New Green 

Deal. But I am a person, as you all are, that believes that in business, nothing operates in a silo onto itself. Whatever you do affects 

other things. It affects our ability to take money and help other 

issues, whether it is our needy, our poor. 

So, we have a real opportunity here to try to figure out how we 

are going to pay for this. One of the things that is interesting, I 

also talked to the OMB Director the other day, we had a hearing, 

and asked him how much it cost to pay for this. And it would be 

almost doubling of the income tax on every individual in America 

to pay for the initiatives that my friends across the aisle want to 

implement. 

The other thing is, I don’t look at static numbers, and I am sure 

you don’t either. You look at trends. And when you look at the 

trends, the population is growing in this country, the GDP is growing, and our emissions per GDP and per capita are declining, which 

is the direction we want them to go, in a national free market way, 

which is a great sign that my colleagues across the aisle should 

love that we are going. All of our debate is causing free market 

ideas, and demands for renewables is being met with free enterprise, development supply without exacerbating our national debt 

issue. 
71 

So, that should be something that we all like in here and we all 

should be applauding, we all stand up and all just leave, that we 

are all accomplishing our mission. 

Ms. Farley, you did say something, and my colleague from 

California mentioned this a minute ago, which was from my 

colleague, Mr. Graves, about that a bill is more than just a cost per 

kilowatt hour. And we talked about Massachusetts, who was 

pushing renewables, that their costs are going up. 

And, Mr. Huffman, I think you said that there are a lot of energy 

efficient things that are driving up costs. I find that a little bit 

ironic, and I would ask you to quote on this, how when we are driving efficiency it is costing the individual more. How does that work, 

how do the American people get excited about that? 

Ms. FARLEY. Thank you. I don’t think I understand the question. 

Mr. HERN. Well, Mr. Chairman, it goes back to Mr. Lowenthal’s 

question of how we reconcile what Mr. Hollie said last week, that 

renewables actually cost Americans more, not less. I grew up very 

poor. When I was young, I grew up with food stamps, so you have 

to make a decision, do I feed my family or pay my electric bill. 

So, how do you reconcile when you get more efficient that it costs 

you more to have energy? 

Ms. FARLEY. I don’t believe that the more efficient you are that 

it costs you more. The whole point of efficiency is to reduce your 

utility bills. 

Mr. HERN. Well, I was just mentioning what Mr. Huffman said, 

the more efficient we got—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Will the gentleman yield for 5 seconds? 

Mr. HERN. Sure. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. It is the difference between unit cost and out-ofpocket cost to the consumer on their bill. The unit cost may go up, 

but the bill itself does not go up and in some cases can go down. 

Mr. HERN. But somebody is paying for that, correct? I mean, it 

is not free. 

Mr. Mason, can I ask you a question? In your testimony, you 

state the concerns we have is energy curtails CO2, it increases the 

concentration of other pollutants, such as, if you have no wind, you 

can’t have wind energy; if you have no sun, you have no sun 

energy, so in those times you have to store it by batteries, or issues 

of that. Would you agree that we need to have some analysis on 

the impact of an environment before we just take off down this 

road? 

Dr. MASON. Absolutely, though analysis will not get us there. 

There are going to be substantial uncertainties with regard to the 

environment and substantial uncertainties with regard to the 

interaction of different energy products with regard to that 

environment. 

A point in case that I made in my written testimony was that 

a trader that posed the electricity exchange in Northern Europe 

with a hundred million euro loss in September 2018, because while 

Europe was experiencing a drought, Northern Europe, who is based 

primarily on hydro, experienced excess rainfall. 

So, you can’t understand, no matter how much analysis you do, 

a meteorologist won’t tell you what the—— 
72 

Mr. HERN. Dr. Mason, if you don’t mind. We tried to get into the 

rules so that we had not had an analysis of impact—economic 

impact on anything that we did related to the transition, and that 

rule was struck down, was not allowed to enter into the rules of 

this Congress or this Committee. 

I appreciate everyone being here. It has been a long day, a lot 

longer than you thought. Thank you for your witness. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Yes, I would like to kind of bring the hearing 

to a close, but I would like to follow up on something that Mr. 

Gosar, when he was the chair of the Subcommittee and I was the 

Ranking Member, he used to, at the end of the hearing, ask all the 

panelists if there is one question they would have liked to have 

been asked and what their answer would be. Now this is very brief. 

I am not asking for another 5 minutes—just what question would 

you like to have been asked or we should have, and how would you 

quickly and simply answer that question. 

Let’s begin again across with the first witness, Ms. Farley. What 

would you like to have been asked? And if you don’t have anything, 

if you think you have been asked everything, Ms. Farley, that is 

fine too. 

Ms. FARLEY. I would have liked to have been asked how we ensure that the same business model used in the fossil fuel industry, 

which hurts communities, doesn’t simply get placed by the same 

system that will be used to run the renewable energy industry. 

And I believe, as many do, and have access to data that proves it, 

that any solution meant to mitigate the impacts of climate change 

on lower income under-resourced communities must be centered in 

equity and must be centered in a reckoning with the reasons that 

these disparities exist. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Ms. Shrader, what question? 

Ms. SHRADER. The question I would have liked to have been 

asked is, how can Grand Junction be sort of a template for other 

rural communities in the United States that have diversified to 

outdoor recreation? And I would say that we in the Grand Valley, 

we have built a lot of partnerships. The oil and gas industry has 

supported so much of our trail infrastructure. Our government 

leaders, from the commissioners in the county, to the city officials, 

to our state representatives, have really focused on rebuilding and 

rebranding our community. And this has been a community that 

has been really long entrenched in oil and gas, and that culture 

change has created a lot of pride and excitement for the community 

and for the state. And we are becoming sort of this template for 

other communities in Colorado, but also in the rural West that 

have really suffered economically. 

And bringing that kind of prosperity back to a community is extremely gratifying, and I hope we can do that across the United 

States. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Dr. Bissett? 

Dr. BISSETT. Mr. Chairman, it would be very simple. We talk a 

lot about cost of energy production, but we rarely talk about reliability, or more importantly, scope. And I think the question of 
73 

scope has to be in there, because when you look at what a hundred 

coal miners can do, or a hundred people that are installing solar 

panels or windmills, you have to look at that energy produced. And 

I think a lot of times that is the last thing we talk about. Thank 

you. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. Hille? 

Mr. HILLE. Mr. Chair, first I need to clarify my response to Ms. 

Cheney’s question. I did arrive here by car this morning. I flew to 

DC. I wanted to be transparent about that. I wasn’t intentionally 

misleading, but that was going pretty fast. 

The question that I wish had been asked is, what is the role of 

the electric utilities in this transition? And the electric utilities can 

play a transformative, positive role as they have when we have 

partnered with them for an on-bill financing program for residential energy efficiency so that the customer pays nothing upfront. 

The utility pays for the retrofit and recovers that investment, plus 

interest, from a charge on the customer’s bill. 

They can also play a negative role when they try to reverse statutes that support things like our solar net metering statute in 

Kentucky. 

So, the role of the utilities is really important. They do have a 

monopoly on the service, and they need to be held accountable for 

their role in the transition. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. Dennison? 

Mr. DENNISON. I wish there was more time on the how. The transition is already happening. We have seen the trend in coal 

employment since the 1970s. We need to be into detailed problemsolving and have focus on creating opportunity for people in 

Appalachia and elsewhere. I wish I had time to provide other 

examples. 

There is a honey business that is also helping to pollinate reforestation on mine lands, how reforestation of mine lands can contribute to climate change mitigation and create thousands of jobs. 

And the role of the market, that was a great discussion we 

almost got to there at the end. Fantastic market innovation, forprofit entrepreneurs with social and environmental triple bottom 

line really leading the way. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

And, finally, Dr. Mason? 

Dr. MASON. I think the question would be, do we all believe that 

all green is clean? Because the answer is no. There are a lot of 

green albatross players out there. A good example is mining young, 

or cutting down young growth cypress in Louisiana, forests that 

were devastated years ago, in order to pelletize it and send it on 

ships over to Europe to burn it as environmentally friendly biofuel 

over there, encouraged by subsidies. That is just wrong. And there 

are many other examples. 

I think if we can drop the notion that all green is clean, and we 

need to define our terms to begin with, we can start with that 

meaningful conversation that you started with today. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. Thank you to all the panelists for 

your valuable testimony, Members for their questions, and for the 
74 

climate that we created. I think people felt like they were listened 

to and at least got their chance. I mean, we are just beginning, and 

I think it was a great beginning. 

If members of this Committee have additional questions for the 

witnesses, we will ask you to respond to these in writing. Under 

Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must submit witness questions within 3 business days following the hearing, and 

then the hearing record will be open for 10 business days for these 

responses. 

If there is no further business, without objection, this Committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE CUNNINGHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Thank you, Chairman Lowenthal, for holding this hearing today, to discuss an 

issue that’s been on the minds of my constituents and is near and dear to my heart. 

South Carolina’s 1st District is home to most of the state’s nearly 3,000 miles of 

serpentine coastline and barrier islands. Having lived near the coast, I’ve witnessed 

the impacts of rising sea levels firsthand. Folks in my district aren’t even able to 

get across town to get to work when it’s high tide and the city is flooded. So this 

is clearly something that affects the Low Country, which is why on my fourth day 

on the job, I introduced my bipartisan bill—H.R. 291, the Coastal Economies 

Protection Act, which would place a 10-year moratorium on oil and gas preleasing, 

leasing, and related activities on the Outer Continental Shelf in the North Atlantic, 

Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Straits of Florida planning areas and in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. I’ve made protecting the coast of South Carolina from the risk 

of offshore drilling my highest priority, and I intend to continue advocating on behalf of this issue. 

In addition to the environmental impacts (sea level rise, coastal erosion, ocean 

acidification), the energy transition that the country needs to make to address 

climate change will impact certain communities that have relied on fossil fuel jobs. 

And with that, I want to turn to some questions. 

1. Mr. Dennison or Mr. Hille, what advice would you give to leaders in coalreliant communities in western states that are only now beginning to confront 

the recent downturn in coal production? 

2. Ms. Shrader, a lot of people argue that recreation and tourism jobs pay a lot 

less than oil and gas, so they’re not nearly adequate replacements. How do 

you respond to that? 

3. Mr. Dennison and Mr. Hille, we’ve heard testimony that jobs produced by the 

clean energy transition will be more harmful to worker health and the 

environment than jobs in fossil fuel industries. Do you agree with this 

conclusion? 
75 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Gosar 

China’s demand for electric vehicles charges copper, 

Financial Times, February 12, 2019 by Henry Sanderson 

Copper is a very ordinary building material that has become entwined in every facet 

of our lives, from the wires in our homes to our smartphones and, critically, electric 

cars, which use three times the amount of the metal as those in a conventional 

vehicle. 

The start of a long-term demand trend is occurring in China, where copper in 

electric cars is set to offset a sharp fall associated with sales of petrol cars this year, 

according to analysts at Citigroup. 

The number of petrol cars made in China this year is expected to drop by 9 per 

cent, according to Citi, while electric car production is set to rise by 53 per cent. 

That results in net copper demand growth of 0.3 per cent for the sector. 

‘‘[For copper] it’s an EV story into the 2020s and we’re just getting a really early 

taste of that now,’’ said Oliver Nugent, of Citi. ‘‘Thanks to the higher intensity of 

copper in EVs we’re going to sail through that very weak auto demand number this 

year.’’ 
76 

Over the longer term, the bank said copper for electric cars would make up twothirds of demand growth for the metal between 2018 and 2030. 

Copper prices have rallied by 5 per cent this year to trade at $6,139 a tonne, 

suggesting that investors have become less fearful of the impact of a slowdown in 

China, the world’s largest consumer. 

Citi expects copper prices to hit $6,700 in 2019 driven by an overall 2 per cent 

growth in Chinese demand and a resolution to the trade dispute between the US 

and China. 

Australia hopes to cash in on new cobalt rush, 

Financial Times, February 12, 2019 by Jamie Smyth and Henry Sanderson 

It is one of Australia’s oldest mining towns that has built its wealth from a huge 

deposit of silver, lead and zinc. Now, Broken Hill is aiming to tap into the fast 

growing electric vehicle market by becoming a vital source of cobalt. 

Mining groups in the outback town, 1,000km from Sydney, are lured by forecasts 

that demand for cobalt—the main power source for mobile devices and electric 

vehicles (EVs)—will quadruple by 2029. 

Supply concerns have further stoked their interest as two-thirds of the world’s 

cobalt is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a poor country that suffers 
77 

from political instability and corruption and which has been criticised for the use 

of child labour in its artisanal mines. 

‘‘No one can predict politics in the DRC, the country presents logistical challenges 

and there is a question mark over the efficacy of the 10 to 15 per cent of cobalt 

produced there from artisanal sources,’’ said Joe Kaderavek, chief executive of 

Cobalt Blue, an ASX-listed miner with an operation in Broken Hill. 

‘‘Increasingly, Asian battery makers are looking for the stability that Australian 

sources of cobalt can offer.’’ 

Cobalt Blue is one of dozens of small miners in Australia, Canada and elsewhere 

that are rushing to explore cobalt deposits and raise funds to develop new mines 

and processing plants to produce the blue-grey metal. 

Last year Kinshasa’s dominance over the cobalt supply chain rose above 70 per cent 

as Chinese-owned mines in the DRC and new entrant Eurasian Resources Group, 

a Luxembourg-based miner, ramped up production. It is expected to hit 75 per cent 

this year, according to Darton Commodities. 

‘‘The DRC is to the cobalt world what Saudi Arabia is to oil when it comes to availability of supply, there’s nowhere else where you can get large volumes like you can 

in the Congo,’’ said George Heppel, an analyst at consultancy CRU. 

This leaves battery makers, electric vehicle manufacturers and western miners 

exposed to sudden shifts in DRC government policy and consumer boycotts focused 

on child exploitation. Last year a new mining code imposed a series of taxes on 

western miners and Glencore was forced to write off $5.6bn in debt to safeguard 

its joint venture with Ge ́camines, the DRC’s state mining company. 

The London-listed miner is embroiled in a separate dispute with the DRC government over plans to build a new plant to remove uranium from its cobalt ore. This 

month Katanga Mining, a subsidiary of Glencore which owns a large cobalt and 

copper mine in the DRC, warned it may not be able to sell any cobalt until 2020 

due to governmental concerns. 

Analysts at Darton Commodities recently warned that increased resource 

nationalism in the DRC continued to present a significant supply risk. 

‘‘Continued stability in the DRC will therefore be of vital importance, ensuring a 

secure and transparent cobalt supply chain which in turn is critical for the global 

transition to EVs to materialise,’’ they added. 
78 

Due to these concerns, Asian battery makers are now building alliances with miners 

in Australia. 

Last year LG International, the investment arm of the South Korean battery maker, 

bought a 6 per cent stake in Cobalt Blue. Shanghai Pengxin, a Chinese conglomerate, paid A$81m ($57m) for a 16 per cent stake in Clean TeQ, an ASX-listed 

company also aiming to develop a nickel-cobalt-scandium mine about 350km west 

of Sydney. 

‘‘International NGOs are focused on the issue of child labour in DRC and they are 

likely to single out multinational companies, the battery makers and the car 

companies, to clean up their act,’’ said Sam Riggall, Clean TeQ’s chief executive. 

‘‘Australia will play an important role in the diversification of the cobalt supply 

chain,’’ he said. 

However, there are currently no large new cobalt mines in the pipeline outside of 

the DRC. 

Canadian-listed First Cobalt aims to build a North American supply of cobalt by 

developing a mine in Idaho and processing the metal at a refinery it has reopened 

in Ontario. 

Trent Mell, chief executive of First Cobalt, said the publication by US president 

Donald Trump of a ‘‘critical minerals’’ list last year had helped the company gain 

political support for US-based cobalt supply. 

‘‘With the US putting cobalt on the critical minerals list, we have a lot of friends 

in Washington,’’ Mr Mell said. ‘‘If you picture a boxing ring, you’ve got Glencore in 

one corner and China in the other; it’s a small market, it’s a tight market. I don’t 

think cobalt prices really reflect the structural outlook that many of us see.’’ 
79 

Another country that could be a source of cobalt is Kazakhstan. Kenes Rakishev, 

a Kazakh businessman and entrepreneur, is aiming to mine cobalt and nickel in 

eastern Kazakhstan, using low-cost leaching techniques already used to mine 

uranium in the country. The company, KazCobalt, aims to eventually list on the 

stock market. 

‘‘If this technology can work for nickel and cobalt, it will be the lowest cost in the 

world,’’ Mr Rakishev said. ‘‘You need to just dig—that’s it.’’ 

Cobalt is mined alongside copper in the DRC, while outside the country it is mostly 

a byproduct of nickel mining. Brazilian miner Vale is spending $2bn on an underground expansion of its mine at Voisey’s Bay, Canada , which will also produce 

cobalt. 

‘‘There will be no shortage of cobalt but we’re going to have better cobalt and nickel 

prices to get the mines [outside the DRC] built,’’ said Anthony Milewski, chief executive of Cobalt 27, which has acquired the right to buy future cobalt production from 

the Vale mine. 

FT Archive 

Echoing this view, Gavin Montgomery, an analyst at Wood Mackenzie, said 

companies outside of the DRC would struggle to raise finance in the face of falling 

cobalt prices, which are down more than 40 per cent since mid-November. 

Prices are likely to fall further given there was a ‘‘tsunami’’ of new cobalt supply 

coming online in the DRC over the next few years, Mr Montgomery said. 

‘‘In the medium-term it is all DRC,’’ Mr Montgomery added. ‘‘There’s no shortage 

of supply.’’ 

Outside of the DRC the most promising project is a giant $700m nickel-processing 

project being built in Indonesia by a consortium of investors including Chinese 

stainless steel giant Tsingshan and China ’s largest battery maker CATL. 

As well as nickel, the Indonesian project hopes to produce about 20,000 tonnes of 

cobalt sulphate for batteries a year and has already secured financing. 

‘‘We’re probably more bullish about Indonesia becoming the new frontier for cobalt 

and nickel supply than Ontario or Zambia or Australia,’’ Mr Montgomery said. 
80 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Lowenthal 

Energy Jobs—Bureau of Labor Statistics, February 13, 2019 
81 

SOLAR ENERGY 

,,I 

I 

Q 

SOLAR .... OII'<JOR<E 0£MOGP. ... P11 CS 

The U.S.hu ~'*' • ti~Ymt 

150,000 so&. jobs IInce aC>10. 

~-.. ~fiiiM"' .w -.pe~p.,.t,.lptd"'"'" 

"'"'"~~~·2018. 

Suttlinedpolicysupport fot 

l'Nit't .o&.Md,...........~ ..... MfCII __ ___ kvtt.i, 

-.-....-.cnon ........ ---------.. 

2t•.. 9... g.., V!!t<.>t.l•nr--.•<c Dr 

Ilia - - 78%' "''~' ••·do 

' , '· :"•"''.• 66'!<-o'l• • oil',.., k '"' 

SOLAR JO BS BY STATE, 2018 

THE SOLAR JOB MARKET IN 2018 

~ & ~ 

('14 toU.~~ 10{ofOWTM 

~d..l «<tt"..,.. 

O'li'Ted l.......,~ t.'" 

WOSIOIJJI(UI.l fOSIHO'ti TOJaU. 

,.t. '· !~!:!~ 

lll t. lll»aiJI""ttl 

PIIC(MJ M'OI 0 1 U.S.SOlNt 

llo'.,U U,.Ir M;"'T\li.!JIU ""GCIIKUfO 

flo41Uil C0M'~ 

.r~ .-~'4 ... 1.(oAb.,,.,."'"' .... c/Nt!l~«.a.-4~1 .. 

.ti:IJV'&Aw~ ~-. -•"'"d•rc: 

"'-' 'o· ~-­ $,...,_.. \.lf~~I(Ooo-1!1 

'.4olh .. .,.tt' ~n. .. l~~l 

.su,,_. t.at~ 

;~ioo;~ 

"• SOLAR FOUNDA110N' ...... """ .. --

Le,nn More :lit SalarJot»Censu~.org 
82 

Submissions for the Record by Mr. Dennison 

Solar Employs More People In U.S. Electricity Generation Than Oil, Coal 

And Gas Combined 

Niall McCarthy, Contributor, Data journalist covering technological, societal and 

media topics 

Forbes—January 25, 2017 

In the United States, more people were employed in solar power last year than in 

generating electricity through coal, gas and oil energy combined. According to a new 

report from the U.S. Department of Energy, solar power employed 43 percent of the 

Electric Power Generation sector’s work force in 2016, while fossil fuels combined 

accounted for just 22 percent. It’s a welcome statistic for those seeking to refute 

Donald Trump’s assertion that green energy projects are bad news for the American 

economy. 

Just under 374,000 people were employed in solar energy, according to the report, 

while coal, gas and oil power generation combined had a work force of slightly more 

than 187,000. The boom in the country’s solar work force can be attributed to 

construction work associated with expanding generation capacity. The gulf in 

employment is growing with net generation from coal falling 53 percent over the 

last decade. During the same period, electricity generation from natural gas 

increased 33 percent while solar expanded 5,000 percent. 

Fuel production and electricity generation together directly employed 1.9 million 

workers last year, according to the report; with 55%, or 1.1 million, working with 

fossil fuels. The DoE identifies another 2.3 million jobs associated with energy 

transmission, distribution and storage. 

Solar energy added 73,615 new jobs to the U.S. economy over the past year while 

wind added a further 24,650. 

(charted by Statista) 
83 

Statement by Mr. Dennison in Response to Dr. Mason 

I also want to note, responding to Mr. Mason: while the entire country is not facing 

Depression era unemployment, many extraction communities are. We have an 

employment crisis. High unemployment is a problem, say in Mingo County, WV, but 

the even more concerning stats are in labor force participation . . . these are people 

who have permanently left the work force and given up looking. 

WVU economists John Deskins has published work on these troubling economic 

stats. 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Graves 

—U.S. Energy and Employment Report from the National 

Association of State Energy Officials, May 2018 

Submissions for the Record Mr. Dennison 

—The Nature Conservancy Report—Natural Climate Solutions in 

West Virginia 

—‘‘Many Voices, Many Solutions: Innovative Mine Reclamation 

in Central Appalachia’’—Report 

Æ