U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

62–521 2010

THE CLEAN ENERGY RECOVERY: CREATING JOBS, 

BUILDING NEW INDUSTRIES AND SAVING MONEY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 10, 2010 

Serial No. 111–14 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

MICHAEL GOO, Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

BART FORSYTH, Minority Staff Director 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Wisconsin, opening statement .............................................................. 5 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of South Dakota, opening statement ........................................................ 6 

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Missouri, opening statement ............................................................................... 7 

Hon. Jackie Speier, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9 

WITNESSES

Mary Ann Wright, Vice President and Managing Director—Business Accelerator Project, Power Solutions Division, Johnson Controls, Inc ..................... 10 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 12 

Paul Gaynor, Chief Executive Officer, First Wind Holding LLC ......................... 21 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 23 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 72 

Lisa Patt-McDaniel, Director of the Ohio Department of Development, State 

of Ohio ................................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 32 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 74 

J. Bryan Ashley, Chief Marketing Officer, Suniva, Inc ........................................ 39 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 42 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 78 

Brian M. Johnson, Federal Affairs Manager, Americans for Tax Reform .......... 47 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 49 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE CLEAN ENERGY RECOVERY: CREATING 

JOBS, BUILDING NEW INDUSTRIES AND 

SAVING MONEY 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in Room 2141, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Inslee, Herseth Sandlin, 

Cleaver, Speier, Sensenbrenner, and Capito. 

Staff present: Jonathan Phillips. 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Select 

Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. 

I think it is appropriate to begin this hearing today on the Recovery Act with a reflection on where our Nation stood 1 year ago. Our 

economy was in a free fall. The Dow was below 6500, down 54 percent from its high. Less than 2 months into the Obama administration, unemployment had already hit a 25-year high. People stopped 

looking at their 401(k) statements, spending froze, businesses shuttered, credit disappeared, and everyone wondered when the downward spiral would end. 

While the Nation’s collective economic security was disappearing 

before our eyes, many of the pillars of American strength have 

been quietly decaying in the shadows for decades. Roads and infrastructure were crumbling, schools were sinking deeper into mediocrity, our middle class was losing ground. At the same time, China, 

Germany, and other nations were racing past us in the 21st century’s greatest growth industry, clean energy. 

Amidst this storm, Congress passed the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act; and it became law on February 17, 2009. As a 

result, two million people have jobs today that otherwise would not. 

This emergency legislation has not only helped us round the corner 

on the worst recession in generations, it has become the catalyst 

for reinvesting in America’s future. 

Nowhere is this reinvestment more apparent than in clean energy, where the Recovery Act targeted $90 billion to jump-start jobs 

in efficiency, wind, solar, advanced battery technology, and countless other critical industries. 

Equally important, these investments are laying the foundation 

for a new era of innovation and technology development that will 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
2 

provide the next generation of Americans with economic security 

and job opportunities over the long term. 

While we still have a long journey ahead of us, I think we need 

to take stock of how far we have come with the Recovery Act. 

A decade ago, we had a grand total of 450 megawatts of solar 

electricity installed in the United States. Flash forward. We installed 480 megawatts of solar in 2009 alone. In 2010, the solar industry is likely to bring on line the likely equivalent of a nuclear 

power plant. Solar energy programs in the Recovery Act supported 

more than 10,000 new jobs in 2009, and it is likely to support another 30,000 in 2010. 

Then there is wind. Four years ago, 25 percent of the components 

of a wind turbine was made in America. Today, more than 50 percent is made in America. Annual additions of wind power have 

quadrupled during that time, from less than 2,500 megawatts in 

2005 to nearly 10,000 new megawatts installed in the United 

States in 2009. When the wind factories supported by the Recovery 

Act come on line over the next couple of years, the average content 

is likely to be over 70 percent in these wind facilities. 

Then we have the advanced batteries that are going to power the 

electric vehicles rolling off assembly lines later this year. Asia owns 

98 percent of that market today. With Recovery Act investments, 

the U.S. global markets share is projected to raise to 20 percent 

next year and 40 percent by 2015. Imagine the jobs that will be 

created when we stop sending $250 billion a year overseas for oil 

and start sending money to the workers in Michigan and Ohio who 

are building our electric batteries. Make no mistake, clean energy 

industrialization is happening in America, and the Recovery Act is 

playing a major part. 

Public investment in innovation is a proven all-American pathway to long-term economic security and job creation. The public investment behind Neil Armstrong’s one small step spurred giant 

technological leaps that ensured American economic security for 

generations. 

The Recovery Act reoriented America to the future and refocused 

our efforts and our strengths. Our strength is our ability to innovate. As we move forward into a clean energy future, we will wean 

ourselves from our greatest weakness: addiction to oil. The Recovery Act laid that foundation. A long-term policy like the WaxmanMarkey bill, which the House passed last June, will ensure that 

the thousand flowers of the Recovery Act are likely to fully bloom. 

That completes the opening statement of the Chair. 

I now turn and recognize the ranking member of the committee, 

the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
3 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 62521A.001
4 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 62521A.002
5 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

You never have to admit you are wrong if you always argue that 

things could be worse. The unemployment rate is hovering around 

10 percent, and the economy has lost around 3.3 million jobs since 

Congress passed the $862 billion stimulus bill. But the majority 

has still convened today’s hearing to celebrate the bill as a success. 

No matter how sluggish our economy gets, they always can pretend 

that things are better than they could have been. 

I am still hopeful that last year’s $862 billion stimulus bill will 

help get people back to work. But this is mostly wishful thinking. 

Evidence already shows that this massive government program is 

unlikely to produce any significant growth in the workforce. There 

are good intentions behind some of these so-called green jobs 

projects, but we also need accountability. 

The stimulus program was a failure, and we need an honest accounting as to why. 

Spending government money can create jobs, but most of these 

jobs are entirely dependent upon the government’s subsidies. Take 

away the subsidy, the job goes, too. Based on per unit of energy 

output, wind and solar energy products received 50 times more 

subsidy than coal. The subsidies required to create these green jobs 

result in the loss of economically sustainable jobs in other industries. Experiences abroad have already documented this fact. 

Spain spent $1.6 billion to subsidize its solar industry. A study 

from a Spanish university, however, found that for every job this 

money created, it cost the economy 2.2 jobs in other industries. The 

same study also found that 9 out of 10 jobs created by the subsidies 

were temporary in nature. 

The Obama administration immediately attacked the study, but 

critics must account for the fact that, since implementing the subsidies, the unemployment rate in Spain has climbed to nearly 20 

percent. I know the playbook is to argue that things would have 

been worse without the subsidies, but when one in five people are 

unemployed, how much worse can it get? 

The administration was so frightened by the Spanish statistics 

that it took what the Department of Energy employees described 

as an unprecedented step of issuing a direct rebuttal. DOE contracted with a national renewable energy lab to produce a response 

to the Spanish study. Documents obtained through a FOIA request 

by the Competitive Enterprise Institute made it clear that the administration’s rebuttal was written in conjunction with wind lobbyists and other advocacy groups. This blatant conflict of interest not 

only undermines the integrity of NREO’s attack but also exposes 

the agenda of the report sponsors. 

Unfortunately for us, the stimulus bill might actually be of some 

help to Spain. The Investigative Reporting Work, a product of the 

School of Communication of American University, found that a majority of the program’s grants went to foreign-owned companies and 

that a majority of the turbines purchased with the money were 

built by foreign manufacturers. The workshop found that of the 

$1.05 billion in clean energy grants handed out by the government 

since September 1, 84 percent—a total of $749 million—have gone 

to foreign wind companies. The Spanish utility company Iberdrolla, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
6 

SA, alone has collected $545 million through its American subsidiary. 

In response to a letter from Democratic Senators criticizing the 

stimulus program, Secretary Chu wrote that all the wind turbine 

installation jobs are created here in America. So we are spending 

U.S. taxpayer money to create long-term manufacturing jobs 

abroad and consoling ourselves because we are also creating a few 

short-term construction jobs here at home. 

The job creation benefits of the stimulus package were further 

undermined by the Democrats’ political alliance with unions. The 

Government Accountability Office recently found that the pro-union 

Davis-Bacon language in the stimulus bill meant Energy Department officials have to spend valuable time determining the prevailing wages for these so-called green jobs. This bureaucratic exercise cost valuable time during a period where many Americans 

needed the work. 

In the case of weatherization, the Energy Department spent only 8 percent of the nearly $5 billion budgeted to improve energy efficiency in homes across the country. Indeed, a study by the Heritage 

Foundation shows that Davis-Bacon rules require government contractors to pay wages that average 22 percent above the market 

rate, and suspending Davis-Bacon rules would let the government 

hire 160,000 additional workers. 

I am glad that Brian Johnson of Americans for Tax Reform is 

here to tell us more. He will testify that Davis-Bacon rules reduced 

the jobs-creating benefits that the stimulus bill sought to create. 

The question is what are the priorities of the authors of the stimulus bill. 

I also want to welcome Mary Ann Wright of Johnson Controls, 

who are based in my district, and thank her and her company for 

their work in cutting-edge battery power. I believe the only way we 

can confront climate change is through technology breakthroughs, 

and I am in fact a lead author and original sponsor of the Hybrid 

Truck Act, which has twice passed the House. 

I hope this hearing proves to be the beginning of legitimate oversight, rather than an attempt to spin ineffective policies. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from South Dakota, Ms. 

Herseth Sandlin. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. I thank the chairman for holding this 

hearing giving us this opportunity to examine how the Recovery 

Act has played a key role in maintaining and fostering the new energy economy. 

I supported the Recovery and Reinvestment Act in order to prevent the worst recession since World War II from lasting longer 

and going deeper, to build infrastructure and invest in other ways 

in the future of South Dakota and the country. 

As an example, South Dakota has already been allocated $9.6 

million in Recovery Act smart grid funding, Batros Power in the 

western part of the State is slated to receive $5.6 million in Recovery Act funds, with 50 percent cost share to install smart metering 

technology, and Sioux Valley Energy Electric Cooperative was 

awarded $4 million to install SMART meters. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
7 

As virtually every economist agrees, we needed an aggressive recovery package to stem the loss of jobs, to save jobs, to create jobs, 

and to reinvigorate demands for goods and services that had evaporated in the economic collapse triggered by the financial meltdown 

originating from risky and unconscionable actions on Wall Street. 

Our Nation was in a free fall, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs 

a month, and we needed to act. As South Dakota’s Republican governor has said, the Recovery Act played a key role in balancing 

South Dakota’s budget in multiple years, while reducing cuts to 

critical programs as our State suffered from the downturn. 

Moreover, one of the key components of the Recovery Act conveniently overlooked by its critics is over a third of it is tax cuts for 

families and businesses, including a long-term extension of the production tax credit for wind through 2012, a tax credit of up to $800 

per family for 2009 and 2010, tax relief for small businesses, and 

a cut in the capital gains tax for those who invest in small businesses. 

In addition, I have met with homegrown wind developers and 

other domestically headquartered wind blade manufacturers who 

have brought hundreds of jobs to South Dakota who have praised 

the Recovery Act’s extension of the production tax credit and the 

new Treasury grant in lieu of the investment tax credit included 

in the Recovery Act. I have heard firsthand how these measures 

are allowing the survival of domestic wind development in the 

United States, creating jobs and fostering economic development in 

rural communities. 

So I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing 

and look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, is 

recognized. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it is important for us to take a look at the impact of the 

ARRA legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, I was in the room as a member of the Financial 

Services Committee. I was sitting there when President Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulsen, along with Ben Bernanke, 

along with Mr. Cox, our former colleague, and Sheila Bair sat at 

a table not dramatically unlike the table before us today; and from 

their lips fell the most bone-chilling testimony I have ever heard 

since being in government. 

They explained to us that if the Fed did not act quickly that the 

U.S. economy would fall from the precipice, taking with it the economy of the planet. President Bush pushed hard to take action, and 

I don’t disagree. And we took action. We then, after electing President Obama, began to address this problem that was deepening 

even after trying to put a tourniquet on the Wall Street entities 

that could have also taken down other financial institutions around 

the country. 

President Obama put forth a stimulus package. Some, like Paul 

Krugman, the Economist journalist, believed that it was too small, 

that you can’t have a $15 to $17 trillion economy and try to completely turn things around with less than a trillion dollar stimulus. 

Nonetheless, we approved it, and I supported it and supported it 

strongly. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
8 

If you look at the job losses in the United States over the last 

decade, you would be alarmed. Because many of those jobs, even 

after this recession ends, will not return. And I fear that the 3.5 

unemployment, full employment number, is going to have to be adjusted, that no longer can we expect full employment to be when 

3.5 percent of the American public is unemployed. That is probably 

going to go up after this recession is over. So the only thing remaining for us to do is to create new jobs, and ARRA gave us the 

opportunity to create new jobs. 

In Kansas City, Missouri, one of the cities I represent in Missouri, we used the money to create what is called the Green Impact 

Zone, 150 blocks of the most decrepit piece of geography in urban 

America. One census track shows unemployment at 70 percent. 

The Kansas City Star did a story on this track and called it the 

Murder Factory. 

We have been able, since ARRA, to get a matching grant from the Department of Energy to match a $24 million grant from our 

power and light company to begin the construction of a smart grid. 

Men and women are hired today, this day, who live in the Green 

Impact Zone who will be a part of the construction team for the 

smart grid. And we are weatherizing 3,000 homes, and the men 

and women doing the weatherization are men and women who are 

unemployed, and, yes, some of them were union members. 

The point is, as I close, Mr. Chairman, that this is working and 

working well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Speier. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am glad that we are here today to discuss clean energy jobs 

which are crucial not only for our economic recovery but for our 

long-term economic growth. 

On Monday of this week, I organized a bus tour to inspect the 

progress of recovery projects in my district. From 300 construction 

jobs at San Francisco Airport, job training for transportation workers, new buses fueled by biofuel, aid to services for the unemployed, 

and a collaborative partnership to secure $2 million in grants to rehouse the homeless, I can see the impact of timely and targeted recovery funding working in my district. 

What was very interesting during the tour was I visited a company that built super-efficient surge protectors for our electric grid 

to shield consumers from blackouts. The company received 8.5 million ARRA grant dollars to fund an installation in southern California and has already expanded its headquarters to a larger facility. One thing they pointed out to me, though, was that there is 

no testing facility in the United States. So they have to actually 

transport this huge piece of equipment to Vancouver to test it, another opportunity for us to start growing some of these opportunities at home. 

Another company based in south San Francisco received $21 million in recovery funding to build an advanced biofuels refinery in 

Pennsylvania which will create jobs in both locations and will help 

them scale up production of a cutting-edge renewable biofuel which 

will help us break our addiction to oil. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
9 

Finally, my district is home to the Nation’s leading solar power 

provider for homeowners on up to Federal Government, and thanks 

to the Recovery Act policies for renewable energy providers that 

has ended its hiring freeze and plans to add 16 new solar installation crews in the coming months. 

I know we have much to hear from our witnesses, and I yield 

back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. I want to make a point about—maybe someone has 

already said it—I just met a woman named Elana Meyers, who was 

our Gold Medal winner in the bobsled competition in Vancouver; 

and it was the first time I ever got to hold a Gold Medal. It was 

pretty cool. But it made me think about another competition we are 

in about who is going to get the Gold Medal in the clean energy 

economy. And if it wasn’t for ARRA, we would be giving a huge 

head start to China. ARRA allowed us to get out of the chute, at 

least to begin getting into this competition with the rest of the 

world to see who is going to be preeminent in clean energy. 

And I just want to make two points about why ARRA was successful in getting us into the race, two companies I will mention. 

I met a fellow from Johnson Controls the other day who said 

they are going to start building a lithium ion battery manufacturing plant in Michigan, hopefully construction this fall, which 

would not have happened but for ARRA. And we would not have 

any meaningful manufacturing plant in the United States but for 

ARRA in this regard. 

And in the R&D provision, we have a company called Energy II. 

It is in Seattle. It has got a $20 million-plus grant to fund ways 

to use nanotechnology to make ultra capacitors 15 times more efficient and more dense. 

So ARRA has got us into the race. We are in the race, and we 

wouldn’t have been for it, and I am glad we are in the race. 

The CHAIRMAN. And the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Maybe what we could do is hear from Johnson Controls. The gentleman from Washington State has, as you know, given Johnson 

Controls a little bit of a plug here. So while the gentleman is 

here—we apologize to the other witnesses who have been told what 

the order will be—I thought maybe we could start with you, Mary 

Ann Wright, Vice President of Johnson Controls and Managing Director of the company’s Business Accelerator Project for advanced 

energy storage solutions. Perhaps you could expand upon what Mr. 

Inslee was just referring to. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
10 

STATEMENTS OF MARY ANN WRIGHT, VICE PRESIDENT AND 

MANAGING DIRECTOR, JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; PAUL 

GAYNOR, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FIRST WIND; LISA 

PATT-McDANIEL, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT; BRYAN ASHLEY, CHIEF MARKETING OFFICER, 

SUNIVA, INC; AND BRIAN M. JOHNSON, FEDERAL AFFAIRS 

MANAGER, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM 

STATEMENT OF MARY ANN WRIGHT 

Ms. WRIGHT. Chairman Markey, Congressman Sensenbrenner, 

and the rest of the members, thank you very much for inviting us 

here to tell you what we are doing with our Recovery matching 

grant; and I also appreciate that you did it today because I have 

to head back to Milwaukee and greet all of my new employees in 

Milwaukee that we are hiring as a result of the work we are doing 

in the United States. 

I have three things that I want to talk about. One is the state 

of the industry in general, number two is what we are doing with 

our stimulus grant, and number three is the challenges that we 

face. 

I think you have a packet of some pictures. It is also in the written testimony, and I would like to kind of talk you through this. 

Because if you look at this, what should pop out at you is it is a 

pretty scary picture. 

If you take a look over in the right, a cell, which is this—and 

there is about 100 to 200 of them in these electric vehicles—50 to 

75 percent of the value is in the cell. All of these materials come 

from virtually the Pacific Rim who has a stranglehold on the supply base. Over on the left-hand side is the system, and that is 

where we put the cells and integrate it and put it into the vehicle. 

And if you think about this for a minute, if we don’t change this, 

we will change our oil cartel, our OPEC oil cartel for an Asian battery cartel. And to scare you a little bit more, our Pacific Rim 

friends aren’t standing still. They continue to invest in manufacturing capability, technology, and capacity. 

In 2008, Johnson Controls opened up the world’s first lithium ion 

manufacturing facility for automobiles in Nersac, France, in 2008. 

Out of that facility, we supply on a mass production scale Daimler 

and BMW. For pre-production, we support our customers Ford, 

Azure Dynamics, Jaguar, Land Rover, and Volkswagen. 

In 2009, we were the recipient of a stimulus grant. And the key 

thing that I would like you to take away—and Congressman Inslee, 

you stole my thunder—and the fact is, in the absence of this grant, 

we would not have expanded our manufacturing in the United 

States. We were looking in Europe and in Asia, but, because of this 

action, we are going to build our first manufacturing facility in Holland, Michigan. As a matter of fact, it is up. We are retrofitting it, 

and we will begin production later this year for one of our customers and begin full-scale cell production next year. We are moving fast, we are moving decisively, and we are very encouraged by 

the actions that the legislature has taken. 

I think also—and it may be something Congressman Inslee 

doesn’t know—that by 2012 we will move and transition all of our 

European production into this U.S. facility, and I think that is a 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
11 

real feather in our cap versus what is typically happening in our 

economy. 

When we were awarded our grants, our commitment wasn’t just 

to put up a plant but that we would help stand up an industry; and 

that involves everything from our raw materials suppliers all the 

way to our end-of-life recycling infrastructure. 

Johnson Controls presently is the largest provider of your starter 

batteries and the largest recycler of these batteries as well, so we 

are going to build on those capabilities of a long-standing, mature 

company and industry to be able to transition that into lithium ion. 

But if you think about the materials for a moment, as I said, 

most of those comes from the Pacific Rim. One of our commitments 

is to develop a domestic supply base. I am very happy to let you 

know that we have recruited two Asian suppliers to the United 

States who will be setting up business in Michigan and supplying 

the U.S. market. We need to continue to develop a domestic supply 

base as well. 

We have great partners in Ford Motor Company, Azure, Daimler, 

BMW. We have terrific long-standing partnerships with Argonne 

National Laboratory in Oakridge to continue our work on our technology. 

In Milwaukee, which is our headquarters for this business, we 

have stood up a team called the accelerator team, which I lead; and 

our job is to accelerate the demand creation and the technology and 

innovation so that we can have a sustainable business that does 

not rely on subsidies and incentives, that can be profitable. 

So while we have customers, this is terrific. We have some great 

partners. We have an issue. And one of the graphs that I gave you 

was the demand. And if you take a look out in the 2015 time 

frame, we believe there will be about 4 million units of global capacity versus 2 million units of demand. In North America alone, 

there will be about 2 million units of capacity and 800,000 units 

of demand. We have got to find a way to fill that gap. 

Transition of government fleets is going to be an important piece 

of that because, one, it allows us to drive scale, which is a key part 

of our business equation and, number two, we have over a million 

units in these fleets in the GSA and Postal Service which are perfectly suited because—I am running out of time. 

Respectfully, I want to leave you with one key piece, however, is 

that we need to make sure we leverage these recovery investments 

as we transition these fleets and as we build our industry. 

Shouldn’t we give preference to vehicles that are built with batteries and electric drive components that come from investments 

that we made here in the United States so that we don’t allow 

these vehicles and this industry to transition from a Middle Eastern OPEC to an Asian battery cartel? 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Wright follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
12 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 62521A.003
13 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 62521A.004
14 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 62521A.005
15 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 62521A.006
16 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 62521A.007
17 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 62521A.008
18 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 62521A.009
19 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 62521A.010
20 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 62521A.011
21 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, and thank you for telling 

us something Jay Inslee doesn’t know. That is a first in this committee. 

Our next witness is Paul Gaynor, who is the CEO of First Wind, 

an independent company focused on the development, ownership, 

and operation of wind farms. Mr. Gaynor has over 20 years of experience in the energy industry and has been involved in the financing of these projects around the world. 

We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL GAYNOR 

Mr. GAYNOR. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member 

Sensenbrenner, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

My name is Paul Gaynor. I am the CEO of First Wind, a U.S.- 

owned, independent wind energy company based in Massachusetts. 

We are focused on the development, financing, construction, ownership, and operation of utility-scale wind farms in the United States. 

We have been in business since 2002, and today we operate about 

500 megawatts of clean, renewable wind power through six operating projects in Maine, New York, Utah, and Hawaii. Currently, 

we are wrapping up construction on our seventh project, the 

Stetson II expansion in Maine. All in all, these facilities represent 

an investment of approximately $1.2 billion. 

First Wind currently employs over 200 professionals in nine 

States in this new industry. In the communities that we work, we 

also rely heavily on people in these communities with local knowledge in order to properly site, build, and operate wind farms. Our 

projects generate significant amounts of employment and economic 

activity, which I will cover in more detail shortly. 

I have been asked to address the impact of the clean energy provisions of the Recovery Act on our company; and the answer, in 

short, is the Recovery Act has been profoundly important to our 

ability to continue to grow and to make investments in renewable 

energy facilities. This has also resulted in approximately 1,000 jobs 

in 2009, and we expect a similar number in 2010. 

The convertible investment tax credit, or ITC, has had the most 

impact with the collapse of the credit markets in 2008. Sources of 

capital practically dried up overnight. As a relevant example, we 

lost a $140 million firm commitment from Lehman Brothers for a 

project that was under construction in New York. Then Lehman 

filed for bankruptcy, and the commitment was lost. At that point, 

all sources of capital were frozen; and an analysis by the American 

Wind Energy Association shows that in 2009 wind power development might drop as much as 50 percent from the 2008 levels. 

Fortunately, Congress and the Obama administration recognized 

the threat that this extraordinary economic turmoil presented to 

our industry and responded with urgency and effectiveness. Thanks 

in large part to the clean energy provisions of the Recovery Act, the 

U.S. wind industry broke all previous records by installing nearly 

10,000 megawatts in 2009, as the chairman noted in his opening 

comments. The Recovery Act provided the help we needed when we 

needed it. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
22 

During 2009, First Wind completed construction of wind facilities 

in Maine, New York, and Utah and began construction on another 

project in Maine. In partnership with our general contractors, RMT 

in Wisconsin, Mortenson Construction in Minnesota, and Reed & 

Reed in Maine, we created over 1,000 jobs during the construction 

of these facilities. And without the convertible tax credit program, 

the construction job creation and long-lasting economic impacts 

would not have happened. 

Using the Stetson projects and the ongoing expansion as an ex- ample, the combined facility represents a $220 million investment, 

with over 130 local named businesses providing goods and services 

during the development and construction phases, about 550 construction jobs in both phases. 

For another example, I draw your attention to the pamphlet that 

I have handed out which outlines the economic benefits of our 200 

megawatt Milford wind project in Utah. In this project, over 60 

local businesses participated, creating 250 jobs on site and supporting an additional 200 jobs in the region. 

Additionally, because of the Recovery Act, we have been aggressive in forging ahead with our business plans in 2010 and beyond. 

We plan to construct a second phase in Utah plus additional 

projects in Maine, Vermont, New York, and Hawaii, representing 

an additional 300 megawatts of power capacity and an incremental 

$650 million of new investment in this sector. 

The success of the program has importantly sent a strong signal 

to the capital markets and mobilized significant incremental capital. In our case, the Recovery Act funding has spurred an additional $695 million of our own equity and loans from banks. We expect a similar impact on our 2010 plans. 

Wind power is a capital-intensive business; and, thus, the opportunity to use Recovery Act funding to leverage significant private 

investment has been extraordinarily effective and important. 

Additionally, I want to let you know that last week Secretary 

Chu announced that one of our projects has received a conditional 

commitment from the DOE under the Innovative Loan Guarantee 

Program. The Kahuku project in Hawaii uses an innovative battery 

storage system to address some of the wind integration issues facing the local utility. 

We encourage Congress to follow the leadership of Chairman 

Markey and others on this committee who are trying to foster a 

more stable and predictable investment and regulatory climate for 

renewable energy. In particular, we hope Congress will make it a 

priority to extend the convertible tax credits this year. Access to 

capital has improved, but it remains far short of pre-financial collapse conditions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to take part in this hearing. I look 

forward to answering your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Gaynor follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
23 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 62521A.012
24 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 62521A.013
25 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 62521A.014
26 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 62521A.015
27 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 62521A.016
28 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 62521A.017
29 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 62521A.018
30 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Our next witness is Lisa Patt-McDaniel. She is the Director of 

the Ohio Department of Development, and she leads efforts to accelerate Ohio’s economic growth through development of highgrowth industries. She oversees Ohio’s Recovery Act efficiency programs, including weatherization. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF LISA PATT-McDANIEL 

Ms. PATT-MCDANIEL. Thank you, Chairman Markey. I want to 

thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on behalf 

of Governor Strickland and myself. 

The Ohio Department of Development is responsible for distributing $512 million in stimulus funding through a variety of programs ranging from homeless assistance to renewable energy deployment. Ohio’s nationally recognized home weatherization assistance program is administered by our Department’s Community Development Division and specifically our Office of Community Services. We are providing assistance for citizens whose annual household income is at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty 

guidelines. 

The State’s weatherization budget from the Federal stimulus is 

$266 million. More than 32,000 housing units will be weatherized 

during the 3-year grant period and more families will get the help 

they sorely need and local businesses will see an increase in sales 

of materials, supplies, and trucks to carry out the larger program. 

Ohio’s process for utilizing weatherization resources effectively 

and expeditiously is one of the reasons I have the honor of speaking to you today. Ohio was recently recognized by the USDOE as 

leading the Nation in spending Recovery Act dollars to weatherize 

homes, with Ohio completing more than one in five of the projects 

reported nationally last year. 

Since July, 2009, our State has weatherized over 8,100 homes. 

Dwellings weatherized to date represent 103 percent of our 

planned production so far, meaning that we have weatherized an 

additional 204 additional units than originally planned. And, importantly, the additional support for our weatherization program 

has required the creation of another thousand jobs and retained 

1,500 jobs as of December of 2009. 

We believe there are several reasons why our State was able to 

ramp up and respond to the needs of our citizens so quickly. Just 

to highlight, we have an excellent weatherization network. We 

have a large list of eligible households that we had before the Recovery Act was passed. We have an excellent Ohio weatherization 

training center. It is run by a corporation for Ohio, Appalachian 

Development; and we established three training hubs so we can 

train people to work in these jobs quickly. And, importantly, we instructed our providers to go ahead and start weatherizing homes 

with these funds as of July 1st, knowing that we would have to 

make up our staff salaries and retroactively adjust them once the 

prevailing wage rates were issued by the Department of Energy. 

By reducing household energy expenditures, increasing energy 

efficiency, and increasing the safety of homes owned or occupied by 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
31 

low-income Ohioans, we have a foundation to make our State a 

cleaner, more efficient place to live. 

There are several important programs that complement our efforts to create jobs and promote energy efficiency, and these are 

through the State energy program, which received $96 million of 

Recovery assistance. We designed programs through that set of 

money to stimulate the economy through the retention and creation 

of jobs, saving energy, increasing generation from renewable energy 

projects, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

I am going to briefly touch on the programs that we designed with that $96 million, but the programs were meant to support our 

aggressive renewable energy portfolio. It is the third most aggressive portfolio in the Nation, and we wanted to make sure that we 

created jobs with a focus of the expenditure of these programs. 

We set up a Deploying Renewable Energy in Ohio Initiative which is investing more than $42 million of those funds through renewable deployment projects focusing on strengthening Ohio’s 

manufacturing industry, transforming waste to value by capitalizing on what would otherwise by considered waste by-products 

from Ohio’s agricultural and food production industries and turning 

it into a source of renewable energy. We took $8 million and allocated it to making efficiency work 

through grants to help fund greater energy efficiency projects. Our 

targeting industry efficiency program provides for $15 million in 

grants to manufacturing companies seeking to improve the sustainability of Ohio’s industry. The banking on new energy financing, 

which we also call the Ohio Energy Gateway Fund, is a privatepublic partnership which will expand access to capital to grow and 

sustain the fuel cell, solar, wind, and energy storage industries in 

Ohio; and, finally, setting the stage for Ohio’s Carbon Management 

Strategy Initiative, which is allocating $500,000 to organize an integrated collaborative planning process to address energy policy. 

The announcement of the targeted industry efficiency portion of 

the State energy program will create an estimated 217 jobs across 

the States. 

In conclusion, I would just like to say that we are building on 

the foundation with the Recovery Act funds, and they have been 

very important to us in promoting Ohio’s economy. 

I thank the Chairman and the ranking member and the committee members for having me speak today. 

[The statement of Ms. Patt-McDaniel follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
32 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 62521A.019
33 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 62521A.020
34 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 62521A.021
35 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 62521A.022
36 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 62521A.023
37 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 62521A.024
38 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 62521A.025
39 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Our next witness is Brian Ashley. He is the chief Marketing Officer of the solar company Suniva and has most recently led Suniva’s 

emergence into the Indian and European solar photovoltaic markets. 

STATEMENT OF BRYAN ASHLEY 

Mr. ASHLEY. Thank you very much. I am very proud and honored 

to be here before the committee today. 

Suniva is a great American jobs and export success story. We 

manufacture some of the world’s most efficient and highest power 

silicon solar cells and modules, and we use low-cost and manufacturing techniques to do so. Therefore, we can beat the Chinese at 

their own game. 

In fact, this is what we make in Norcross, Georgia. It is about 

4.3 watts when the sun shines on it; and, Mr. Chairman, I will be 

happy to give this to you. You can tape it on the module that you 

have in your office and modernize it a little bit. 

Suniva was spun out of the Department of Energy funded University Center for Excellence in Photovoltaics at Georgia Tech University with a deep patent portfolio of American patents and technology and access to one of the best solar labs in the world for our 

research and development. It is a great example of governmentalfunded research helping create U.S. industry leadership and 150 

new jobs since 2007 when we were founded. Very good, well-paying 

jobs, I might add. 

We currently have a hundred megawatts of capacity in our plant 

in Atlanta, and we do produce the highest efficiency at low cost 

solar cells in the world. We produce 18 percent efficiency cells 

today. Most of our competitors are at about 16.8 percent. And that 

efficiency, of course, represents the amount of sunlight actually 

converted to electricity. 

We expanded in 2009. We added 80 new direct jobs, provided 

over 200 indirect jobs, and spent $19 million on new equipment for 

our lines. We received 48C credits of $5.7 million for that investment, and we thank you very much. This was very important to 

the expansion and being able to add these jobs sooner than we 

would have been able to. 

Domestic demand has also been stimulated for solar thanks to 

the Treasury’s 1603 provisions which gave us the additional confidence to move up the expansion dates earlier than planned, as 

well as for our plant, too, which I will mention in a minute. And 

the demand there is turning into real business here in the United 

States. We currently employ many former auto workers and managers from shuttered GM and Ford plants in the Atlanta metro 

area; and 24 percent of our workforce are veterans, mostly from the 

Iraq war. 

We exported 90 percent of our 2009 production. We are beating 

the Chinese. I exported to India, China, South Africa, even to Taiwan. 

The first grid-connected solar farm in India in the state of West 

Bengal is powered by Suniva cells manufactured by workers in 

Norcross, Georgia, instead of Shanghai. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
40 

Currently, the second largest solar farm in India in Karnataka 

state, which Prime Minister Singh will dedicate this month himself, is also powered by American technology made in Norcross, 

Georgia. 

The roof of the new sports stadium in New Delhi, which will be 

home to the commonwealth games, has 1.1 megawatts of Suniva 

cells. 

We have power fields in Germany, Italy, and France powered by 

Suniva; and the list is growing. 

We plan to export at least 85 percent of our production this year, 

which is greatly expanded from last year—if we can expand quick 

enough. 

Our problem is we are sold out. We have had to turn away new 

export customers since last December, unfortunately, including another Chinese company that wants to buy my products. We have 

had to impose limits on the allocations to our current customers. 

I was in India three weeks ago on a U.S. Commerce Department 

Trade mission and had to turn business away. I am sad to say that 

Chinese and Taiwanese workers will benefit from that and get that 

business rather than more U.S. workers. 

The Chinese and Taiwanese are very, very serious about owning 

the solar PV value chain which we in this country have neglected 

far too long; And they will own it like they own many other manufacturing industries if we don’t continue to do what you started to 

do in the last year to help support us. 

There are many high, very large, well-funded Asian businesses 

that are trying very hard to do what we do. Right now, we are the 

only ones who do what we do with our technology, but they will 

catch up with us. They will figure it out. And we have got to stay 

ahead of them. But we have also got to spend money on expanding 

and creating new jobs to meet that customer demand. It is a big 

tradeoff, and right now it is hard to borrow money still. It is damn 

hard to borrow money still, I am sorry to say. 

We are currently building out a 30,000 square foot physical extension to our facility in Atlanta right now, adding a new 70-megawatt line. That is 50 new direct jobs we are hiring right now and 

200 indirect jobs in construction. An extension of extra funding in 

48(c) like the President has asked for will help us a lot, especially 

if it is refundable quickly so we can turn it into cash. We would 

immediately apply if that were to happen. Reasonable financing is 

very hard to get. 

We are planning our second plant, a 400 megawatt initial capacity plant in Saginaw, Michigan, 500 direct jobs, 21,000 indirect jobs 

according to Michigan Economic Development. It will go to a 

gigawatt eventually. We are awaiting word right now from the 

DOE on a loan guarantee so we can break ground and start this. 

Again, if 48C were expanded and refundable, like 1603, we would 

put in an application ASAP for that equipment. 

Other areas where you could help create more clean tech jobs are 

in RPS and certainly in national feed and tariff would be extremely 

helpful. 

We are competing against the Chinese. We need U.S.-based solar 

industries as a matter of national security, I believe. I invite all of 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
41 

you to come to Atlanta, see our facility and see the jobs. See the 

former auto workers and the veterans working there. It is real. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Ashley follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
42 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 62521A.026
43 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 62521A.027
44 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 62521A.028
45 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 62521A.029
46 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 62521A.030
47 

The CHAIRMAN. Our final witness today is Mr. Brian M. Johnson. 

He is the Federal Affairs Manager for Americans for Tax Reform 

and is the Executive Director of the Alliance for Worker Freedom. 

Welcome, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN M. JOHNSON 

Mr. JOHNSON. Good morning, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Sensenbrenner. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 

you today to discuss the effects of the Recovery Act on our economy 

with respect to green job creation. 

Government spending of this magnitude cannot stimulate our 

economy. Every dollar spent attempting to force the market toward 

a specific sector is subject to taxation and must be first borrowed 

out of our economy. The result is a redistribution of existing purchasing power, rather than the creation of new purchasing power. 

This spending creates less economic activity than if the money had 

been left with private-sector investors. 

The goal was to create 3.6 million jobs, according to the administration’s own estimates. Since signed into law, we have lost 3.3 million jobs. According to Recovery.gov, there were 440 non-existing 

congressional districts that saved or created false jobs to the tune 

of $225,000 per job. Any potential impact the recovery package 

brought to the economy was virtually negated by the application of 

a 1931 market-distorting wage law known as the Davis-Bacon Act. 

Investigators from the Office of Inspector General found that, 

quote, one or more errors existed in 100 percent of the wage reports they reviewed. 

The Davis-Bacon Act inflates wages on average by 22 percent nationwide and construction costs by almost 10 percent. Application 

of this wage law added $17 billion to the Recovery Act and is impeding efficient implementation of the weatherization program nationwide. Mismanagement of the Recovery Act not only encompasses wasting money in the United States, but much of the money 

spent actually creates jobs overseas. Eighty percent of the first 

$1 billion spent on grants to wind energy companies went to foreign firms. In the second round of government grants, 79 percent 

of the $2.1 billion went to wind energy companies based overseas. 

The renewable energy policy project estimates that for 1 megawatt of wind energy that is developed, 4.3 jobs are created. The 

1,219 turbines built by foreign-owned manufacturers have potential 

capacity of 2,280 megawatts. Using their estimate, the installation 

of these turbines may have created as many as 6,838 manufacturing jobs overseas. 

Domestically, the market-altering subsidization has the same 

economic effects. The Mohave Desert solar power project received 

$1.4 billion from the Recovery Act. Construction of that facility required a thousand workers but only 86 permanent employees to 

run the plant. That is $16 million in taxpayer subsidies per permanent job. 

In Florida, the DeSoto solar center was to be the, quote, largest 

solar power plant in the U.S., according to President Obama. The 

center received $150 million from the Recovery Act. After using 400 

construction workers to build the site, the solar center now only 

employs two people. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
48 

The single largest wind grant under the program reported by the Department of Energy on December 29th was $178 million for the 

Texas gulf wind farm in Sarita, Texas. All 118 turbines erected on 

the farm were built by Mitsubishi, a Japanese firm that does not 

build wind components in the United States. 

Perhaps the most evident use of mismanagement and inherent 

inefficiencies lie in the failed weatherization program. While some 

States have experienced success, national results have been dismal. 

The Recovery Act provided $5 billion to weatherize 593,000 homes. 

ABC News reports that less than 10,000 homes have been weatherized nationwide, while the Department of Energy claims 22,000 

homes have been impacted, which is still less than 4 percent of the 

targeted goal. 

So far, the Inspector General found the jobs impact has, quote, 

not materialized and the application of the costly Davis-Bacon requirement costs $57,000 per home weatherized nationwide on a national average. 

A State-by-State look exposes the localized impact of this flawed national program. New York has $394 million available to weatherize 45,400 units but only did 280. Alaska, Rhode Island, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C., were given over $50 million combined 

to weatherize homes. To date, zero homes have been impacted. 

The biggest expenditure in the stimulus weatherization program is $270 million. Not one penny of that went to actual home weatherization but was given to the Department of Energy to administer 

grants. 

The Recovery Act was supposed to be timely, effective, and show 

immediate results. The realization is that using the invisible hand 

of the government to artificially tilt the economy will never be sustainable. Responsible solutions should remove barriers for private 

investment and should incorporate an all-of-the-above energy approach using a diverse blend of sources without raising taxes or increasing the regulatory burden. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today, and I look 

forward to answering any questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
49 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 62521A.031
50 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 62521A.032
51 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 62521A.033
52 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 62521A.034
53 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. You spoke so fast you left yourself 30 seconds over. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank all of you for your testimony. 

I am a little concerned. We just had economic output rise at the 

slowest level this past decade since any decade since 1930, which 

means we have a serious challenge. And I am curious, Mr. Johnson, if you are criticizing government subsidies in the development 

of energy technology—and then make sure that you are—is that 

correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Do you ever find it necessary to criticize government subsidy of the oil industry? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The term ‘‘subsidy’’ has been thrown around a lot. 

One of the things a lot of industries benefit from are tax cuts. For 

example, section 199 is the domestic manufacturer’s tax deduction 

that all companies who manufacture domestically in the United 

States get. 

Mr. CLEAVER. We only have 5 minutes. Are you equally upset 

that we have subsidized the oil industry approximately $150 billion 

at least from 1968 to the year 2000, 150 billion, we don’t have decades of subsidization so that I am sure, does that bother you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. I think targeted spending toward any industry is flawed. 

Mr. CLEAVER. So let me suggest what should we do when we 

have an economic downturn, should we say we are not helping create any new jobs, we are going to sit around and remain happy and 

allow the rest of the world to overtake us? What would you have 

done had you been sitting in the room with the people I named earlier? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. You can create jobs without targeted spending. One of the ways which I mentioned was tax cuts. You can 

freeze spending and rescind unspent stimulus funds. You can reform regulations to reduce unnecessary business costs. And if you 

are intent on spending, you can make sure it is done efficiently and 

effectively by suspending all Davis-Bacon Act requirements. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Are you aware that 30 percent of ARRA were tax 

cuts? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thirty percent, yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. You were aware of that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. So you don’t support that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I support the tax cut component. The majority of 

the plan was spending, $836 billion. 

Mr. CLEAVER. So we should have done a stimulus package that 

wasn’t, in fact, a tax cut package? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Think we should have done the tax cuts without 

the targeted spending. 

Mr. CLEAVER. So we should have had a stimulus package without 

a tax cut? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not supportive of a stimulus package at all. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Including the tax cuts? 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
54 

Mr. JOHNSON. The tax cuts as part of the package—the tax cuts 

I support. Tax cuts in general I support. The stimulus in terms of 

targeted massive government spending programs— 

Mr. CLEAVER. But the tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the 

economy. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The tax cuts are not spending. The part of—most 

of the stimulus package was direct spending which came into the 

market in favor of targeted certain industries. 

Mr. CLEAVER. So you don’t support tax cuts? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I support tax cuts. I oppose targeted spending. 

They are two separate components. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I understand clearly what they are. But I am saying you said you support tax cuts, but you don’t support any stimulus. I am telling you the tax cuts were a part of the stimulus and 

you are saying, so I just want to know what you support. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I support tax cuts and not massive government 

spending. 

Mr. CLEAVER. So after we put the tax cuts in, that should have 

been the bill we approved? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The bill should have been a broad based massive 

tax cut bill with no government spending. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Okay. And so what about the fact that the rest of 

the world is taking off in terms of their technology in energy and 

what about the people who lost jobs, 8.4 million, 8.4 million just 

since the recession started? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are continuing to lose jobs. The stimulus package has not done anything near to what the economists predicted 

and what the administration said. The international experience 

hasn’t been always positive. Spain, Germany, and Denmark have 

experienced extreme job losses in direct relation to targeted government subsidies with respect toward the Green JOBS Act. Only one 

in 10 of the jobs created through green investment is permanent 

in Spain. Germany is experiencing the same thing. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Now you do recognize that Spain is a whole ’nother 

industry that relates to deficits and debt and the Euro. Let’s talk 

about another country. Let’s not do Spain. Spain is having some 

problems like Greece, but I just want to deal with, I am trying to 

get, if you had been sitting in this seat, what you said let’s just forget everybody, forget everything, let’s just have some more tax 

cuts, that by the way were passed without any kind of means of 

making up for the tax loss. Would that have been your policy? 

Mr. JOHNSON. If I was sitting in that chair right now there were 

several things I would have done. Passing a massive spending bill 

is not one of them. Repealing the Davis-Bacon Act, enacting other 

reforms, making government more transparent, extending drilling 

areas. There are ways to reduce our energy independence and extend security. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Okay, my last statement because my time is running out. Economists say that had wages kept up with the rising 

cost of living, that minimum wage today would be $20.65 an hour. 

So I am coming out of public housing, I am concerned about everyday human beings who are losing their jobs and suffering and now 

have the opportunity to get a job doing weatherization. And they 

are doing it in my district, so it is not like a phantom job. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
55 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair 

recognizes the gentlelady from West Virginia, Mrs. Capito. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses 

here today. Just for bit of a background, I represent the State of 

West Virginia, which we know is a very energy rich State in natural resources. Since the stimulus bill was passed our unemployment has gone from, in January of 2009, 6.7 to up over 10.5 percent and it is steadily climbing, a source of great concern for us in 

our State. 

I am interested on a couple of issues. First of all, the statement 

by Mr. Johnson that and, Mr. Gaynor, you may be able to help 

with this, that 80 percent of the dollars that went for wind production were for foreign companies that are manufacturing overseas. 

I noticed in your statement you said you buy your components from 

domestic manufacturing. Can you help me with that? 

Mr. GAYNOR. We have historically, since we have been building 

our business we have historically bought turbines from General 

Electric and Clipper Wind Power, which are both domestic suppliers. 

Mrs. CAPITO. But the statement about, would you say generally 

speaking that most of the wind production jobs are in terms of 

making the actual turbines and stuff overseas, is that correct? 

Mr. GAYNOR. AWEA has actually released some data that shows 

for all of the 1603 dollars, those projects I think were a total of 53 

percent of the components, were actually sourced domestically. 

Mrs. CAPITO. So that 47 percent went overseas. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thirty-seven. 

Mr. GAYNOR. The trend of where it was back in 2005 I think the 

number was 25 percent, and just anecdotally new wind power companies, Clipper is a good example, it is home grown here in the 

U.S., they have added manufacturing facility. Vestas, which is a 

large Danish manufacturer, has also made a very large manufacturing commitment in Colorado. So although the number, I think 

53 percent is—it is true that means 47 percent is coming from 

overseas—I think the trend is certainly favorable. 

My view is one of the things that is making that happen is the 

Recovery Act. 

Mrs. CAPITO. I think that certainly in my State we are being told 

that we need to wean ourselves from fossil energy fuel production, 

and I wanted to ask from Mr. Ashley to in Norcross, Georgia, what 

is the energy, how do you generate your power in your manufacturing facility? How is it generated? 

Mr. ASHLEY. We buy our power from a local utility. 

Mrs. CAPITO. And how do they generate their power? Is it natural gas, coal, nuclear? 

Mr. ASHLEY. I believe it is a combination of coal, gas and nuclear. 

It is Georgia Power, which is owned by the Southern Company. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Disturbing in your testimony in my viewpoint is 

that you have opportunity for business expansion that you said you 

just saw 3 weeks ago in India, and you were unable to take advantage of that. If we are being told that we need to replace our fossil 

fuel jobs with green jobs and you can’t expand your business and 

we are buying components from all around the world and not in 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
56 

the United States, how can we reasonably think that the replacement of coal miners and others is going to take place here in this 

country when obviously we are not competing well internationally. 

This is the question I have, that if we are going to have the green 

jobs in our country and our States that are going to be penalized 

under a cap-and-trade proposal, how are we going to attract these 

jobs into our States. 

Mr. ASHLEY. Well, I can’t comment. I don’t propose taking jobs 

away from coal miners at all. We need renewable energy because 

we need a combination of all energy sources to meet the world’s 

needs, and that is here in the United States. 

Mrs. CAPITO. I couldn’t agree more. 

Mr. ASHLEY. A 3-megawatt project that we are doing in India 

right now is bringing irrigation to people for the first time ever because of the locational flexibility of solar. It is not just about the 

U.S. 

The U.S. could do a heck of a lot more, especially in Georgia, but 

a lot of people have fought it so long. Look, we need power especially, peak shaving power, Congresslady. It is not taking jobs away 

from somebody. It is not a zero sum game, I don’t believe. 

Mr. GAYNOR. I would certainly add to that and echo the same 

sentiment. Where we are building wind farms we are not taking 

away jobs from people that operate nuclear plants or natural gas 

plants, hydro plants, solar plants. These are new jobs that are 

being created. 

And also from a wind perspective, wind is not the only solution, 

renewables are not the only solution. Nuclear, coal, clean coal especially, is all part of the solution. So I don’t see them as replacing. 

It is not a zero sum game. It is additive. That has been our experience. 

Mrs. CAPITO. I agree. I do think this is where I think we are in 

agreement here. I would like to say even though I did not vote for 

the stimulus package, I in my district do have a very expansive 

clean coal carbon sequestration experimentation going on right now 

at the A P plant, the Mountaineer plant on the Ohio River, right 

across the river from you. So I am very hopeful this will result in 

the technology and in the investment that will give us that all-ofthe-above energy plan so that we can expand our solar, expand our 

wind but still keep our baseload energy going. 

So thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlelady’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Speier. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson, in your exchange with Mr. Cleaver, you spoke 

about the tax credits or I should say the tax cuts that you supported, and I think it is really important when you speak up on 

this issue that you be knowledgeable. The actual ARRA funding, 

the largest amount of money in ARRA is for tax cuts. It is $288 

billion in tax cuts. The next largest amount is $275 billion which 

is, in fact, the money that is being distributed to try and create 

jobs. And then the third area is $224 billion, which is unemployment benefits. 

Now do you not support extending unemployment benefits and 

COBRA benefits for people who are out of work? 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
57 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, I do not. 

Ms. SPEIER. So two-thirds of the recovery bill you support. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I support tax cuts when they are a stand-alone tax 

cut. If they are coupled with other measures the economic offset is 

far too great. The spending component of this bill completely skews 

the economy. These jobs would not be created. They are saying 

they are not taking jobs away from other people and, with all due 

respect, you need this money to create these jobs or the private sector would not create them on their own, which means they are not 

there yet. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I would like to give an opportunity to all of the other participants on the panel to respond 

to Mr. Johnson’s criticisms and of your specific programs, if you 

would. 

Mr. Ashley. 

Mr. ASHLEY. Yes, just last week we were voted by the Wall 

Street Journal, we were named Number 2 VC-backed company in 

renewable energy and this week we were ranked Number 15 in the 

Wall Street Journal’s top 50. There are people wanting to give us 

money in the private sector as well, but we need help from the government right now to expand faster and quicker just because debt 

is in such terrible shape in this country. Solar is getting, because 

of efficiency work that companies like us are doing much, much, 

much, more competitive in the market. And the people that are the 

antagonists of solar constantly use old pricing. They misuse the 

technology. When they are making comparisons of thin films in solars they use one technology to represent all of solar in a particular 

situation. It has changed a lot, and it is very viable. It is getting 

more viable. 

But if we are serious about not letting the Chinese, the Taiwanese, and others own this industry, we need to do more here, 

just like they are doing. They think it is important. They are investing a heck of a lot of money. The rest of the world thinks it 

is important. We should, too. That is my point. 

Ms. SPEIER. A follow-up question, Mr. Ashley. When the Section 

1603 program expires, are you going to be able to continue to finance and construct in your industry? 

Mr. ASHLEY. I believe so because of our worldwide demand, yes. 

I wish 1603 would continue to be expanded just to expand domestic 

demand for solar because it is good for the industry, et cetera, at 

this point in time. But the key right now is the financial situation 

that banks are in in lending, borrowing money, you can’t get 

money. Even with a very positive scenario, the interest rates they 

want to charge you and the terms are very onerous and it is still 

very difficult. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you. Ms. Wright. 

Ms. WRIGHT. Well, I think quite simply if you take a look at 

where we believe the transportation industry is going to go in an 

uncertain time frame, whether it is over the next 5 years or 50 

years, there is an awful lot of risk and technological uncertainty 

around how we will transport ourselves around, and the fact is the 

United States does not have the infrastructure to be prepared to 

make that transition. Over the past several decades we have allowed our manufacturing base to erode, become a service economy. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
58 

And frankly, while we are technology leaders we allow the countries around the world to implement it and commercialize it, and 

so from our perspective, one, we would not have been coming to the 

United States to do this. Two, we need to continue to expand our 

R&D and technological capabilities so that we cannot only catch up 

but start to lead. And that is risky. And private sector is not going 

to bear that cost all by itself. We are going to need strong collaboration with the government, and that is going to be skin in the 

game for private sector, skin in the game for the government as 

well. 

So from our perspective we are a for profit company and we are 

for allowing market forces to take their course, but there are unnatural events and disruptive events taking place that are going to 

change how we get ourselves around and we have to do it as a 

partnership. 

Ms. SPEIER. Ms. Patt-McDaniel, there were a lot of statistics that 

Mr. Johnson was spewing out that would suggest that weatherization is not working. 

Ms. PATT-MCDANIEL. Well, same as we weatherized over 8,100 

homes, and I would be the last person who has personally walked 

into those homes and seen the families who have benefited that 

this was not a worthwhile program. As far as Davis-Bacon, only 30 

percent of our agencies had to adjust their payroll, which meant 

that those jobs were well paying in the first place. So Davis-Bacon 

certainly hasn’t hampered the program. The adjustments were not 

significant. 

And I think that I would be the last person also to say to the 

1,000 men and women who were trained and are now working with 

a trade to weatherize homes shouldn’t have had those programs 

and that we shouldn’t have had the recovery money and that they 

shouldn’t have had the opportunity to provide for their families. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has expired. Mr. Gaynor may or may not have a comment. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have time. Go ahead. 

Mr. GAYNOR. Thank you. From our perspective, if we take a long 

view on the policy of getting this country towards independent, 

more energy independent, then what the Recovery Act did in the 

short term is send a signal to the capital markets that the government is going to put some skin in the game, and that is certainly 

what happened. And I would argue that it was a crucial bridge 

that the government provided in the 1603. And from a long-term 

policy perspective, I think if you—again if we want to hit the energy independence targets and renewable energy targets you are 

going to need a policy that is sustainable and sends a signal to the 

capital markets, where most, if not all, of the money is going to 

come from over the long term, that the policies are there both at 

the Federal level and the State level. So that is certainly where we 

see the long-term play on the policy. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Gentlelady’s time is expired. 

So, we had a great year in 2009. People were predicting that 

wind was going to just go right off a cliff, that we were going to 

drop from 8,400 new megawatts of electrical generation from wind 

in 2008 and because we were deep in a recession, because the economic climate was not good, that perhaps we could go down to only 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
59 

4,000 megawatts of new winds that was generated in the United 

States. But then, because of the stimulus bill, we wound up producing 10,000 new megawatts of wind in the United States. And 

what a great story that is because just for people who aren’t really 

familiar with this, that a nuclear power plant, 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant, you think of a nuclear power plant that you 

might have heard of, Seabrook, Diablo Canyon, you name it, that 

is about 1,000 megawatts, a nuclear power plant. Ten thousand 

new megawatts of wind installed in the United States in 2009 

alone. It went up when everybody predicted it was going to be cut 

in half. And so that is a tremendous story because obviously that 

wind is in the United States of America. Those facilities will be 

going for a long, long time. And as we move to electrifying our 

automotive fleet, the electricity that we are putting into the vehicles will be generated here in the United States. We won’t be importing oil from OPEC. We can tell OPEC we don’t need their oil 

anymore than we need their sand because we are going to start 

generating the electricity for the all-electric vehicles, for the hybrid 

electric vehicles here in the United States. So that is a tremendous 

story. So let me go back over to you, Mr. Johnson, of the $787 billion in the recovery package, $288 billion of the $787 billion were tax 

cuts. So did you support the $288 billion worth of tax cuts? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I support tax cuts on their own, not when they are 

coupled with a massive government spending—— 

The CHAIRMAN. But if we just made it a $288 billion tax break 

program you would support that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Just the tax cuts. 

The CHAIRMAN. So your problem was when we started giving out, 

extending unemployment benefits? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am opposed to unemployment insurance and 

massive government spending programs that tilt the market in 

favor of one sector over another. 

The CHAIRMAN. You didn’t like the unemployment benefit extension in the bill. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am opposed to the unemployment benefit extension, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I think that is important. It is an honest position to have that you oppose unemployment benefits extension. 

We are going to try to strap Congressman Cleaver in over here, 

okay, as he is listening to this. And also the same thing is true for 

extension of health care benefits to people who have lost their 

health care benefits, you also don’t believe that that is a good expenditure of Federal money as well, is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do agree with that. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is a fair—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Unemployment insurance extension has been 

shown by several think tanks and organizations to prolong the unemployment process by making individuals more dependent on the 

Federal Government. And if I can address the statistics I was 

spewing on weatherization—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Spewing? 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
60 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. From the Office of Inspector General, 

a government agency, and they have a table right here and actually in California only .03 percent of units have been weatherized 

out of 43,400 that have been planned. 

The CHAIRMAN. I get it. But let me get back to you, Ms. PattMcDaniel, how many new jobs did you create in Ohio in 2009 from 

the weatherization project? 

Ms. PATT-MCDANIEL. One thousand. And that is as of 2009. We 

are still counting. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is great. So that is a lot of jobs, a lot of people who would not have been able to work. 

So let’s move over to you, Mr. Ashley. That is a great story that 

the wind industry has, 10,000 new megawatts. And what is the 

projection for 2010, Mr. Gaynor, in the wind industry? Then we 

will come to you, Mr. Ashley. 

Mr. GAYNOR. Certainly at least 10,000 new megawatts. 

The CHAIRMAN. At least 10,000 new megawatts? 

Mr. GAYNOR. Certainly, from our perspective, we are building 

slightly less than we put online in 2009 but just ever so slightly, 

but the industry consensus is at least 10,000. 

The CHAIRMAN. So if we did 10,000 megawatts of wind every 

year between now and 2020, that would be 110,000 new megawatts 

of wind on top of the 35,000 megawatts that the United States already has, the 10,000 in 2009, the 8,400 in 2008 and then much 

smaller numbers in the preceding years, but that would wind up 

at 145,000 new megawatts of wind installed in the United States 

by the year 2020 and the entire nuclear industry after decades of 

subsidies from the Federal taxpayers only has 100,000, has a total 

of 100,000 megawatts which is about 18 percent of all electrical 

generating capacity. 

Is that a realistic goal for the wind industry. 

Mr. GAYNOR. I certainly think that wind technology is improving. 

One of the things that everybody is concerned about is what is the 

price, what is the price of delivered wind? And I think with, when 

you, if you want to scale up to that level, doing 10,000 megawatts 

a year, increasing domestic manufacturing, you have to assume 

that with all of that additional capacity that will be built in the 

U.S. that the price per unit will come down, making wind a lot 

more competitive. So if that is certainly true, then you could see 

that the growth could sustain itself. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me go back to the point that I heard you 

make in your testimony, which was that 4 years ago only 25 percent of the components of a wind turbine were made in the United 

States, and in 2009, after the stimulus bill, the recovery package 

passed, it zoomed up to over 50 percent of the component parts of 

a wind turbine were made in the United States, is that correct? 

Mr. GAYNOR. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is a huge turnaround. 

Mr. GAYNOR. Those are the statistics from AWEA based on all 

the 1603 projects, and again we would expect that to continue as 

if you are going to keep adding megawatts, wind turbines are big, 

they are difficult to transport so having them made locally makes 

a lot more sense. 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
61 

The CHAIRMAN. That sounds great. So you are saying during the 

Bush administration 25 percent of wind turbine component parts 

were made in the United States. During the Obama administration 

the percentage doubled to over 50 percent. So that is a huge shift 

from the Bush administration, which was clearly allowing for these 

component parts to be built overseas, that we had to import them 

from other countries. And clearly the Bush administration was just 

turning a blind eye to this incredible drain of revenue. But under 

the Obama position, we now see a dramatic increase in domestic 

production. We see a capacity being built here in our country and 

a turnaround from this Bush administration era perspective that 

had us importing oil from OPEC. 

In fact, President Bush was over there asking the Saudis to 

please produce a couple more million barrels of oil a day in April 

of 2008, even as the wind turbines that we were installing in our 

country were being imported from other countries as well. What a 

disastrous policy for our country. 

So now with this installation of new renewable energy resources 

in our country we see more domestic production, we actually see 

the jobs being created here in our country, and we are seeing a reduction actually in the importation of oil in our country. All of it 

great, especially with these new battery technologies that Ms. 

Wright and Johnson Control are beginning to manufacture here in 

our country which will make it possible for us to have these allelectric vehicles. 

Mr. Gaynor. 

Mr. GAYNOR. I agree with the statements. One other point to 

make is that, again, in order to hit these saturation levels in wind, 

battery technology is going to be a piece of that technical pie as 

well. And as I mentioned in my comments, we were awarded a conditional commitment from the DOE for one of our projects in Hawaii that we are building this year. It is a wind farm on the north 

shore of Oahu coupled with a battery energy storage system that 

is actually made by a domestic manufacturer called eStream 

Power. 

The CHAIRMAN. By the way, in the Waxman-Markey bill, just for the record, we actually included $60 to $100 billion for carbon capture and sequestration technology for the coal industry. But of 

course Peabody Coal is leading the opposition to that bill. Peabody 

Coal. So it is not like we are not trying to help the coal industry. 

We are. But Peabody Coal doesn’t want any part of our comprehensive bill to deal with the issue and so as a result we are not going 

to stop helping the industries that want to move forward. But we 

are not going to allow them, at the same time, the Peabody Coals 

of the world to say, don’t make any progress at all on any front. 

We can’t block—because we can’t make progress on all fronts 

doesn’t mean that we can’t make progress on any front. 

So let me come back to you, Mr. Ashley. Could you give us a little update on the solar industry, how many new megawatts were 

installed in the United States in 2009? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have seen several figures. Between 

450 and 480 megawatts. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know how many were installed in the 

United States in 2008? 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
62 

Mr. ASHLEY. Much less than that. I believe less than 300 

megawatts. 

The CHAIRMAN. So nearly a doubling of solar—— 

Mr. ASHLEY. Substantial increase. 

The CHAIRMAN. Of solar installation in the United States, so almost as you are saying, it is like half of the nuclear power plant 

was installed in solar in the United States in 2009. 

Mr. ASHLEY. Yes, sir, in our industry association the latest numbers look like probably around 10,000 direct, indirect and induced 

jobs in solar in 2009, thanks to the 1603 provisions, and 60 percent 

are—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Now when you say 1603 no one knows what you 

are talking about. They are trying to think of something famous 

that happened in history and they don’t remember getting the right 

answer in the 6th grade, so people have no idea what you are talking about. What is 1603? What would be a good, give us another 

title for 1603 so that people would understand? Explain to your 

mother why this is so important. How would you explain it to her? 

Mr. ASHLEY. It is taking a tax credit, which is a very good idea, 

and making it better because—— 

The CHAIRMAN. What would you call the program? Don’t use the 

word tax credit. 

Mr. ASHLEY. Solar incentive. 

The CHAIRMAN. Solar incentive program, yeah, and so with a 

solar incentive program we were able to double the amount of solar 

in 1 year, produced here in the United States, creating upwards of 

10,000 jobs? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Yes, sir, that is correct. And I think going forward 

it will also be important to develop the domestic industry because 

even some of the foreign, my competitors that are foreign, will 

come here and build plants if the industry is big enough. I don’t 

like that, but it is good healthy competition. Because I tell you Malaysia and China will give me a lot of money and a lot of grants 

to come build a plant like the one in Saginaw, Michigan. 

The CHAIRMAN. So what percent of solar new jobs were created 

here in the United States as part of the Obama stimulus plan? Do 

you know? 

Mr. ASHLEY. I believe the job numbers that I just mentioned. 

The CHAIRMAN. So a very high percentage of all the new jobs 

that were created in the solar area were here in the United States? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Yes. And to be fair, going back to the initial stimulus bill in December of 2008 when the tax credit was extended for 

3 years or several years, et cetera, from that point forward and 

then when the Obama administration came in it really gave the industry a shot in the arm and the confidence to expand. 

The CHAIRMAN. So what I am hearing is that there is a massive 

reindustrialization of the United States going on, that we have 

moved under the Bush era with only 25 percent of wind jobs here 

in the United States, and we import 75 percent, to now it is over 

50 percent of the wind jobs are here in the United States, and the 

percentage keeps going up, as almost each month goes by. I think 

the ultimate goal is that 70 percent of all of the wind jobs will be 

here in the United States by the time the Obama stimulus package 

is completed, and that is a big good news story because people are 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
63 

wondering where are the jobs for the next generation going to come 

from? What is the next new industry in our country? 

So what we are hearing from Mr. Ashley and Mr. Gaynor and 

Ms. Wright are huge good news stories in terms of jobs here for 

Americans. 

And Mr. Johnson seems to support using tax credits to accomplish these goals. He hasn’t voiced any opposition to tax credits creating these incentives. So here we have a huge area of agreement, 

and an agreement—do you agree, Mr. Johnson, that at least in 

these areas that the tax breaks are working and we are creating 

these jobs that are helping to put people back to work in our own 

country? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Tax cuts generally tend to do that, yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is great. So from the perspective of the billions of dollars that are going to be spent in wind and solar and 

batteries and other programs, that is good. You agree with that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Tax credits that stimulate the economy and create 

jobs are good. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is great. So that is a big success story for 

us. And we do understand that you don’t like spending Federal dollars on unemployment insurance for unemployed Americans, but 

what we are trying to, as you can probably appreciate, is we don’t 

like paying unemployment benefits either. We actually hate the 

idea of unemployment benefits if people can have a job. So we are 

trying to create the jobs over here that could then make it unnecessary for people to have to go in and to actually apply for unemployment benefits. 

The evidence that we actually have that people don’t like to collect unemployment benefits is that when unemployment went down 

to 4 percent in our country, all the people who are now unemployed 

actually took jobs and worked in them. But when jobs are not 

available, unfortunately and much to their own personal chagrin, 

they are forced to go in to accept unemployment benefits. But we 

have evidence that every single ethnic group in the United States, 

whites, blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and male and female, all take 

jobs when they are available to them. But unfortunately, because 

of a recession induced by reckless mismanagement of the financial 

marketplace during the Bush administration, almost turning a 

blind eye to an oncoming economic disaster, we have seen a tremendously high rate of unemployment. So that is the conundrum 

that we face because we don’t—the reason we don’t want to pay unemployment benefits is that we hate to see people unemployed. But 

we recognize the moral necessity of helping people in those times 

of desperation. These kinds of programs are working and working 

very successfully. 

Let me turn back to the gentleman from Missouri to see if he has 

any additional points he might want to make. 

Mr. CLEAVER. One point and then a question. Having grown up 

in public housing around poor people, I grew up hearing that people had babies so they could get $190 a month welfare and that 

people didn’t work. My father worked on three jobs. He cleaned up 

the T.A. Litikan building on Saturday mornings, worked at the 

Wichita Club as a maitre d’, and then did yards on the weekends 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
64 

and sent four kids through college. I can remember my father being 

unemployed, one of the most miserable times of my life seeing him 

almost in a depression. But the question related to what I have 

just said is do you know how we know that, how we determine 

whether or not people get unemployment compensation? Mr. Johnson, do you know how we find out whether or not they get unemployment? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Not off the top of my head. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes. And that is why this is important, I think, because you said you thought it was a disincentive for people to get 

jobs. The only people who can get unemployment checks are the 

people looking for jobs. You have to go to the State Unemployment 

Bureau seeking a job to get unemployment compensation. So it is 

not a disincentive. The only people who get this are out struggling 

trying to find jobs. And as the chairman mentioned, they are not— 

8.4 million jobs, when you say disincentive, I just want to make 

sure you know that you have to look for a job to get the money. 

So you don’t think it is a disincentive now, do you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I still think it is. I have read several studies specifically from James Sherk, an economist at the Heritage Foundation, that say several things to the contrary of what you just stated, that it actually helps prolong individuals not find finding work 

because they are satisfied by having—— 

Mr. CLEAVER. But you didn’t know that you couldn’t get that. 

You just said you didn’t know. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I didn’t know off the top of my head. I had heard 

that. 

Mr. CLEAVER. But now that you know, does that fact—you can’t 

contradict that fact. It is a fact. So knowing that fact, do you now 

change? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is also a fact that since the stimulus package 

has been signed into law we have lost 3.3 million jobs. I am glad 

these individuals here are creating jobs. And the Ohio weatherization program is a huge success. I will grant them that. The Inspector General report even recognizes it as a success. But it is one of 

the only States having success with this program. 

There are individual success stories everywhere. But the package 

as a whole and the reality is the jobs have not been created since 

the stimulus package and that was its goal, to create jobs. More 

work has been created for certain individuals who have jobs, but 

the overall jobs impact has not materialized. 

Mr. CLEAVER. So now that you know that the fact that you have 

to be looking for a job to get an unemployment check, now that you 

know that to be a fact, it is unquestionable, if anybody in here can 

contradict it, you are saying you still believe that it is a disincentive? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I oppose extending unemployment insurance benefits, yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. But will you continue to say it is a disincentive to 

provide those benefits? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Until I see empirical data otherwise, based on 

what I have read and learned in the past, yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. So you don’t believe what I was just saying, that 

you have to be— 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
65 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would be very interested to see empirical data 

supporting what you are saying. 

Mr. CLEAVER. That you have to be—how do you think you get the 

checks, people get checks? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am speaking of the disincentive issue. I have 

read reports that showed that it was a disincentive and it did 

disincentivize based on surveys, reports, et cetera. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Okay, we are talking past each other. And when 

somebody makes a good point I always say, well, you made a good 

point. But since we can’t do that, I appreciate very much you coming. 

One of the persons I spend a lot of time with here is a Republican, and we absolutely have nothing in common with regard to 

our political views. We just like each other, and so we can argue 

and not get angry and still sit down and have lunch. The one thing 

I guess we don’t do, which is why we have a relationship, is because when he can prove something, I say, okay, and the same on 

the other side. 

So I guess my frustration is that if you can get anybody—I will 

wait here. Somebody call Heritage to find out if I made up the fact 

that that is the only way you can get your check, is looking for a 

job. I just—when you go out and say it is a disincentive and people 

don’t know any differently, they then begin to embrace the beliefs 

that there are some people who are just lazy sitting around taking 

tax dollars. And I grew up in a situation like that, seeing it and 

hearing it, and it is really an insult to a got lot of good, hardworking Americans. 

So I do appreciate your being here and I appreciate your passion 

and hope that you will check my fact down there and send me an 

e†mail apologizing. Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. So, have you had—when you create these new 

jobs in solar or wind and weatherization, do you find that there are 

a lot of people who want to work as soon as you announce there 

are new jobs available? Do you have any problem finding people 

who want to work as soon as you put out an ad for new employees, 

Mr. Gaynor? 

Mr. GAYNOR. No, we have not had problems. Just to give you one 

example, we have a small summer internship program. We received 10 times the number of resumes. For 10 jobs, we received 

100 resumes. 

The CHAIRMAN. You get 10 times the applications for new jobs 

as the number of new jobs you have. 

Mr. GAYNOR. For our summer internship program. 

The CHAIRMAN. Have you had any problem, Ms. Patt-McDaniel, 

finding people to work? 

Ms. PATT-MCDANIEL. No. We have people fighting to get into our 

weatherization training programs to get jobs; and the payment received is not family sustaining wages, by any stretch. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Wright, do you have trouble at Johnson Controls finding people who want to work when you advertise for new 

employees? 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
66 

Ms. WRIGHT. We are very fortunate to have a skilled automotive 

workforce in the area where our plant is located, so we are very 

fortunate to be able to reemploy them. 

The CHAIRMAN. People who got laid off when the auto industry 

collapsed and who were forced to accept unemployment benefits, as 

soon as you advertised saying you can come back to work they are 

on your doorstep? 

Ms. WRIGHT. We have very, very highly skilled, experienced 

workers. 

The CHAIRMAN. Beautiful. That is great news. Some people believe that people enjoy being unemployed. I think there is sufficient 

evidence that that is not the case when a job is offered. 

Mr. Ashley, how about you? Do you find a lot of people? 

Mr. ASHLEY. We had 600 applications for the last 30 jobs. A lot 

of people are desperate. 

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you. And, unfortunately, 570 people 

perhaps had to stay on unemployment, but you were able to help 

30 people get meaningful employment. That is tremendous. 

So here is the good news. You want to see a really good news 

story? Here is the picture of jobs lost in the United States, and this 

is the Bush administration over here in red. And as we reached 

January 20, 2009—we remember that day quite vividly, January 

20, 2009—780,000 jobs were lost in January of 2009. 

As you can see, following on a pattern of the preceding months 

of the Bush administration in terms of this failed economic policy— 

kind of, if you don’t answer calls at the SEC, there is a guy named 

Madoff that might be bilking people, if you don’t regulate derivatives or swaps, you kind of turned a blind eye to the whole impact 

that that could have, and many other things—780,000 jobs in the 

month before, 700,000 the month before, 720,000, really not a good 

picture, month after month. 

Then, in February of 2009, the Obama administration arrives 

with a stimulus package. You can’t turn around the Queen Mary 

overnight. But look what happened in the months since then coming up to February. We almost have a reverse image of what was 

happening during the Bush administration. Month after month, we 

see fewer and fewer jobs being lost in our economy. For one month 

there, November, it actually went positive. We actually had job creation. And now we are going down to a point where it is no more 

than 20, 30, 40,000 jobs that we are losing per month. So you can 

see it is highly likely that this is going to start spiking up with new 

job creation in our country. 

Now, I would like to think that this economic plan of the President is working, that the stimulus bill is working, that the tax 

breaks are working, and that we are turning a corner and that the 

Obama plan is the antidote to the Bush plan, two different plans 

about how to run the economy. 

Now we didn’t cause the accident. We are out in the street trying 

to clean it up. Some people start to blame us for trying to clean 

up the accident, all that blood in our economy. So, after a year, 

some people start to basically confuse the people cleaning up after 

the accident with the people who created it. And that is one of our 

problems. We admit that. But it is a political problem from a mesVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:02 Dec 14, 2010 Jkt 062521 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A521.XXX A521

wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
67 

saging perspective, not an economic problem from the perspective 

of how it is working. 

And so what we are seeing in the testimony we are hearing today 

from our witnesses is the incredible success of the stimulus bill. 

And if I could ask you, do you think 2010, Mr. Ashley, will be better than 2009 for the solar industry? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Yes, sir, I do. And, like I said, we are sold out 

through mid 2011. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are sold out now. That is fantastic. Where 

would you be without the stimulus bill? 

Mr. ASHLEY. We would not be in that situation. 

The CHAIRMAN. You would not be. 

Mr. Gaynor, what does 2010 look like for you? 

Mr. GAYNOR. 2010 we expect to build 300 megawatts of capacity 

this year, seven wind farms, one of them we are just wrapping up. 

The CHAIRMAN. Where would you be without the stimulus plan? 

Mr. GAYNOR. It would be a much different picture. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would it be a better picture? 

Mr. GAYNOR. No, it would not be a much better picture. It would 

be worse. Tough to quantify, but, again, the thing that is important 

for our business is in a capital-intensive business you are taking— 

what the Recovery Act is doing is not only getting those dollars but 

you are taking a lot of dollars in the private sector and pulling it 

off the sidelines to come in and build wind farms. 

The CHAIRMAN. So venture capitalists, other investors, they are 

on the sidelines. They are saying, oh, my goodness, look at all that 

blood in the economy; look at all that red. But all of a sudden, in 

2009, with the stimulus bill, they are saying, maybe it is safe 

again; maybe we can go back into those economic waters. And if 

there is going to be some Federal money perhaps—and how many 

new private-sector dollars were you able to attract in 2009? 

Mr. GAYNOR. Seven hundred million dollars. 

The CHAIRMAN. Seven hundred million dollars just for your one 

company. Amazing. That is a huge amount of money. 

Mr. GAYNOR. For the 1603 project—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Under the what project? 

Mr. GAYNOR. The wind stimulus. 

The CHAIRMAN. The wind stimulus bill attracted—unbelievable, 

just for your one company. That is fantastic. 

And, Ms. Wright, over here, in your battery company, how many 

new jobs would you have created in the United States in 2009 and 

2010 without the stimulus program? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Very few. 

The CHAIRMAN. By ‘‘very few’’, what do you mean by that? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Potentially some engineers in our Milwaukee—— 

The CHAIRMAN. When you say ‘‘some’’, are you talking about 

hundreds? 

Ms. WRIGHT. No, a handful. 

The CHAIRMAN. What is a handful? Is that a handful? Five people maybe? Now, because of the stimulus bill how many do you 

think you will be creating? 

Ms. WRIGHT. We will be hiring engineers and scientists in Wisconsin as we have—— 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
68 

The CHAIRMAN. Give us some numbers. People want to hear good 

news. People want to have hope that this economic recovery is 

going to continue and the stimulus bill is working. So how many 

new people do you think will get hired? 

Ms. WRIGHT. If you will indulge me for a moment, the full capacity our plants in Holland will employ 550 people—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Your plant is where? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Holland, Michigan. 

The CHAIRMAN. Holland, Michigan. People think Holland is in 

Europe. No, Holland is in Michigan. So how many employees will 

you have in Holland, Michigan? 

Ms. WRIGHT. At full capacity, it will be 550, not to mention the 

supplier and the indirect jobs. In Milwaukee, we will continue to 

hire engineers and scientists to support our technology. 

The CHAIRMAN. Wow. So, without the stimulus bill, a handful, 

five; with the stimulus bill, 500 and more people who will be working who otherwise would not be working here in the United States. 

And you wouldn’t even be building a plant in the United States, 

is that you what you told us? 

Ms. WRIGHT. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. You would be building it perhaps in Holland, Europe, is that right? 

Ms. WRIGHT. In the Netherlands, Holland, somewhere in Europe 

or Asia, that is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. So that wouldn’t be good news for American 

workers. 

So this is really a fantastic good news story for our country. And 

this energy sector just might be the brightest of all the bright spots 

in the recovery bill because it gives hope to families that there is 

going to be a source of new jobs, from Mr. Cleaver and the smart 

grid they are building in the most economically challenged part of 

Kansas City, through Georgia with Mr. Ashley, and Mr. Gaynor’s 

company that sprawls all across our country, Utah, Maine, and 

States all across the our great country. Ms. Wright is in Wisconsin 

and in Michigan with her new job creation. 

Ms. Patt-McDaniel in Ohio with 1,000 people out there 

weatherizing homes in 2009, but many more in 2010—is that correct—will be out there? And you can’t offshore weatherizing jobs. 

You have got to be there in Ohio, you have to be in Akron, you 

have to be in Canton. If you are not there, it is not going to get 

weatherized. So those are, by definition, domestic jobs. 

So these are engineers, carpenters, laborers, scientists. It is 

across the entire economic spectrum of our country, the people who 

are benefiting. So that is really great news. 

And it helps us to reduce—and here is where we will share our 

agreement with Mr. Johnson. It will reduce the unemployment benefits that we have to pay out of our taxpayers’ dollars for people 

in our country, and that is one thing we really do hope to achieve. 

Mr. Cleaver, do you have anything you would like to add here? 

Mr. CLEAVER. You said it all, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you. Do you want to say it again? 

I think we are just trying to make a point here. You know, a lot 

of people, they don’t like—they didn’t like statistics in school, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
69 

which is why they didn’t take the course. But a graph like this 

speaks for itself. 

It is the end of the Bush administration, the beginning of the 

Obama administration, just two different plans. In one, we were 

about to go off a cliff here with red ink for our country, people unemployed, 780,000 new people unemployed. You come forward 1 

year, we are down 22,000 people who newly entered into the unemployment rates. What an incredible change, more than three-quarters of a million people fewer who were unemployed this past 

month than the last month of the Bush administration. 

And so this energy sector is something that we are not going to 

walk away from. Your stories today really give us hope for the future. They really make us believe that we have a chance to create 

a new industrial sector in our country, to back out imported oil, to 

not replace ‘‘made by OPEC’’ with ‘‘made in China’’ without ever 

having a ‘‘made in the USA’’ energy strategy. What you represent 

is that alternative, the ‘‘made in the USA’’ strategy. We have used 

tax benefits, loan guarantees in the stimulus bill in order to accomplish that goal; and your story is tremendous. 

So here is what I will do. I will give each one of you 1 minute 

to give us the one thought that you want us to remember, 1 minute 

apiece without using 1603 or the words tax credits. Try to put it 

in the simplest possible form for the American people so they can 

understand what has happened over the last year and what you 

want to see continue. 

So we will go in reverse order; and we will begin with you Mr. 

Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. First, I want to thank the chairman and the members for allowing me to come here today. 

I think in order to create real job growth, we need to consider 

freezing all proposed tax increases and costly regulations until unemployment falls at least below 7 percent, freezing spending and 

restricting unspent stimulus funds, reforming regulations to reduce 

unnecessary business costs such as reforming Sarbanes-Oxley, reforming the tort system to lower costs and uncertainty facing new 

businesses, remove barriers to domestic energy production in Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf, completely repeal the job-killing Davis-Bacon Act, pass pending free trade agreements with 

South Korea, Colombia, and Panama, and reduce taxes on companies’ foreign earnings if they bring those earnings home. 

I think those are all sustainable, and we need to incorporate in 

all of the above energy approach working with the individuals here 

today. And I thank you very much for having me. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Ashley. 

Mr. ASHLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, again, I am proud 

to be here before the committee today. 

The key thing I would like to leave you with is please continue 

to help us build this renewable energy resource, an economy here 

in the United States rather than abroad. Many of the countries are 

very serious about this industry. They want to own this industry. 

We want the jobs to stay here in the U.S. 

We want to be competitive in the rest of the world. Programs like 

the Ex-Im Bank, and they are wonderful, offer facilities which we 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
70 

have also used, and others are helping a lot and DOE loan guarantees. But the stimulus that you started and you are doing is really 

helping us, and it will make a big difference for jobs and I think 

the security of this country going forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ashley. 

Ms. Wright. 

Ms. WRIGHT. Thank you very much, Mr. Markey and committee 

members. Because of your actions, we have made a commitment to 

be here in the United States versus being somewhere else; and we 

have also made a commitment to stand up the industry and the entire value chain so we can drive domestic capability and competency. 

We need your help in creating the demands. So, for short term, 

while the market is sorting itself out, we can drive scale, drive the 

economics so we can employ these people and we can employ them 

sustainably and stand on our own without subsidies and without 

incentives. Because that is how we want it to work. But I would 

implore you to help us make sure that we leverage these investments that the U.S. Government and the U.S. taxpayers have 

made and the faith they have put in us and make sure we leverage 

those vehicles and that demand with the components and the systems that were made from those tax dollars here in the United 

States so that we do have a U.S. battery cartel, not Asian battery 

cartel. 

The CHAIRMAN. I love it. Thank you. 

Ms. Patt-McDaniel. 

Ms. PATT-MCDANIEL. I want to say that Ohio is very happy to 

make use of our Recovery Act funds. I already talked about our 

weatherization. We are using our other energy dollars to invest in 

the growth of those industries. 

For example, in our wind supply chain, we have 600 companies 

who are providing parts to turbines and are also creating jobs. We 

continue to use that money to incent industry and leverage more 

growth and job creation. 

I really appreciate the opportunity to speak, and we would like 

to have additional assistance from the Federal Government to continue to grow those jobs in Ohio. 

The CHAIRMAN. Beautiful. Thank you. 

Mr. Gaynor. 

Mr. GAYNOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I also want to extend my thanks for allowing me to testify here today. 

We are just at the beginning. We have got a long, long way to 

go; and I would encourage he Congress to continue to send those 

strong policy signals to the private sector. Over the long term, that 

is probably a Federal renewable energy standard. In the short 

term, as the financial crisis and the financial markets continue to 

heal, could be an extension of the convertible ITC. 

So those are my parting thoughts. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you so much. 

And I know everyone watching C–SPAN wants to learn more 

about a convertible ITC. But I understand what you are saying. 

But our job is to put it into English. So what we will do is we will 

pass a renewable electricity standard for the United States. So we 

have a goal of 15 percent, 20 percent of all electricity generated 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
71 

from renewables because, by definition, they are here in America. 

We have to use our own energy resources to do that. And we will 

put the tax breaks, we will put the loan guarantees in place so that 

the private sector will step up and create this engine of growth in 

our own country, creating ultimately hundreds of thousands of new 

jobs just in this energy sector alone and, again, meeting the challenge of importing too much oil from OPEC and trying to avoid a 

situation where we are importing our batteries, our solar, and our 

wind technologies from China. We have to avoid it. 

We need a plan. America is at its best when it has a plan, and 

the Obama administration has begun to put together that plan. We 

see the early results, which are fantastic; and we are now going to 

work to expand upon it this year and next. 

We thank you all for testifying here today. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARING
72 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 62521A.035
73 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 62521A.036
74 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 62521A.037
75 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 62521A.038
76 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 62521A.039
77 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 62521A.040
78 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 62521A.041
79 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 62521A.042
80 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128/200 here 62521A.043