Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - TIME FOR ACTION: ADDRESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





	TIME FOR ACTION: ADDRESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF
	CLIMATE CHANGE

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

	HEARING

	BEFORE THE

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

	OF THE

	COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION

	__________

	FEBRUARY 6, 2019

	__________

	Serial No. 116-1





	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



	Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

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



	______


	U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
	35-330 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020




	COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

	FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
	Chairman
	BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
	ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
	ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
	DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
	MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
	JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
	G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
	DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
	KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
	JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
	JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
	PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
	BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
	PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
	YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
	Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
	DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
	KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
	JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
	Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
	TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
	RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
	SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
	DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
	MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
	ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
	ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
	NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
	A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
	LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
	DARREN SOTO, Florida
	TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
	------

	Professional Staff

	JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
	TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
	MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
	Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change

	PAUL TONKO, New York
	Chairman
	YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
	SCOTT H. PETERS, California Ranking Member
	NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
	A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
	LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
	DARREN SOTO, Florida BILLY LONG, Missouri
	DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BILL FLORES, Texas
	JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
	DORIS O. MATSUI, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
	JERRY McNERNEY, California JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
	RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
	DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
	FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
	officio)
	C O N T E N T S

	----------
	Page
	Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
	New York, opening statement.................................... 2
	Prepared statement........................................... 4
	Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
	Illinois, opening statement.................................... 5
	Prepared statement........................................... 6
	Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
	State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
	Prepared statement........................................... 9
	Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
	Oregon, opening statement...................................... 10
	Prepared statement........................................... 12
	Hon. Debbie Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State
	of Michigan, prepared statement................................ 105

	Witnesses

	Brenda Ekwurzel, Ph.D., Director of Climate Science, Union of
	Concerned Scientists........................................... 14
	Prepared statement........................................... 17
	Richard J. Powell, Executive Director, ClearPath................. 25
	Prepared statement........................................... 27
	Answers to submitted questions............................... 128
	Richard D. Duke, Principal, Gigaton Strategies................... 31
	Prepared statement........................................... 33
	Reverend Leo Woodberry, Justice First Campaign, Kingdom Living
	Temple Church and New Alpha Community Development Corporation.. 44
	Prepared statement........................................... 46
	Answers to submitted questions............................... 130
	Barry Worthington, Executive Director, United States Energy
	Association.................................................... 48
	Prepared statement........................................... 50
	Answers to submitted questions............................... 132
	Michael Williams, Deputy Director, BlueGreen Alliance............ 53
	Prepared statement........................................... 55

	Submitted Material

	Slide, ``CO<INF>2</INF> Emissions, 2000-2016,'' Congressional
	Research Service, submitted by Mr. McKinley.................... 77
	Statement of Jason Hartke, President, The Alliance to Save
	Energy, February 6, 2019, submitted by Mr. Tonko............... 107
	Fact sheet of Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments,
	``Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region,'' submitted by Mr.
	Tonko.......................................................... 110
	Letter of January 8, 2019, from A. O. Smith, et al., to Hon.
	Nancy Pelosi, et al., submitted by Mr. Tonko................... 112
	Letter of February 6, 2019, from Linda Moore, TechNet President
	and Chief Executive Officer, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus,
	submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 116
	Letter of February 5, 2019, from Nat Kreamer, Chief Executive
	Officer, Advanced Energy Economy, to Mr. Pallone, et al.,
	submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 119
	Witness slides compilation, submitted by Mr. Tonko............... 121


	TIME FOR ACTION: ADDRESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF
	CLIMATE CHANGE

	----------


	WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2019

	House of Representatives,
	Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
	Committee on Energy and Commerce,
	Washington, DC.
	The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
	the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
	Hon. Paul Tonko (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
	Members present: Representatives Tonko, Clarke, Peters,
	Barragan, McEachin, Blunt Rochester, Soto, DeGette, Schakowsky,
	Matsui, McNerney, Ruiz, Pallone (ex officio), Shimkus
	(subcommittee ranking member), Rodgers, McKinley, Johnson,
	Long, Flores, Mullin, Carter, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
	Also present: Representatives Castor and Sarbanes.
	Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Adam
	Fischer, Policy Analyst; Jean Fruci, Energy and Environment
	Policy Advisor; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff Director;
	Caitlin Haberman, Professional Staff Member; Rick Kessler,
	Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment;
	Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Dustin J. Maghamfar, Air
	and Climate Counsel; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Mike
	Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; Adam Buckalew, Minority
	Director of Coalitions and Deputy Chief Counsel, Health; Jerry
	Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Environment; Jordan
	Davis, Minority Senior Advisor; Caleb Graff, Minority
	Professional Staff Member, Health; Peter Kielty, Minority
	General Counsel; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Counsel, CPAC; Ryan
	Long, Minority Deputy Staff Director; Mary Martin, Minority
	Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Brandon Mooney, Minority
	Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Brannon Rains, Minority Staff
	Assistant; Zack Roday, Minority Director of Communications;
	Peter Spencer; Minority Senior Professional Staff Member,
	Energy.
	Mr. Tonko. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the
	Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change's first hearing
	of the year. Now that the gavel has been found, we can move
	forward.
	Let me before I make my comments thank Chairman--former
	Chairman, always Chairman perhaps--John Shimkus for his great
	work in leading this subcommittee. I think we had an
	outstanding track record. And I enjoyed the years that he
	served as chair and I as ranking member. It is a pleasure to
	have served with you and now to continue to serve with you.
	I welcome all the colleagues of this subcommittee to this
	first hearing and to service through this subcommittee. And in
	general I think we have a lot of business ahead of us but I
	look forward to a great, spirited debate on all of these issues
	and bipartisan response to the solutions that we will develop.
	The subcommittee now comes to order. I recognize myself for
	5 minutes for an opening statement.

	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
	CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

	In 1957, when I was the impressionable age of 8, Earth
	entered the Space Age with the launch of the Sputnik satellite
	by the Soviet Union. People around the world stopped what they
	were doing and looked the heavens. Nothing after that would
	ever be the same. Americans leapt into action, training to
	become scientists and engineers in droves. I was one of them.
	And I see that same motivation, wonder, and drive in many
	of the people today who are working and advocating to transform
	our economy to one that is cleaner, safer, and more just. They
	are advancing clean energy technologies, designing the
	infrastructure of the future that will help communities endure,
	and rethinking every industry we have ever known.
	It goes by many different names: Sandy, Harvey, Maria,
	Katrina, Campfire. But there is no question we have reached a
	new generation's Sputnik moment. How we respond to this threat
	and the opportunities it offers will indeed shape American
	lives for generations. In the 1960s our Government and our
	Nation's best rose to the Sputnik challenge by sending a person
	to the moon. Today our course remains unclear.
	How our committee responds at this inflection point will
	define our Nation for the next half-century and beyond. Will we
	rise to this challenge and tackle our most complex problems?
	Will we continue to be the world leader in science,
	engineering, and technology innovation? Will we make our
	country and our planet better for future generations?
	These questions are at the heart of our work here today. In
	1961, when President Kennedy promised to put a person on the
	moon by the end of the decade, what would have been the
	consequences of failure? Loss of scientific discovery? Damage
	to America's reputation? Ultimately it would have been
	remembered as another missed deadline, or failed call to
	action, or broken promise from a politician.
	With climate change, the cost of failure is existential.
	Failure to launch this next moonshot will result in deaths,
	devastation, and irreversible damage to our communities, our
	economy, and our environment. This is not an exaggeration. It
	is the assured outcome if we should fail.
	But America is a nation of pioneers and problem solvers.
	This climate challenge is not beyond us. Time is running out
	but it is not gone. Some of our colleagues may protest the cost
	of climate protection. And our constituents are already paying
	a heavy price after each and every hurricane, wildfire, and
	flood. Investing in solutions and resilience today will help
	manage and limit those risks and serve as a foundation for job
	creation, healthier communities, and economic opportunity. But
	let's be clear: There is no path forward more costly than for
	us to do nothing.
	Today we will hear from an expert panel to help us better
	understand those costs, along with possible solutions that
	Congress should consider. Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel coauthored the
	Fourth National Climate Assessment and can explain climate
	threats our Nation is facing.
	Mike Williams can discuss job opportunities that will come
	from a clean energy transition, including from building more
	resilient infrastructure to adapt to new climate realities.
	Reverend Leo Woodberry can tell us the importance of a
	transition that is equitable. We must address historic
	environmental injustices and ensure that benefits of a green
	transition are shared across every community.
	Rick Duke can discuss a range of potential policy and
	technology solutions for climate mitigation, many of which are
	cost-competitive and proven to work.
	In the decade since Congress last considered comprehensive
	climate legislation, green technologies have become more
	affordable and more effective. Today there are viable
	decarbonization pathways for many sectors of our economy that
	will enable our Nation and the world to achieve emissions
	reduction targets. Congress can give the certainty, price
	signals, and resources needed to achieve these goals.
	In 1961, we chose to go to the moon. Today we must make
	another choice. Will we have the clarity of mind and conscience
	to choose to address climate change with the urgency that
	scientists say is necessary? I say yes. Chairman Pallone says
	yes. Every Member on this side of the aisle says yes. And we
	are willing to work with the legions of Americans, countless
	businesses, local, State, and foreign governments, our U.S.
	Department of Defense, and our colleagues here on the other
	side of the aisle, and anyone else with ideas that can solve
	this crisis.
	To my friends across the aisle, I implore you, now is the
	time to join us. We want to work together, but inaction is no
	longer an option. We must act on climate.
	These issues were not always partisan. Our parties came
	together to pass the Clean Air Act and its amendments. And as a
	credit to Mr. Shimkus' leadership, this subcommittee found ways
	to work together to solve other seemingly intractable, multi-
	decade stalemates. We have proven we can find common ground and
	we can get things done. We want to find solutions that work for
	all communities and all Americans, and we will not be deterred.
	We have science-based targets that we cannot afford to
	miss. The very real and urgent threat of climate change is not
	just the issue of the day, it is the issue of our time, the
	challenge of our time, the opportunity of our time. And I hope
	the hearings held by this subcommittee will help us find a
	path, a path forward where we can seize this opportunity.
	With that, I yield back.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

	Prepared statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

	In 1957, when I was at the impressionable age of 8, Earth
	entered the space age with the launch of the Sputnik satellite
	by the Soviet Union.
	People around the world stopped what they were doing and
	looked to the heavens.
	Nothing after that would ever be the same. Americans leapt
	into action, training to become scientists and engineers in
	droves. I was one of them.
	And I see that same motivation, wonder, and drive in many
	of the people today who are working and advocating to transform
	our economy to one that is cleaner, safer, and more just.
	They are advancing clean energy technologies, designing the
	infrastructure of the future that will help communities endure,
	and rethinking every industry we have ever known.
	It goes by many different names: Sandy, Harvey, Maria,
	Katrina, Camp Fire. But there is no question we have reached a
	new generation's Sputnik moment. How we respond to this threat,
	and the opportunities it offers, will shape American lives for
	generations.
	In the 1960s, our Government and our Nation's best rose to
	the Sputnik challenge by sending a person to the moon. Today,
	our course remains unclear.
	How our committee responds at this inflection point will
	define our Nation for the next half-century and beyond.
	Will we rise to this challenge and tackle our most complex
	problems? Will we continue to be the world leader in science,
	engineering, and technology innovation? Will we make our
	country and planet better for future generations? These
	questions are at the heart of our work here today.
	In 1961, when President Kennedy promised to put a man on
	the moon by the end of the decade, what would have been the
	consequences of failure? Loss of scientific discovery? Damage
	to America's reputation? Ultimately, it would have been
	remembered as another missed deadline, or failed call to
	action, or broken promise from a politician.
	With climate change, the cost of failure is existential.
	Failure to launch this next moonshot will result in deaths,
	devastation, and irreversible damage to our communities, our
	economy, and our environment.
	This is not an exaggeration. It is the assured outcome if
	we should fail.
	But America is a nation of pioneers and problem solvers.
	This climate challenge is not beyond us. Time is running out,
	but it is not gone.
	Some of our colleagues may protest the costs of climate
	protection, but our constituents are already paying a heavy
	price after every hurricane, wildfire, and flood.
	Investing in solutions and resilience today will help
	manage and limit those risks, and serve as a foundation for job
	creation, healthier communities, and economic opportunity.
	But let's be clear, there is no path forward more costly
	than for us to do nothing.
	Today we will hear from an expert panel to help us better
	understand those costs, along with possible solutions that
	Congress should consider.
	Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel coauthored the Fourth National Climate
	Assessment and can explain climate threats our Nation is
	facing.
	Mike Williams can discuss job opportunities that will come
	from a clean energy transition, including from building more
	resilient infrastructure to adapt to new climate realities.
	Rev. Leo Woodberry can tell us the importance of a
	transition that is equitable. We must address historic
	environmental injustices and ensure that benefits of a green
	transition are shared across every community.
	Rick Duke can discuss a range of potential policy and
	technology solutions for climate mitigation, many of which are
	cost competitive and proven to work.
	In the decade since Congress last considered comprehensive
	climate legislation, clean technologies have become more
	affordable and effective. Today there are viable
	decarbonization pathways for many sectors of our economy that
	will enable our Nation and the world to achieve emissions
	reduction targets.
	Congress can give the certainty, price signals, and
	resources needed to achieve these goals.
	In 1961, we chose to go to the moon. Today, we must make
	another choice. Will we have the clarity of mind and conscience
	to choose to address climate change with the urgency that
	scientists say is necessary?
	I say yes. Chairman Pallone says yes. Every Member on this
	side says yes. And we are willing to work with the legions of
	Americans, countless businesses, local, State, and foreign
	governments, our U.S. Department of Defense, and anyone else
	with ideas that can solve this crisis.
	To my friends across the aisle, I implore you: join us! We
	want to work together, but inaction is no longer an option. We
	must act on climate.
	These issues were not always partisan. Our parties came
	together to pass the Clean Air Act and its amendments. And as a
	credit to Mr. Shimkus' leadership, this subcommittee found ways
	to work together to solve other seemingly intractable, multi-
	decade stalemates. We have proven we can find common ground and
	get things done.
	We want to find solutions that work for all communities and
	all Americans, and we will not be deterred. We have science-
	based targets that we cannot afford to miss.
	The very real and urgent threat of climate change is not
	just the issue of the day. It is the issue of our time. The
	challenge of our time. The opportunity of our time. And I hope
	the hearings held by this subcommittee will help us find a path
	forward where we can seize this opportunity. I yield back.

	Mr. Tonko. And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Shimkus,
	ranking--excuse me, Republican leader of the Subcommittee on
	Environment and Climate Change, for 5 minutes for his opening
	statement.

	OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
	CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

	Mr. Shimkus. First of all, let me congratulate you, Mr.
	Chairman. And thank you for the kind words. I am truly touched
	by those.
	We have had some policy differences over the past 6 years.
	We also enjoyed, as you identified, some significant bipartisan
	policy achievements during my chairmanship, in no small part
	because of the thoughtful work that you brought to the panel as
	a Democrat leader, and your very competent staff. I believe
	this subcommittee will be served by your leadership.
	Today's hearing ticks off a topic that will be challenging
	but not impossible to work through in a bipartisan manner. We
	all agree that extreme weather events and climate change
	presents risks to our communities and communities around the
	world. While we agree these risks should be addressed, we may
	disagree about what to do. If we are to reach an agreement on
	this issue, I believe we must look openly and broadly at
	potential solutions.
	Many climate policy advocates have been suggesting for
	years that if you agree climate change is real, then command
	and control policy prescriptions are the only way to address
	this problem. If you question these expensive solutions, you
	must not accept the problem.
	That is a false choice. And the amped-up partisan rhetoric
	it generates severely inhibits a full look at potential,
	practical policies that not only help reduce carbon dioxide
	emissions, but also ensure our Nation and its communities can
	grow and prosper.
	Recent projections by the International Energy Agency show
	that fossil energy, even with all existing and announced
	policies implemented, will likely be the dominant form of
	energy in our world system through 2040, and likely beyond.
	Wind and solar energy will serve a larger portion of
	electricity generation across the world and in the United
	States according to this data, but fossil energy and nuclear
	energy, a technology regrettably frowned upon by many climate
	policy advocates, will remain dominant.
	While future innovation could substantially change these
	projections, the stubborn route is that U.S. and global energy
	systems necessary for societies to develop, grow, trade, and
	prosper depend upon affordable and abundant energy and
	mobility. Policies that artificially raise the costs or
	availability of energy threaten to undermine this fundamental
	fact, which helps explain the 30-year failure of international
	climate agreements to significantly reduce global emissions,
	although the United States seems to be doing better than most
	of the countries that are in agreement.
	No nation seeking to improve the lives of its citizens will
	accept energy or transportation constraints, and neither should
	the United States if we want to maintain a robust economy,
	economic growth, and remain globally competitive for future
	generations.
	We could have a fuller conversation about accelerating the
	transformation to cleaner technologies if we accept that
	proposing top-down Government requirements to rapidly
	decarbonize the U.S. and global economies may not be the most
	realistic way to address the climate change problem.
	We should be open to the fact that wealth transfer schemes
	suggested in the radical policies like the Green New Deal may
	not be the best path to community prosperity and preparedness.
	And we should be willing to accept that affordable and
	abundant energy is a key ingredient for economic development
	and growth. After all, economic growth and economic resources,
	coupled with sound planning, infrastructure, and governance,
	increase local capabilities to minimize impacts of future
	extreme events.
	These are realities we should explore today and in future
	hearings if we want to develop sound environmental and energy
	policies to address climate risk. We should also focus on the
	ingredients behind the exceptional achievements of American
	know-how in energy, in technology and innovation that has led
	to world-leading prosperity, and making sure we can continue to
	foster these advances in other technology.
	The American shale revolution transformed our Nation's
	economic competitiveness and is driving cleaner electricity
	generation because of old-fashioned innovation,
	entrepreneurship, regulatory certain private capital, not
	bigger Government mandates. And let me also mention private
	property rights on these areas. Let's apply these lessons more
	broadly.
	Mr. Chairman, there are different approaches to dealing
	with climate change. Let's focus on solutions that work for the
	American public.
	And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]

	Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus

	First, let me congratulate you Mr. Chairman. While you and
	I had some policy differences over the past 6 years, we also
	enjoyed some significant bipartisan policy achievements during
	my chairmanship--in no small part because of the thoughtful
	work you brought to the panel as Democrat leader.
	I believe this subcommittee will be well served with your
	leadership.
	Today's hearing kicks off a topic that will be challenging,
	but not impossible, to work through in a bipartisan manner. We
	all agree that extreme weather events and climate change
	present risks to our communities-and communities around the
	world.
	While we agree these risks should be addressed, we may
	disagree about what to do. If we are to reach an agreement on
	this issue, I believe we must look more openly and broadly at
	potential solutions.
	Many climate policy advocates have been suggesting for
	years that, if you agree climate change is real, then command-
	and-control policy prescriptions are the only way to address
	the problem. If you question these expensive solutions, you
	must not accept the problem.
	This is a false choice. And the amped up partisan rhetoric
	it generates severely inhibits a full look at potential,
	practical policies that not only help reduce carbon dioxide
	emissions but also ensure our Nation and its communities can
	grow and prosper.
	Recent projections by the International Energy Agency show
	that fossil energy, even with all existing and announced
	policies implemented, will remain the dominant form of energy
	in our global systems through 2040, and likely beyond.
	Wind and solar energy will serve a larger portion of
	electricity generation across the World and in the United
	States, according to this data, but fossil energy and nuclear
	energy--a technology regrettably frowned upon by many climate
	policy advocates--will remain dominant.
	While future innovation could substantially change these
	projections, the stubborn reality is, the U.S. and global
	energy systems necessary for societies to develop, grow, trade,
	and prosper depend upon affordable (and abundant) energy and
	mobility.
	Policies that artificially raise the cost or availability
	of energy threaten to undermine this fundamental fact, which
	helps explain the 30-year failure of international climate
	agreements to significantly reduce global emissions (although
	the United States seems to be doing better than most other
	nations).
	No nation seeking to improve the lives of its citizens will
	accept energy or transportation constraints, and neither should
	the United States if we want to maintain robust economic growth
	and remain globally competitive for future generations.
	We could have a fuller conversation about accelerating the
	transformation to cleaner technologies if we accept that
	proposing top-down Government requirements to rapidly
	decarbonize the U.S. and global economies may not be the most
	realistic way to address the climate change problem.
	We should be open to the fact that wealth transfer schemes,
	suggested in radical policies like the Green New Deal, may not
	be the best path to community prosperity and preparedness.
	And we should be willing to accept that affordable (and
	abundant) energy is a key ingredient for economic development
	and growth. Afterall, economic growth and economic resources,
	coupled with sound planning, infrastructure, and governance,
	increase local capabilities to minimize impacts of future
	extreme events.
	These are realities we should explore today and in future
	hearings if we want to develop sound environmental and energy
	policies to address climate risks.
	We should also focus on the ingredients behind the
	exceptional achievements of American know-how in energy, in
	technology, and in innovation that has led to world-leading
	prosperity--and make sure we can continue to foster these
	advances in other technologies.
	The American shale revolution transformed our Nation's
	economic competitiveness and is driving cleaner electricity
	generation because of old-fashioned innovation,
	entrepreneurship, regulatory certainty, and private capital--
	not big Government mandates. Let's apply these lessons more
	broadly.
	Mr. Chairman, there are different approaches to dealing
	with climate change. Let's focus on solutions that work for the
	American public.

	Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. And thank you, Mr.
	Shimkus.
	The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full
	committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
	Mr. Pallone.

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

	Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Tonko, Chairman Tonko.
	Today's hearing on climate change is long overdue. We are
	feeling its effects now, and the influence of unchecked climate
	change is becoming more obvious every year. Experts have warned
	us for a long time that climate change would lead to more
	intense storms, extended droughts, longer wildfire seasons that
	burn hotter and cover larger areas, greater seasonal
	temperature extremes, melting of glaciers and ice sheets, and
	rising sea level.
	The predictions have proven true. And these scientific
	experts warn us that, as greenhouse gas pollution continues to
	grow, climate change effects will intensify as the planet warms
	to levels that people have not experienced any time in human
	history.
	Unfortunately, we are currently going in the wrong
	direction with respect to greenhouse gas pollution. The Fourth
	National Climate Assessment of the International Panel on
	Climate Change's recent report made clear that if we do not
	aggressively cut emissions now, we will jeopardize public
	health and safety, as well as our economic and national
	security.
	The science on climate change is indisputable. And I do
	want to thank--I listened to Mr. Shimkus' opening remarks, and
	I noticed that he basically said that he agrees that there is a
	major impact from climate change, suggested that innovation was
	certainly one of the ways that we deal with it. So, again, I
	want to say that I know that in the past we were never able to
	have a hearing on climate change when the Republicans were in
	the majority, but I am glad to see that our ranking member is
	saying that it's something that has to be dealt with and is
	real.
	I don't think that we need to debate the scientific facts.
	Instead, we must focus on solutions to the problems and must
	act now to avoid the most catastrophic consequences associated
	with climate change. The good news is that we already know the
	solutions. There are untapped opportunities to expand the use
	of renewable energy and to become more efficient with all the
	resources and energy we use. With focused investment and
	innovation, we can help transform industries and economic
	sectors that will find meaningful emission reductions more
	challenging.
	Meanwhile, States, local government, and individual
	businesses are moving forward to reduce emissions to meet our
	obligations under the Paris Agreement. And it is now time for
	the Federal Government to step up and help them in these
	efforts and spur further action in communities across the
	country.
	I know there are those who believe we can't address this
	problem because the costs are too high. But the costs of not
	acting are far higher and a lot more painful. In 2017, the U.S.
	experienced 16 natural disasters with costs totaling $360
	billion. This past year, disasters again cost over $100
	billion. The dollar figures are concerning, but the real
	tragedy is the loss of life and destruction of homes,
	businesses, and communities when these events occur.
	And tremendous, sustained efforts are required for
	communities to recover and rebuild. And I saw this firsthand in
	the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy in my district. Events
	disappear from the headlines in a matter of weeks, but the work
	to rebuild and recover takes years. And it is still going on in
	my district. Many people have not been able to return to their
	homes. Many businesses have not.
	We simply cannot afford to delay any longer. And we must
	discuss ways to help communities better adapt to the changes
	that we are already seeing. We need to modernize and upgrade
	our infrastructure to ensure vital services like water, sewer,
	electricity, telecommunications, and transportation are more
	resilient. And here, Mr. Shimkus, in particular, I think that
	we can work together with the Republicans. And this important
	work would not only make our communities safer and better
	prepared for extreme weather events, but it will also provide
	good-paying jobs and the modern, flexible infrastructure that
	will better support a robust economy in the future.
	We want to find innovative solutions that will help
	strengthen our economy by creating jobs in industries that will
	begin to repair the disparities found in so many vulnerable
	communities. And it is precisely those front-line communities
	that experience the worst effects of climate change and natural
	disasters and that are the least able to recover from them.
	Again, I saw it in my own district where some of the most
	vulnerable communities economically are the ones that still
	have not recovered.
	I think we can do better. We must do better. And these
	communities need to be engaged in the process of designing
	adaptation and mitigation measures to reduce pollution.
	So as we move forward, we hope to have our Republican
	colleagues as partners in these efforts. Certainly what has
	been said by Mr. Shimkus today gives me hope. The devastating
	effects of unchecked climate change do not know partisan or
	political boundaries. They effect us all. And I hope we will be
	able to find common ground and work together on solutions.
	And the U.S. has always been a global leader in science,
	technology, and industry. And our leadership on climate action
	and global transformation to a low-carbon economy is leading
	now. This hearing is the start of our efforts to maintain U.S.
	leadership and to put us on the path to a low-carbon and more
	prosperous future.
	And if I can say something, Chairman Tonko, I know that
	this has always been something that you cared so much about and
	worked on even when you were in the State legislature. So we
	are glad that you are the chairman. Thank you.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

	Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

	Today's hearing on climate change is long overdue. We are
	feeling its effects now, and the influence of unchecked climate
	change is becoming more obvious every year. Experts have warned
	us for a long time that climate change would lead to more
	intense storms, extended droughts, longer wildfire seasons that
	burn hotter and cover larger areas, greater seasonal
	temperature extremes, melting of glaciers and ice sheets, and
	rising sea level. Their predictions have proven true. And,
	these scientific experts warn us that as greenhouse gas
	pollution continues to grow, climate change effects will
	intensify as the planet warms to levels that people have not
	experienced any time in human history.
	Unfortunately, we are currently going in the wrong
	direction with respect to greenhouse gas pollution. The Fourth
	National Climate Assessment and the International Panel on
	Climate Change's recent report make clear that if we do not
	aggressively cut emissions now, we will jeopardize public
	health and safety, as well as our economic and national
	security.
	The science on climate change is indisputable. We are not
	going to waste any time debating the scientific facts. Instead,
	we must focus on solutions to the problem. We must act now to
	avoid the most catastrophic consequences associated with
	climate change.
	The good news is that we already know the solutions to this
	challenge. There are untapped opportunities to expand the use
	of renewable energy and to become more efficient with all the
	sources of energy we use. With focused investment and
	innovation, we can also help transform industries and economic
	sectors that will find meaningful emission reductions more
	challenging.
	Meanwhile, States, local government and individual
	businesses are moving forward to reduce emissions to meet our
	obligations under the Paris Agreement. It's now time for the
	Federal Government to step up and help them in these efforts
	and spur further action in communities across the country.
	I know there are those who believe we cannot address this
	problem because the costs are too high. But, the costs of not
	acting are far higher and more painful. In 2017, the U.S.
	experienced 16 natural disasters with costs totaling $360
	billion. This past year disasters again cost over $100 billion.
	The dollar figures are concerning, but the real tragedy is the
	loss of life and destruction of homes, businesses, and
	communities when these events occur. Tremendous, sustained
	efforts are required for communities to recover and rebuild. I
	saw this first-hand in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy in my
	district. Events disappear from the headlines in a matter of
	weeks, but the work to rebuild and recover takes years.
	We simply cannot afford to delay any longer, and we must
	discuss ways to help communities better adapt to the changes
	that we're already seeing. We need to modernize and upgrade our
	infrastructure to ensure. vital services like water, sewer,
	electricity, telecommunications, and transportation are more
	resilient. This important work will not only make our
	communities safer and better prepared for extreme weather
	events, but it will also provide good paying jobs, and the
	modern, flexible infrastructure that will better support a
	robust economy in the future.
	We want to find innovative solutions that will help
	strengthen our economy by creating new jobs and industries and
	that will begin to repair the disparities found in so many
	vulnerable communities. It is precisely these ``front line''
	communities that experience the worst effects of climate change
	and natural disasters and that are the least able to recover
	from them. We can do better. We must do better. And, these
	communities need to be engaged in the process of designing
	adaptation and mitigation measures to reduce pollution.
	As we move forward, we hope to have our Republican
	colleagues as partners in these efforts. The devastating
	effects of unchecked climate change--do not know partisan or
	political boundaries. They affect all of us. I hope we will be
	able to find common ground and work together on solutions.
	We cannot transform our economy and society overnight, but
	every journey starts with a single step. The U.S. always has
	been a global leader in science, technology, and industry. And,
	our leadership on climate action and a global transformation to
	a low carbon economy is needed now. This hearing is the start
	of our effort to maintain U.S. leadership and to put us on the
	path to a low-carbon--and more prosperous--future.
	I thank the witnesses for participating in this important
	hearing. I look forward to your testimony today and to working
	with you to address the climate challenge before us.
	I yield back.

	Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The gentleman yields back.
	And, Chairman Pallone, I appreciate your comments.
	The Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, the Republican leader
	of the full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.

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

	Mr. Walden. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again,
	congratulations on finding the gavel and using the gavel. We
	are delighted to work with you. And thanks for holding this
	hearing on climate change.
	It is no secret the Energy and Commerce Committee has the
	jurisdiction, the ability to find a bipartisan path forward to
	tackle this important issue that confronts not only our Nation
	but also the world. As you know, I spoke out early and
	forcefully, Mr. Chairman, about the unnecessary effort by
	Speaker Pelosi to create yet a separate select committee which
	lacks any legislative authority. Our able Members will
	certainly serve on that panel. It is as redundant as the last
	one she created more than a decade ago.
	With all this activity, it is important to highlight a few
	fundamentals at the onset. Climate change is real. The need to
	protect the environment is real. The need to foster a strong
	U.S. economy and grow American jobs is also real. And the need
	to prepare our communities for the future is real. Republicans
	on this committee are ready, willing, and able to have serious
	solutions-oriented discussions about how to address and balance
	these considerations.
	For instance, we believe that a longer conversation about
	the Democrats' Green New Deal is necessary. We have heard about
	general tenets of the plan for the U.S., such as all-renewable
	electricity generation by 2030, all-zero-emission passenger
	vehicles in just 11 years, a Federal job guarantee, a living
	wage guarantee, but we obviously have some concerns about the
	potential adverse economic employment impacts of these
	measures.
	At least one analysis has estimated that going to a 100
	percent renewable energy in the U.S. could cost a minimum of
	$5.7 trillion--trillion--dollars. It sounds like a huge sum for
	consumers and taxpayers to foot.
	The Republicans are focused on solutions that prioritize
	adaptation, innovation, and conservation. Just as America led
	the world in energy development, which reduced carbon
	emissions, we want America's innovators to develop the next
	technologies that will improve the environment and create jobs
	here at home. We want to help the environment for our children,
	and grandchildren, and their children. We also want the people
	who live in our districts in this country today, right now, to
	have jobs and to be able to provide for their families.
	These are not mutually exclusive principles. And I believe,
	Mr. Chairman, working together we can develop the public
	policies to achieve these goals.
	As the Republican leader of the committee, I will work to
	promote a better policy vision for the environment, one which
	supports and accelerates continued technological advances in
	energy and environmental practices to improve our quality of
	life. It ensures a sound regulatory environment where people
	have the confidence to invest their money to innovate and to
	create American jobs, one that improves information needed to
	understand future impacts and provide resources to communities
	to adapt and to prepare for these impacts, one that promotes
	America workforce development and training in energy-related
	industries, and one that recognizes the importance of open and
	competitive markets in the role the United States plays as the
	world's leading energy producer, innovator, and exporter of
	advanced technologies.
	Indeed, Republicans have a track record of supporting
	policies that protect the environment and ensure energy access.
	For example, in the last Congress we supported legislation to
	promote zero-emissions nuclear energy, and renewable energy
	including hydropower. Hydropower has great success as a clean
	energy source across the country, and especially in my district
	and my State, where 40 percent of our energy comes from
	hydropower.
	Legislation we passed into law in the last Congress will
	streamline the permitting process for closed-loop pump
	hydropower projects. We have such a project in the permitting
	process in my district that would power up to 600,000 Oregon
	homes in a closed-loop hydropower process.
	We also advanced legislation to promote energy efficiency,
	grid modernization, energy storage, natural gas, a more
	resilient electric grid, carbon capture and utilization, and
	better forest management to address wildfires and limit their
	air quality impacts. This is what happens after a fire. This is
	called post-fire wildlife habitat right here. It is nothing but
	ash and destruction of the habitat.
	Oregonians choke on smoke every summer from wildfires that
	burn across our poorly managed Federal forests, filling our
	skies with ash and polluting our airsheds with carbon dioxide,
	among other pollutants. Managing our forests not only reduces
	the risk of these catastrophic fires, but the Intergovernmental
	Panel on Climate Change say that sustainably managing our
	forests would create the longest sustained carbon mitigation
	benefit. So there is work we could do there.
	And the numbers show that our policies are working. In
	2017, U.S. carbon emissions were the lowest they have been
	since 1992, and are projected to remain steady in upcoming
	years, more than 10 percent below 2005 levels. Unfortunately,
	the Green New Deal ignores many of these important elements of
	our energy strategy and makes it more difficult to reach our
	shared environmental goals.
	We look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on
	these topics, especially Mr. Powell from ClearPath, which has
	promoted clean energy, advanced nuclear, and carbon capture,
	and Mr. Worthington of the U.S. Energy Association, which
	advocated for a diverse energy mix within the United States and
	the importance of energy access and affordability around the
	globe.
	So, when it comes to climate change, Mr. Chairman,
	Republicans are focused on solutions. That is why we back
	sensible, realistic, effective policies to tackle climate
	change. What we are deeply concerned about are plans we believe
	will harm consumers and cost American jobs and drive up our
	costs and not result in the kinds of goals we want to achieve
	mutually.
	So thank you for having the hearing. I yield back the
	balance of my time.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

	Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden

	Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on
	climate change. It is no secret that the Energy and Commerce
	Committee has the jurisdiction and ability to find a bipartisan
	path forward to tackle this important issue that confronts not
	just our Nation, but the world. As you know, I spoke out early
	and forcefully about the unnecessary effort by Speaker Pelosi
	to create a separate, select committee which lacks any
	legislative authority. While able Members will serve on this
	panel, it is as redundant as the last one she created more than
	a decade ago.
	With all this activity, it is important to highlight a few
	fundamentals at the onset. Climate change is real. The need to
	protect the environment is real. The need to foster a strong
	U.S. economy and grow American jobs is real. And the need to
	prepare our communities for the future is real. The Republicans
	on this committee are ready and willing to have serious,
	solutions-oriented discussions about how to address and balance
	these considerations.
	For instance, we believe that a longer conversation about
	the Democrats' Green New Deal is needed. We have heard about
	general tenets of the plan for the U.S.--such as all renewable
	electricity generation by 2030, all zero-emission passenger
	vehicles in just 11 years, a Federal job guarantee, and a
	living wage guarantee. We have serious concerns about the
	potential adverse economic and employment impacts of these
	types of measures. At least one analysis has estimated that
	going to 100 percent renewable energy in the U.S. could cost a
	minimum of $5.7 trillion--that sounds like a huge cost for
	consumers and taxpayers to foot.
	Republicans are focused on solutions that prioritize
	adaptation, innovation, and conservation. Just as America led
	the world in energy development that has reduced carbon
	emissions, we want America's innovators to develop the next
	technologies that will improve the environment and create jobs
	here at home.
	We want a healthy environment for our children,
	grandchildren, and their children. But we also want the people
	who live in our districts and in this country today, right now,
	to have jobs and to be able to provide for their families.
	These are not mutually exclusive principles. Working together
	we can develop the public policies to achieve these goals.
	As the Republican leader on the committee, I will work to
	promote a better policy vision for the environment, one which:
	<bullet> Supports and accelerates continued technological
	advances in energy and environmental practices to improve our
	quality of life;
	<bullet> Ensures a sound regulatory environment, where
	people have the confidence to invest their money to innovate
	and create American jobs;
	<bullet> Improves information needed to understand future
	impacts and provides resources to communities to adapt and
	prepare for those impacts;
	<bullet> Promotes American workforce development and
	training in energy-related industries; and,
	<bullet> Recognizes the importance of open and competitive
	markets; and the role the United States plays as the world's
	leading energy producer, innovator, and exporter of advanced
	technologies.
	Indeed, Republicans have a track record of supporting
	policies that protect the environment and ensure energy access.
	For example, last Congress we supported legislation to promote
	zero-emissions nuclear energy, and renewable energy including
	hydropower. Hydropower has great success as a clean energy
	source in my Oregon district and generates approximately 40
	percent of the electricity in my State. Legislation we passed
	into law last Congress will streamline the permitting process
	for closed-loop pumped hydropower projects. One such project in
	my district aims to generate enough power for 600,000 homes in
	southern Oregon.
	We also advanced legislation to promote energy efficiency,
	grid modernization, energy storage, natural gas, a more
	resilient electric grid, carbon capture and utilization, and
	better forest management to address wildfires and limit their
	air quality impacts.
	Oregonians choke on smoke every summer from wildfires that
	burn across our poorly managed Federal forests, filling our
	skies with ash and polluting our airsheds with carbon dioxide.
	Managing our forests not only reduces the risk of these
	catastrophic fires, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
	Change says that sustainably managing our forests will create
	the longest sustained carbon mitigation benefit.
	And the numbers show that our policies are working--in
	2017, U.S. carbon emissions were the lowest they have been
	since 1992, and they are projected to remain steady in upcoming
	years, more than 10 percent below 2005 levels.
	Unfortunately, the Green New Deal ignores many of these
	important elements of our energy strategy, and makes it more
	difficult to reach our shared environmental goals. I look
	forward to hearing from our witnesses today on these topics,
	particularly Mr. Powell from ClearPath, which has promoted
	clean energy, advanced nuclear and carbon capture, and Mr.
	Worthington of the U.S. Energy Association, which has advocated
	for a diverse energy mix within the United States, and the
	importance of energy access and affordability around the globe.
	When it comes to climate change, Republicans are focused on
	solutions. That's why we back sensible, realistic, and
	effective policies to tackle climate change.
	What we are deeply concerned about are the Democratic plans
	we believe will harm American consumers and American jobs by
	driving up costs and pushing jobs overseas where environmental
	laws are far more lax. We can do better than old policies
	rooted only in over-regulation, excessive-taxation, and
	economic stagnation.
	Thank you, Chairman, and I yield back.

	Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Representative Walden. And the
	gentleman yields back.
	As chair, I remind Members that, pursuant to committee
	rules, all Members' written opening statements shall be made
	part of the record.
	I now introduce our witnesses for today's hearing. And let
	me thank each and every one of you for sharing your time and
	offering input on this very important topic. We do appreciate
	your participation.
	So we have from my left to right Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel,
	Director of Climate Science, Union of Concerned Scientists.
	Next to her is Mr. Rich Powell, executive director of
	ClearPath.
	Then we have Mr. Rick Duke, principal of Gigaton
	Strategies.
	Then Reverend Leo Woodberry, Justice First Tour, Kingdom
	Living Temple Church.
	Then we have Mr. Barry K. Worthington, executive director
	of United States Energy Association.
	And then finally, Mr. Michael Williams, deputy director of
	BlueGreen Alliance.
	We as a committee want to thank our witnesses for joining
	us today. We look forward to your testimony. At this time, the
	Chair will now recognize each witness for 5 minutes to provide
	his or her opening statement.
	Before we begin I would like to explain the lighting
	system. In front of our witnesses is a series of lights. The
	lights will initially be green at the start of your opening
	statement. The light will turn yellow when you have 1 minute
	left. Please begin to wrap up your testimony at that point. The
	light will turn red when your time expires.
	So, with that, Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel, again welcome. You are
	recognized for 5 minutes.

	STATEMENTS OF BRENDA EKWURZEL, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF CLIMATE
	SCIENCE, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS; RICHARD J. POWELL,
	EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLEARPATH; RICHARD D. DUKE, PRINCIPAL,
	GIGATON STRATEGIES; REVEREND LEO WOODBERRY, JUSTICE FIRST
	CAMPAIGN, KINGDOM LIVING TEMPLE CHURCH AND NEW ALPHA COMMUNITY
	DEVELOPMENT CORP.; BARRY WORTHINGTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
	UNITED STATES ENERGY ASSOCIATION; AND MICHAEL WILLIAMS, DEPUTY
	DIRECTOR, BLUEGREEN ALLIANCE

	STATEMENT OF BRENDA EKWURZEL

	Dr. Ekwurzel. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
	Shimkus, and for the opening statements by Chairman Pallone and
	Ranking Member Walden, and the committee for providing me the
	opportunity to testify here before you today.
	I am Director of Climate Science at the Union of Concerned
	Scientists, and I also had the privilege of serving as one of
	the coauthors of the Fourth National Climate Assessment
	released in November. Before I share with you the advances in
	our understanding from these latest assessments, I want to turn
	to a recent example of the high cost of climate change.
	During the recent outbreak of extreme cold weather that
	gripped large parts of the Nation, a University of Iowa student
	and a University of Vermont student were counted among at least
	21 people who perished from consequences likely from the
	dangerous wind chill. Although it may seem counterintuitive,
	recent studies indicate that climate can cause unusually cold
	temperatures at mid-latitudes by disrupting the normal winter
	season polar vortex in the stratosphere.
	A good analogy to this disruption is a weak seal on a
	freezer door that periodically allows frigid air to flood into
	the room while warmer air rushes into the freezer. At the end
	of January, similarly, a cold blast spilled out of the Polar
	Regions and into the Midwest and expanded through to the
	eastern U.S., breaking wind chill records across. Yet Alaska
	experienced above-freezing temperatures and rain falling on
	snow, forcing the cancellation of mid-distance dog sled races
	that contestants use to compete for the long-distance races,
	the Iditarod.
	Evidence is growing that warmer-than-normal periods in the
	Arctic are associated with a greater chance for extreme winter
	weather in the eastern United States. This deadly cold snap is
	just a recent example of the changing nature of extreme events
	that scientists are studying. One goal is to provide earlier
	warning so local officials have more time to take precautionary
	measures and improve safety.
	Climate assessment provides the public and policymakers the
	most advanced warnings through summary and evaluation of the
	latest science. I will briefly share with you some findings
	with you today from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
	Change Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius
	above preindustrial levels, and the Fourth National Climate
	Assessment.
	So human-induced warming reached approximately 1 degree
	Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, a warmer world. And what
	has that brought us? Research indicates that this warming has
	changed the behavior and severity of extreme events.
	For example, scientists found that global warming made the
	precipitation around 15 percent more intense for Hurricane
	Harvey that brought devastating flooding to Houston, and made
	it around three times more likely.
	So, at the present rate, global warming would reach 1.5
	degrees around 2040, and around 2 degrees around 2065. And
	every half a degree of global temperature increase has major
	consequences. For example, coral reefs have an immense variety
	of species and support fisheries that help feed many around the
	world. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special
	Report assessed that coral reefs are projected to decline a
	further 70 to 90 percent at 1.5 degrees Celsius above
	preindustrial, and losses of nearly all coral reefs at 2
	degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.
	To avoid surpassing 1.5 degrees Celsius, global carbon
	emissions would have to drop around 45 percent below 2010
	levels by around 2030, and reach net-zero emissions by the mid-
	century. The special report asserts that to hold temperatures
	to 1.5 degrees would require ``rapid and far reaching
	transitions in energy, land, urban, and infrastructure'' at an
	``unprecedented scale'' with ``significant upscaling of
	investments in options.'' Given the scale of changes needed and
	the time to lay the framework, this is a make-or-break decade
	to make capital investments needed to reduce carbon dioxide
	levels, or the Paris Climate goals are unlikely to be achieved.
	The Fourth National Climate Assessment was released in
	November in accordance with the legal mandate of the 1990
	Global Change Research Act. And, increasingly, U.S. residents
	already recognize the consequences of climate change. Midwest
	forest products industry has experienced over the past 70 years
	2- to 3-week shorter frozen ground season suitable for winter
	harvests. The Great Lakes ice cover decreased on average 71
	percent from 1973 to 2010, with a recent rebound in the ice
	years of 2014 and 2015.
	Meanwhile, during the 2012 and 2017 winters, in Lake
	Ontario and southern Lake Michigan the temperatures never
	dropped below 39 degrees Fahrenheit. And that's a critical
	threshold for seasonal mixing of the waters. Without winter or
	spring seasonal mixing, the chance is for increases for low
	oxygen conditions, which are toxic to aquatic species.
	In another case, an extreme flooding event in Thailand
	caused a U.S.-based company to lose around half of its hard-
	drive shipments during the last quarter of 2011. Consumers may
	not have realized this, but this temporarily doubled global
	hard-drive prices and drove up the costs for Apple, HP, and
	Dell.
	Climate change can exacerbate historical inequities. And I
	want to say that the projected costs in the labor is around
	$155 billion per year. And under a low-emissions scenario we
	could take a bite of nearly a half out of those damages.
	Extreme heat mortality could have damages towards the end of
	the century of over $140 billion per year. We could take a 48
	percent bite.
	Mr. Tonko. If I can ask you to wrap up, please.
	Dr. Ekwurzel. And I just want to say overall coastal
	property losses, the losses are real, climate change is real.
	We need to step up solutions at the root cause, which States
	and cities are doing today.
	Thank you very much.
	[The prepared statement of Dr. Ekwurzel follows:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


	Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And we now move to Mr. Rich Powell.
	You are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Powell.

	STATEMENT OF RICHARD J. POWELL

	Mr. Powell. Good morning, Chairmen Tonko and Pallone,
	Republican leaders Shimkus and Walden, and other members of the
	committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.
	I am Rich Powell, Executive Director of ClearPath, a
	nonprofit that develops conservative policies that accelerate
	clean energy innovation. ClearPath supports flexible low-carbon
	technologies, nuclear, hydropower, carbon capture for both coal
	and gas, and energy storage.
	Climate change is an urgent challenge that merits action at
	every level of the government and private sector. It is too
	important to be a partisan punching bag. Climate change
	deserves a pragmatic and technology-inclusive agenda to make
	the global clean-energy transition cheaper and faster. It is
	conservative to hedge for this risk.
	Heavy industry is aggressively moving onto solutions to
	deal with climate issues. Southern Company is reducing their
	emissions in half by 2030, and will be low- to no-carbon by
	2050. Shell also aims to cut emissions in half by 2050.
	Notably, senior executives from Southern, Shell, and just last
	week BP are linking their pay to hitting emissions targets.
	These examples illustrate that the Federal Government should
	enable private-sector solutions through market-oriented
	policies.
	Crucially, we must also remember that climate change is a
	global problem. A molecule of CO<INF>2</INF> emitted on the
	other side of the world has the same impact as one released
	here. Since 2000, coal power generation in China nearly
	quadrupled. Bloomberg reports that new Chinese coal capacity
	remains planned roughly equivalent to the entire U.S. coal
	fleet. Abroad, China is financing another 100 gigawatts of coal
	in at least 27 countries. The expected emissions growth from
	developing Asian countries by 2050 alone would offset a
	complete decarbonization of the U.S. economy.
	More broadly, the share of global energy supplied by clean
	sources has not increased since 2005. Despite significant
	renewables growth, global emissions continue to rise. In other
	words, clean development is only just keeping up with economic
	development. Clean is not gaining ground. Clean tech available
	today is simply not up to the task of global decarbonization.
	It must represent a better, cheaper alternative so developing
	nations consistently choose it over higher-emitting options.
	We have a choice: That the Chinese and their partners shut
	down their coal-fired power plants at the expense of economic
	growth, or develop, demo, and export U.S.-based emissions
	control technologies.
	This technologies challenge is evident in the most
	ambitious plan yet from a major U.S. utility. Xcel Energy
	recently announced plans to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent
	by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050. Xcel noted they will require
	innovation to reach their 100 percent goal while remaining
	reliable and affordable for their customers. Growing their
	already impressive portfolio of renewables won't be enough.
	A serious debate on climate solutions must include a dose
	of political and technical realism. Let's not rush toward any
	impracticably hasty, exclusively renewable strategy in the U.S.
	that will be both costly and unlikely to reduce global
	emissions. If supporters of a Green New Deal truly believe
	climate change is an existential threat, they should focus on
	policies that reduce global emissions as quickly and cheaply as
	possible.
	So how do we change our trajectory? Well, we have done it
	before. There is no reason that clean technology needs to be
	more expensive or worse performing than higher-emitting
	technology.
	Take America's shale gas revolution, rooted in decades of
	public-private research partnerships. This R&D, coupled with a
	$10 billion alternative production tax credit, yielded combined
	cycle turbines, diamond drill bits, horizontal drilling, and 3D
	imaging. Markets took up the technology, increasing gas from 19
	to 32 percent of our power between 2005 and 2017, lowering
	emissions 28 percent.
	The same ingenuity that produced the shale boom can make
	that gas fully clean. Near Houston, NET Power is successfully
	demonstrating a groundbreaking zero-emission natural gas power
	plant. More broadly, it is an immensely promising time for
	public-private partnerships in U.S. clean innovation. Some
	examples:
	Form Energy is developing cheap, long-duration energy
	storage that may enable many more renewables. NuScale is
	licensing a small modular nuclear reactor, while Oklo and X-
	Energy partner with our national labs on microreactors.
	The last Congress hasn't received the credit it is due for
	boosting low-carbon technologies. Your broadly bipartisan
	agenda enhanced critical incentives for carbon capture,
	renewables, and advanced nuclear, invested in clean R&D at
	record levels, and reformed regulations to accelerate the
	licensing of both advanced nuclear reactors and hydropower. One
	example: The 45Q tax incentive for carbon capture was supported
	by a vast bipartisan coalition, from environmentalists to labor
	to utilities to coal companies. Notably, seven national unions
	just collectively restated the need to include carbon capture
	and nuclear in any national climate policy.
	Going forward, given the scale of the climate challenge, we
	need to greatly increase the pace and ambition of our efforts.
	Let's not shy away from smart investments in technology
	moonshots to deliver lost-cost, high-performing, clean
	technology. Let's create stronger incentives to commercialize
	cutting-edge companies and deploy their technologies globally,
	and remove regulatory barriers to rapidly scaling clean
	technology.
	Bipartisan cooperation on climate change is essential under
	divided government, and attainable. In fact, it is the only
	chance our Nation will have to play a significant role in the
	global solution.
	Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to
	the discussion.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Powell follows:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Powell.
	And next we will move to Mr. Rick Duke. You are recognized,
	Mr. Duke, for 5 minutes.

	STATEMENT OF RICHARD D. DUKE

	Mr. Duke. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Republic leader
	Shimkus, and members of the committee for inviting me to
	testify on the prospects for reducing greenhouse pollution
	through American leadership on technology and diplomacy. It is
	an honor to share with this committee my confidence that we can
	still contain the most costly and destabilizing climate
	impacts, but only if we choose to act to put our Nation on a
	path to net-zero greenhouse gas pollution by mid-century.
	In short, rapid climate action is strategic for both our
	economy and our national security. And we urgently need strong
	Federal policy to make it all happen.
	This is a momentum game--the faster we act, the easier it
	gets. Early support for emerging green technologies gives
	American entrepreneurs the chance to cut costs as they scale up
	production and learn by doing. As these costs come down, bigger
	markets open up, including for exports to countries that raise
	their ambition in response. And this in turn allows further
	cost reductions in global-scale economies.
	This virtuous cycle spurs the incredible progress we are
	seeing for climate solutions ranging from super-efficient
	lighting to renewables. And many of these originated in
	American labs and start-ups. To build on this momentum, we need
	to double down on cutting greenhouse gas pollution in the
	United States. And we know exactly what to do. It starts with
	quickly scaling up zero-carbon electricity. We have to broadly
	electrify vehicles, buildings, and much of industry, and we
	also have to cut non-CO<INF>2</INF> greenhouse gases.
	Over time, solutions that remove carbon dioxide from the
	atmosphere will play an increasingly important role. This
	includes restoring farmlands and forests through increased
	economic productivity, while also storing carbon in healthier
	soils and vegetation. At the same time, we need to kick start
	promising emerging technologies to directly extract
	CO<INF>2</INF> from the atmosphere and safely sequester it.
	These carbon dioxide removal solutions will allow us to
	achieve net zero by balancing out certain emissions that we
	don't know how to eliminate currently, such as methane and
	nitrous oxide from agriculture.
	Despite the imperative to get moving, though, some argue
	that other countries aren't doing much so we should hold off on
	cutting our emissions. But the facts are that our competitors
	are already moving. Every country other than the U.S. remains
	committed to the Paris Agreement. The EU and Canada both have
	carbon pricing in place that is strong.
	Mexico is moving to 35 percent clean electricity by 2024.
	And China has over 80 strong technology deployment policies in
	place that are propelling up to nearly $130 billion in
	renewables investment in 2017 alone. That is triple the level
	in the U.S.
	At the same time, China already accounts for well over half
	the electric vehicle sales, and two of the top three electric
	vehicle manufacturers in the world. Tesla is still in the
	number one slot, and GM is in the top ten.
	All this investment is driving down low-carbon technology
	costs globally, including batteries and solar electricity, both
	of which have come down about 80 percent since 2010. It has
	never been easier to cut greenhouse gas pollution. And all 50
	States can act now. In fact, at least 45 States have already
	installed utility-scale solar and wind at increasingly prices
	that are below conventional power. And we are making progress
	with carbon capture and storage, including the zero-carbon
	natural gas electricity pilot in Texas, and cleaner ethanol in
	the Midwest.
	But, unfortunately, we are not moving fast enough. Last
	year our energy CO<INF>2</INF> emissions were up over 3 percent
	after a decade of falling about 1.5 percent per year. And now
	Federal policy is creating headwinds. The last two budget
	proposals sought to cut energy R&D by as much as 70 percent.
	Thankfully, Congress strategically increased funding on a
	bipartisan basis.
	On deployment, the current administration is seeking to gut
	the Clean Power Plan, weaken vehicle standards, thereby
	threatening to cost drivers billions at the pump in higher
	gasoline consumption, and undermining measures to cut energy
	waste and methane leaks from our oil and gas systems. Instead
	of rolling back standards, we need stronger Federal investment
	in policy, both new legislation and vigorous implementation of
	existing law, to propel all low-carbon solutions forward.
	Many different policy packages could get the job done, but
	this ideally starts with at least doubling clean energy R&D,
	plus legislation that puts a price on pollution and equitably
	and productively uses resulting revenue. And we absolutely can
	and must do right by workers and others on the front lines of
	this transition, including those struggling with the decline of
	coal, and communities most impacted by pollution. Added all
	together, we could cut our emissions in half by 2035, on track
	to net zero by mid-century, while bolstering our technological
	and diplomatic leadership.
	Thank you. Look forward to the discussion.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Duke follows:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


	Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, Mr. Duke.
	And now we will move to Reverend Leo Woodberry. Reverend,
	you are recognized for 5 minutes.

	STATEMENT OF REVEREND LEO WOODBERRY

	Reverend Woodberry. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Tonko,
	and thank you distinguished members of the committee.
	I have been doing this work now for over 25 years dealing
	with issues of climate and environmental justice. I could begin
	by talking about being too big to fail. But if we talk about
	that, then we can also talk about how we should not have moved
	away from kerosene to electric lights, or how we should have
	protected the carriage and buggy whip industry rather than
	developing the auto industry. Or we could have said, et's keep
	the typewriter industry going and never develop a computer
	industry.
	So those are topics I can talk about. But what I would like
	to talk about is what we found last year when we conducted the
	Justice First Tour and went through 12 southeastern States and
	25 cities and talked to people on the front line, people who
	have been suffering the impacts of carbon emissions, pollution,
	and the impacts of climate change.
	So I am talking about people like the 90-year-old woman in
	Sellers, South Carolina, in Marion County who now has to
	elevate her home 7 feet in the air.
	I am talking about people who labored in our fields,
	cleaned our homes, and worked for employers who never paid into
	their Social Security and have to live off SSI checks of $600
	and $800 a month.
	These are the people who are being impacted. We don't have
	to wait 12 years for a switch to be flipped. Americans are
	suffering the impacts of climate change right now. People being
	displaced, communities are being destroyed. And we come here
	issuing the clear clarion call of hope. We need policy change.
	We need to desperately put our people to work.
	We can, like in the town of Sellers, South Caroline, they
	said that the flooding impacts were worse because of large-
	scale logging, losing our natural defenses against flooding.
	Because the ditches had not been cleaned out in 25 years in
	this rural community.
	We can put our people to work elevating homes, cleaning out
	ditches, building bioswales to minimize flooding. We can pass
	legislation that will put in place community-based climate
	solutions. It is time to move beyond the false narrative that
	equates big utilities with renewable energy.
	Let's look at the justification. Utilities said, ``We could
	not exist in a competitive environment because we have to build
	such large infrastructure that we might not get a return on our
	investment.'' Solar and wind can exist in a competitive
	environment. We don't have to look just towards macro
	solutions. If we can put timers and do energy efficiency in 10
	million homes and reduce energy generation by as little as 200
	kilowatt hours a year, we will have made a significant
	difference. But in order to do this we have to be able to look
	towards people who desperately need work.
	We have counties, like Marion County, like Dillon County,
	like Darlington County, like counties all across this country,
	rural communities where people have to drive 25, 30, 40 miles
	each way every day because there are no engines of economic
	development in their community.
	I came here today to talk about the people along the Black
	Belt, the people of Flint, Michigan, the people along the I-95
	corridor of shame, the least among us, those who were forgotten
	about, who we turned our gaze away from while the same
	polluting facilities were allowed to be sited in their
	communities that have led to climate change, and the
	possibility of humanity no longer having civilization as we
	know it. We can debate forever whether or not climate change is
	real. But the problem is here. The problem is now. And we need
	to build a wall of protection around the citizens of this
	country, a wall of mitigation, a wall of adaptation, and a wall
	of resilience.
	Because the science is clear, whether we are looking at
	the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or we are looking
	at our own National Climate Assessment, the storms are going to
	get worse. The hurricanes are going to become more intense. And
	we have to keep our forests standing in the ground because they
	are the greatest carbon sinks on this planet. And we don't have
	enough time to see whether or not some technologies might work.
	Mr. Tonko. Reverend, if you could wrap up.
	Reverend Woodberry. And so I just want to close by saying
	this: The time for action is now. And if we don't take action
	today, then we do a great disservice for generations to come.
	Thank you very much.
	[The prepared statement of Reverend Woodberry follows:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


	Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Reverend.
	And now we will move to Mr. Barry K. Worthington. Mr.
	Worthington, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

	STATEMENT OF BARRY WORTHINGTON

	Mr. Worthington. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member
	Shimkus, and members of the Subcommittee on Environment and
	Climate Change. My name is Barry Worthington. I am the
	executive director of the United States Energy Association. I
	have been in this role for 30 years, and have another dozen
	years in the energy business.
	The U.S. Energy Association has worked in transitional
	economies in developing countries for 25 years, over 25 years,
	with the U.S. Agency for International Development, and also
	with the Department of Energy, to expand the use of clean
	energy technology. Our members include energy production
	companies, energy efficiency companies, but also engineering,
	finance, legal, research, and consulting organizations. Our
	purpose is to convey information about the realities of global
	energy issues in the 21st Century.
	We are not a lobbying organization. We are not an advocacy
	organization. We are an educational association both by
	function and IRS tax status. My intent today is to offer
	information and observations to you and to convey an offer that
	the U.S. Energy Association is available to be a resource for
	you and your staff as you begin to tackle the priorities of the
	116th Congress.
	The risks of climate change are real, and industrial
	activity around the globe is impacting the climate. Addressing
	climate change is a challenge for our country. It affects every
	world citizen. While the industry adjusts to climate change, it
	continues to ensure American citizens have access to
	increasingly safe, affordable, reliable, and clean energy,
	which we all do in this great country.
	We are fortunate here. But we have between a billion and a
	billion-and-a-half global citizens with no access to commercial
	energy. Women in developing countries spend all day forging for
	sticks and animal dung to generate their cooking, lighting, and
	heating. This is dangerous. Burning firewood and animal dung
	indoors kills children. Indoor air pollution causes asthma and
	other health problems.
	Access to energy, on the other hand, provides improved
	health, education, economic development, and allows mothers and
	fathers to spend more time with their family instead of
	scrounging around to find animal dung to burn in their--inside.
	Central to energy access is lighting, for example. In
	developing countries, simple lighting reduces thefts, rapes,
	personal assaults, and other crimes. Access to energy paves the
	way for economic development in businesses such as simple cell
	phone charging enterprises, refrigeration for vaccines. Energy
	access improves people's lives.
	And our members are volunteering their time to work with
	their counterparts in developing countries to share technology
	and management practices in the developing countries. And we
	are trying to do our part.
	Our industry's challenge is to double the provision of
	energy services globally while reducing greenhouse gas
	emissions by 80 percent. Though there are 1 to 1.5 billion
	people with no access to energy, recognize there are also
	another 1.5 billion with inadequate access. And considering a
	global population growth of 2 billion leaves the energy
	industry to provide 5 billion more energy consumers access to
	energy services by mid-century.
	Many of these consumers will utilize fossil fuels because
	they are domestic, abundant, and affordable. We should work
	harder towards helping them use high-efficiency/low-emissions
	technology. USEA has been doing this for 25 years.
	And domestically we are expected to reduce greenhouse gas
	emissions by 80 percent. Our industry has undertaken a wide
	range of initiatives to reduce and avoid greenhouse gas
	emissions, and we are proud of our progress.
	For example, electric power carbon dioxide emissions
	declined 28 percent from 2005 to 2017. Methane emissions
	declined 18.6 percent from 1990 to 2015, even though we
	increased domestic natural gas production by 50 percent.
	We think the solution to the dual challenges of climate
	change and global access to safe, reliable, and affordable and
	clean energy is technology. And an all-of-the-above approach is
	essential. This means all of the renewables as well as all of
	the traditional fuels, including nuclear and fossil fuels. We
	need to work harder towards assuring that fossil fuel
	utilization uses high-efficiency/low-emissions technology,
	including carbon capture and storage.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Worthington follows:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, Mr. Worthington.
	And finally, from the BlueGreen Alliance, Mr. Michael
	Williams. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

	STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WILLIAMS

	Mr. Williams. Thank you, Chairman Tonko, Republican leader
	Shimkus, distinguished members of the committee. I am honored
	to be here alongside my fellow panelists and with you all as we
	strive to find common comprehensive solutions.
	As the chairman noted, my name is Mike Williams. I am the
	deputy director of the BlueGreen Alliance, a national
	partnership of labor unions and environmental organizations.
	BlueGreen Alliance unites America's largest labor unions and
	its most influential environmental organizations to solve
	today's environmental challenges in ways that create and
	maintain quality jobs and build a stronger, fairer economy.
	We believe that Americans don't have to choose between a
	good job and a clean environment or a safe climate. We can and
	we must have both.
	The world's leading scientific organizations have been
	unambiguous that climate change is a dire and urgent threat.
	And we need comprehensive action and solutions to rapidly drive
	emissions down now. I am heartened by the common commitment to
	action I am hearing today.
	Our communities bear the burden of climate change in
	wildfires, hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, and sea level rise
	it spawns. At the same time, our Nation is struggling with deep
	and crippling economic inequality. The majority of American
	families are less able to deal with these problems as their
	wages have fallen and their economic mobility and power in the
	workplace has declined.
	For too long the debate on the economic impact of climate
	action has been framed as either disaster or miracle, yet
	neither aligns with the complicated realities in which American
	workers live. This flawed debate has prevented us from
	addressing climate change at a level commensurate with the size
	of the challenge. The driving forces behind the challenges of
	climate change and inequality are intertwined, and we must
	tackle them together as equal priorities and place good jobs
	and working families at the center of a massive economic
	transformation.
	Thankfully, we are starting to see examples across the
	country of the kinds of solutions needed to achieve this
	outcome and justice for all Americans. Take Buy Clean
	California, a landmark law that requires State agencies to
	consider the embedded carbon emissions of industrial products.
	This law will reduce emissions globally, while also leveling
	the playing field for domestic manufacturers who are investing
	in clean, efficient manufacturing technologies and processes.
	Or in the State of Illinois, where the Future Energy Jobs
	Act provides sweeping changes to boost renewable energy and
	energy efficiency while protecting the jobs of workers at
	current energy generation facilities in the State, including
	existing nuclear power plants, and establishing standards for
	the solar industry to use a skilled and qualified workforce.
	Finally, critical Federal efforts, like America's landmark
	fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks,
	drive investment, innovation, and job growth. Our research
	finds more than 1,200 U.S. factories and engineering facilities
	in 48 States, and 288,000 American workers, building
	technologies that reduce pollution and improve fuel economy for
	today's innovative vehicles.
	As significant transformation is needed to truly address
	climate change and inequality at the speed and scale demanded
	by the scientific reality and the urgent needs of our
	communities, it will require bold ideas and a guarantee that no
	worker or community is left behind. And instead of leaking jobs
	and pollutions overseas, we invest in our industries and our
	people here.
	This is a big task. But I cannot stress firmly enough that
	no solution to climate change or inequality will be complete if
	Congress does not move forward with an ambitious plan to
	rebuild and transform America's infrastructure so that it is
	ready for the significant transformation we need to tackle
	climate change. This plan must address all aspects of our
	infrastructure needs, from strengthening the electric grid and
	modernizing our water systems to reducing methane leaks in the
	natural gas distribution sector, improving surface
	transportation, investing in natural infrastructure, and making
	our schools, hospitals, and other buildings safer, healthier,
	and more energy efficient.
	These investments can reduce air and water pollution and
	make our communities more resilient to the impacts of climate
	change. They will also create millions of good jobs. But we
	have to make sure we tackle this challenge the right way.
	This means ensuring all products are subject to Buy America
	and Davis-Bacon; using project labor agreements and community
	benefit agreements, and local hire provisions; prioritizing the
	use of the most efficient, resilient, and cleanest materials
	and products; enhancing workforce training and development
	programs; increasing pathways to economic opportunities for
	communities and local workers, especially people of color and
	low-income communities; and prioritizing public funding and
	financing.
	Repairing America's infrastructure systems should be a
	bipartisan legislative priority for the 116th Congress.
	In closing, I want to reiterate that tackling the crisis of
	climate change, if done right, is a significant opportunity to
	ensure a more equitable society, increase U.S. global
	competitiveness, and create quality, family-sustaining jobs
	across the country.
	We look forward to working with this committee as you move
	forward with your agenda for the 116th Congress. Thank you
	again for the opportunity to testify.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Mr. Tonko. I thank you, Mr. Williams, and your fellow
	panelists, who have provided great information.
	So that concludes our opening statements. We will now move
	to Member questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask
	questions of our witnesses. I will start by recognizing myself
	for 5 minutes.
	The United States emits around 6.5 billion metric tons of
	greenhouse gas each and every year. That pollution will outlast
	us by decades, and even centuries. As is clear from testimony,
	Americans are already feeling the effects of climate change,
	but most of the people in this room will be long gone when the
	worst consequences hit. The decisions we make today will
	determine the conditions for generations not yet born.
	Dr. Ekwurzel, I would like you to expand upon why it is so
	important that we start drastically reducing emissions now.
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
	Essentially what you said is correct, that for 20 percent
	of the carbon dioxide emissions it could be trapping heat day-
	in, day-out for centuries. And also methane, nitrous oxide,
	these are the very important pollutants to get out of the
	atmosphere. In part, because you may have noticed that coastal
	properties is one of the big sectors for damage. And if you
	reduce emissions you can take over a 20 percent bite out of
	that. And it is because the legacy of sea-level rise has
	already been baked in with the historical emissions of heat--
	trapping gases into our atmosphere.
	So think about what else we have baked in. It is very
	important to reduce emissions now so we have a chance at taking
	a 60 percent bite out of damages and extreme heat mortality in
	the labor sector, 50 to 60 percent. It is critical for saving
	lives to reduce emissions as soon as possible. Delay is super
	costly.
	Mr. Tonko. And the difference between a high-emissions or
	business-as-usual scenario compared to a low-emissions one,
	what basically is that difference?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. So, for example, in damage to the U.S.
	economy, the loss of labor cost, the range could be $20 to $200
	billion per year by the year 2090.
	If we went on the low-emissions pathway, we could take
	nearly a 60 percent bite out of that, or 50 to 60 percent. And
	that doesn't include adaptation. If we add adaptation in the
	mix, we can lower the costs immensely,.
	What we see is, in general, a very tight relationship with
	each global average surface temperature increase, a bigger bite
	out of the U.S. percentage GDP.
	Now, Ranking Member Walden mentioned some of the costs to
	transition to a clean energy economy. You compare that against
	some of these annual costs, you start realizing that an
	investment in reducing emissions is a very good investment.
	Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
	And, Mr. Duke, you have done a lot of work on
	decarbonization strategies. I, for one, believe we cannot take
	solutions off the table at this point. I hope today we can hear
	about the merits of many different options.
	Given all the potential pathways to decarbonize our
	economy, at this stage in the process how would you recommend
	Congress approach this challenge?
	Mr. Duke. Thank you, Chairman. I would start on two tracks
	to address this challenge, starting with the easiest part
	first. And that would include at least doubling clean energy
	and clean solution research and development investment. And I
	appreciate the bipartisan move in that direction over the last
	year or two.
	And at the same time, in the near term it is possible to do
	quite a bit of harvesting of low-hanging fruit. That includes
	things like measures to cut energy waste, to scale renewables
	even faster because they do need to go even faster than today's
	pace. We need to modernize the electricity grid, as has been
	noted. And do things that save consumers money, and cut energy
	waste, and build on what the States are already doing.
	At the same time, we need to go the next step. And the next
	step on a second track would be putting in place comprehensive
	policies that start with a price on carbon sufficient to put us
	on that path to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by mid-
	century. And we need to do this in a way that ensures that all
	communities benefit equitably and that we're investing the
	resulting revenue in a smart way. This will create broad-based
	economic incentives that help our entrepreneurs and innovators
	scale up and bring down costs yet further and create that
	global momentum that we need.
	Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
	I share the sentiment that we need to make progress now
	while we can, while developing our comprehensive economywide
	solution.
	I mentioned before that it has been a decade since the
	House last seriously attempted to address climate change. What
	has changed over the past 10 years that indicates that this
	time it can be different, Mr. Duke?
	Mr. Duke. Thank you for the question. There is quite a bit
	on the technology front that is worth just briefly summarizing.
	We have got all kinds of cost-effective solutions today,
	from wind and solar to energy efficiency. And electric vehicles
	are even cost effective for some drivers in high-mileage
	applications, like taxi drivers. You see them even here in DC.
	And you have got demand flexibility solution as well that
	are helping with the intermittency of some renewables.
	Down the line we see all kinds of things coming soon, like
	emerging technologies that electrify heating buildings through
	heat pumps, and electric vehicles that are cheap enough to
	compete on first cost with internal combustion engines, and
	dominate in terms of life cycle costs, will be available by
	many estimates within 5 years.
	And so this kind of technology solution set is a game
	changer and making it easier to act to cut pollution today.
	On the policy side, we have also learned a lot. And I think
	it is worth noting that pricing pollution clearly works. And
	what we have seen, in fact, is that countries that have done
	this, for example the European Union or our own States in the
	Northeast or California, have routinely seen that innovation
	means that the cost of the tradable permits under a cap-and-
	trade system is much lower than they initially anticipated.
	And so we should think about that as a lesson to create
	investor certainty when we have these kinds of programs. We
	might want to add a price floor on those kinds of mechanisms.
	And in general we need to ratchet up standards regularly for
	things like efficiency so we don't lose momentum on fuel
	economy or appliance efficiency. And we need to stretch
	incentives further with competitive mechanisms like clean
	electricity standards.
	Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duke.
	And I now recognize Representative Shimkus as the
	Republican leader of this subcommittee for 5 minutes to ask
	questions.
	Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to turn my
	questions to Mr. Worthington.
	You state that the challenge for the energy industry is to
	double the provision of energy services globally while reducing
	greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent. Can you break this down
	for me? What is driving the increase in global energy demand?
	And why are fossil fuels projected to remain the dominant
	source for energy globally?
	Mr. Worthington. Thank you, sir, for that question.
	Driving demand is multifold. It is a 2 billion population
	increase by the middle part of the century. It is providing
	access to energy for a billion to 1.5 billion people who don't
	have it now. This is captured in the United Nations
	Sustainability Goal Number 7. And it is increasing the
	availability of energy to those citizens today who don't have
	reliable, affordable access to energy.
	There are countries in, for example, in Africa and Asia
	where electricity might be available 3 to 4 hours a day. And
	that just renders an economy helpless. You can't operate
	industrial facilities with electricity only being available 3
	or 4 hours a day.
	So those are the drivers of demand.
	On the production side, you know, we work in dozens and
	dozens of countries. We are in touch daily with the people who
	operate energy systems in other countries. And in China, India,
	Indonesia, Vietnam, South Africa, Colombia, so on and so forth,
	they all tell us they have every intention of continuing to use
	their domestic fossil energy resources because they are
	domestic, they don't have to be imported, they are abundant,
	and they are affordable.
	And I have had business people tell me, ``Don't pay
	attention to what our government leaders say about us, we are
	going to use fossil''----
	Mr. Shimkus. OK, wind this up because I have got a couple
	more questions for you, so.
	Mr. Worthington. OK. ``We are going to continue to use
	fossil energy.''
	Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. What is the scale of transition
	that would have to take place to reduce energy system emissions
	by 80 percent?
	Mr. Worthington. Well, we would have to deploy every type
	of low-carbon/no-carbon technology that is possible. This truly
	becomes an all-of-the-above, and recognizing that countries are
	going to continue using fossil fuels.
	Mr. Shimkus. Well, let me ask this: Can the world do that
	with existing technology? Can they do it now?
	Mr. Worthington. We can't do it today, no. We need
	technology advancement all across the board, advanced nuclear
	systems, better energy storage, better renewables, and carbon
	capturing and the like.
	Mr. Shimkus. Which I think it speaks to the research and
	development equation that a lot of you have supported. Because
	we can't do it now, but with R&D and continued dollars we may
	be able to get there eventually. Correct?
	Mr. Worthington. If we can put a man on the moon, we can
	solve the climate problem.
	Mr. Shimkus. My friend McNerney would say it is an
	engineering problem, right? He is right there. He is a
	Californian, so.
	That is right. You are going to be a long time before you
	get to ask questions.
	Some climate change proponents want to move fully away from
	fossil energy. Is your experience in this reasonable?
	Mr. Worthington. Impossible.
	Mr. Shimkus. Is there another way at the problem where the
	benefits of affordable energy help us actually address climate
	risk?
	Mr. Worthington. Yes. By deploying technologies that reduce
	the CO<INF>2</INF> output from fossil energy: high-efficiency/
	low-emissions technologies.
	Mr. Shimkus. Yes, I think you weaved a great story in your
	opening statement. I think we all know people who are in
	different aspects, maybe in the mission field in underdeveloped
	countries. And I think understanding--and the Reverend is
	here--and we are concerned about our brother, and we are
	supposed to be our brother's keeper, bringing electricity to
	underdeveloped countries helps their livelihood, helps them
	develop, helps them or their State.
	So that is part of the whole discussion as we deal with
	this, not just as a United States solution but as a solution
	that will affect the entire world.
	You are the current chairman of the Committee on Cleaner
	Electricity Production for Fossil Fuels for the United Nations
	Economic Commission for Europe and a member of the Sustainable
	Energy Committee for the U.N. Commission. How would you
	describe the role of fossil fuels in meeting U.N.
	sustainability goals?
	Mr. Worthington. The U.N. Sustainability Goal Number 7 is
	energy access. And the use of traditional fuels all around the
	world are critical to achieving that goal.
	Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
	Mr. Chairman, I will give you the 2 seconds left.
	Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
	Now the Chair recognizes Representative Pallone, full
	committee chairman, for 5 minutes to ask questions.
	Mr. Pallone. Thank you. I just wanted to emphasize, Mr.
	Chairman, the priority for our committee in addressing climate
	change. And to that end, I do believe we can work together, and
	it will strengthen the economy and create more good-paying jobs
	in addition to protecting the environment through investments
	in clean energy and resilient infrastructure.
	So I want to start with Dr. Ekwurzel. What does the Fourth
	National Climate Assessment say about the anticipated effects
	of climate change on our Nation's infrastructure?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. It is we do need to build a more resilient
	infrastructure in the United States to deal with the earlier
	snow melt in the western mountains, and providing water that is
	escaping out of water sheds that we could instead harness for
	water resources, fighting wildfires, and other aspects. We need
	to upgrade our 20th century infrastructure to deal with the
	21st century climate impacts. And that is a wise investment.
	Mr. Pallone. Well, I believe very strongly that if we are
	going to do something on a bipartisan basis to address climate
	change that a major infrastructure bill and putting provisions
	in that bill will probably be the thing that we can most easily
	do on a--maybe ``easy'' is not the word, but that we can most
	likely do on a bipartisan basis and get President Trump to
	sign.
	But do we have the tools to address this? In other words,
	how do we make--how can we build and repair infrastructure in
	ways that reduce pollution? Give us some ideas and how feasible
	that is.
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Sure. When you take climate change risks into
	account, you end up having solutions, such as on the coastal
	areas, of nature-based solutions that are more resilient to the
	different types of hazards that climate-induced extreme events
	throw your way, and they suck up more carbon. So that is
	important and helps reduce emissions.
	However, if we do other types of infrastructure decisions
	that do not take into account the risks or the increased
	emissions that may result, we could make it, you know, have
	maladaptive options. We have to learn as we go and start as
	soon as possible.
	Mr. Pallone. You are saying that we have to be careful if
	we do a major infrastructure bill that we actually, you know,
	build in these provisions that will help address climate
	change, otherwise it might make it worse?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Yes. And we have a lot of folks that are
	stepping up with lots of interesting designs once these
	incentives are unrolled.
	Mr. Pallone. All right, let me ask Mr. Williams about job
	opportunities associated with expanding clean and renewable
	energy. How do we ensure that, you know, that what we do with
	clean and renewable actually creates jobs and supports and
	strengthens the middle class?
	Mr. Williams. Sure. I appreciate the question, Mr.
	Chairman.
	Mr. Pallone. And, again, by reference to infrastructure, if
	you could.
	Mr. Williams. Yes, absolutely. Infrastructure is a
	phenomenal way to do that. So direct investment in
	infrastructure across systems, especially in the electricity,
	in the energy grid, so both the deployment of energy for
	heating and transportation, as well as electricity. So directly
	investing in that area of infrastructure is incredibly
	important. But doing so in a way that advances strong labor
	standards or incorporates strong labor standards.
	So what we think of as basic items like prevailing wage
	standards, buy American, standards that make sure that when
	direct Federal investment goes into these projects that we are
	ensuring that high quality----
	Mr. Pallone. Give me some examples. You mentioned the
	electricity grid. What else? What about pipelines? What about,
	you know, electric vehicles?
	Mr. Williams. Absolutely. So, for us to deploy electric
	vehicles across the country, we will need a massive upgrade in
	electric vehicle infrastructure, charging stations, so on and
	so forth, across the country. That is an incredibly important
	one.
	You mentioned pipelines. Water infrastructure is absolutely
	critical. We often don't realize the amount of energy we use
	pumping water through our system. And when you are leaking
	water out of leaky old systems, you are losing energy and
	increasing pollution. So, simply by upgrading water
	infrastructure systems, we actually would save energy and
	reduce pollution. And all of that could and should be high-
	quality job creation.
	Mr. Pallone. And I, you know, I hear in New Jersey there
	are all kinds of pipelines being built. And, you know,
	different people are for it or against it. But I keep reminding
	them that, rather than focusing on new pipelines, why not focus
	on repairing existing, even for the natural gas? I mean, you
	can do a lot with maintenance and repair there that makes a
	difference in terms of climate change too, right? It is not
	just water, it is also natural gas and----
	Mr. Williams. Yes. So we have long had a campaign for a
	number of years on repairing and replacing natural gas
	distribution systems, the distribution systems under the city
	that deliver natural gas to homes and businesses so that they
	can heat properly. And those systems are old and they are leaky
	and they can be dangerous, so repairing them should be an
	absolute priority, not only because of the pollution that would
	save but the high-quality job creation, as well as the safety
	concerns.
	Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
	The Chair now recognizes Representative Walden, full
	committee Republican leader, for 5 minutes.
	Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks----
	Mr. Tonko. Five minutes to ask questions.
	Mr. Walden. Thank you. And thanks again for having this
	hearing. I want to thank our panelists. Your testimony really
	will inform our work, and we appreciate it.
	And, Mr. Williams, I appreciate your comments about, I
	believe you talked about the grid and improving drinking water
	supplies and things of that nature. I think we did 12 hearings
	in the last 2 years on grid adequacy, security. As we look to
	integrate new resources onto the grid, we have got to make sure
	it will handle the new renewables and the spikes in power. And
	so, I think the committee did good bipartisan work there. And,
	of course, we reauthorized, for the first time in about a
	decade, the modernized Safe Drinking Water Act to deal with
	some of these issues.
	And we tackled some of the pipeline siting issues as well.
	And small-scale hydro and irrigation districts that have put
	their open canals into pipes, pressurized the systems, and put
	a little hydro facility in and now generate enough power for
	3,000 homes just in central Oregon. So we streamlined some of
	the licensing there for hydro, which is an area where we get,
	you know, carbon-free renewable energy. And to your point, we
	manage that precious water very carefully.
	Dr. Ekwurzel, I am curious. You mentioned wildfires. My
	district is subject to it. As I pointed out, this is habitat.
	The committee twice held hearings on the human effects of the
	wildfire smoke. And scientists told us between 2,500 and 25,000
	people die prematurely every year from consuming wildfire
	smoke.
	And we had other forest scientists tell us that part of the
	problem in the west is overstocked stands, that historically
	you would have 70 trees per acre and today you have 1,000 trees
	per acre. And, of course, we know trees are pumps, they take
	water out of the ground.
	As you look at some of this science is that--knowing the
	effects of wildfires--is that something your organization would
	advocate for, is modern forest management practices to reduce
	excess fuel loads?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. I had the opportunity to be in Oregon with
	Forest Service scientists while fires were going. And seeing
	the sort of native practices to maintain more healthy forest
	reserves, definitely prescribed burns, other types of actors,
	are really important. At the same time you want to keep the
	carbon of the forests being a net storage for a long time----
	Mr. Walden. Right.
	Ms. Ekwurzel [continuing]. Rather than we really do need
	advances in understanding how to keep wildfires safe and keep
	populations down-smoke, shall we say. Because there were
	studies that it is almost like smoking several packs of
	cigarettes----
	Mr. Walden. Oh, it is awful. Awful.
	Ms. Ekwurzel [continuing]. If you are in a summer situation
	breathing this smoke.
	Mr. Walden. Yes.
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Which we did breathe some of that Oregon
	smoke.
	Mr. Walden. We were suffering under this for 6 weeks. Worst
	air quality in the world, absent Beijing. Or I mean, there were
	a couple of countries around the world that just at different
	periods had worse. But my district faced this all summer,
	summer after summer.
	And we know the prescription is going to reduce--we are
	always going to have fire, we are always going to have
	hurricanes, what do we do, though, to minimize the impacts? So
	thank you for that.
	Mr. Powell, as you have indicated, we have been pursuing
	policies on the committee to promote a range of clean
	technologies from nuclear energy, hydropower, grid
	modernization, energy efficiency, and battery storage. But,
	clearly, we all know what work needs to be done.
	The chart on page 2 of your written testimony shows the
	transition to a zero-emissions energy system is not yet
	happening globally, that clean energy is just keeping up with
	energy demand. And we heard that, I think, from Mr.
	Worthington, too, about the demand out there. But nations still
	strive for simply having electricity.
	How do we build on what we have done domestically so far to
	increase the pace and scale of technological innovation? And
	can we do this without imposing economically harmful
	regulations? And how does deregulatory policy help in
	innovation?
	Mr. Powell. If we are taking a global lens on this
	problem--first, thank you for your leadership in the last
	Congress to expand many of these policies--we are taking a
	global lens on this problem, the key is making clean technology
	cheaper, not traditional energy more expensive. If we are
	making clean technology cheaper, then we are focused on things
	like, to Chairman Tonko's point, moonshot programs to set very
	aggressive technology goals, for example, at the Department of
	Energy, and develop most of our resources toward achieving
	those very aggressive cost and performance goals. And then we
	can do more to set targeted incentives that work with markets
	to help scale up these technologies and get some of the scale
	and learning-by-doing benefits that Mr. Duke discussed.
	Then we can still do a great deal, for example, in
	streamlining permitting for new hydro projects. It still,
	despite the great work of this committee, takes far too long to
	put a new pumped hydrostorage facility in place or to relicense
	an existing dam, or to power up a nonpowered hydro facility.
	Mr. Walden. It seems to me we have led in energy
	development, clean energy around the globe. And certainly with
	fracking and natural gas replacing 16 gigawatts of coal, that
	has made a difference around the world and here at home. And I
	just want to see America lead in these efforts. And obviously
	we know industries are going to have to step up to the plate
	here too, but I sense they are willing to.
	So thank you, Mr. Chairman, again. My time has expired. And
	I appreciate all the testimony of our witnesses. Thank you for
	participating.
	Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yield back.
	The Chair now recognizes Representative Peters from
	California.
	Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
	this hearing.
	We all know the causes of climate change. I respect and
	appreciate hearing from the witnesses. Now we need to identify
	the practical ways to stop it, whether that is through
	regulation, deregulation as in the example of hydropower,
	putting a price on carbon--I think that is probably useful--
	carbon capture, R&D, or some combination. Some of these are
	more feasible than others. But let me be clear, feasible is not
	a euphemism for lack of ambition, it is just the opposite.
	Feasible means achievable.
	And I want to say from the bottom of my core is that we
	have to do this in a bipartisan way. What I have learned here
	is that if it is not bipartisan, it won't pass. And if it is
	not bipartisan, it won't last. And I really want to make sure
	that we get everyone on board.
	If it was up to me, we would enact a national version of
	SP100, which commits California to 100 percent carbon
	neutrality by 2045. We would take those steps. It is not up to
	me. It is not up to any single one of us to do that. So I am
	looking forward to working with everyone on this committee to
	make progress.
	We know we have to transition to a clean energy economy.
	There is not widespread agreement in either party what clean
	energy means. Maybe it's 100 percent renewables to some people,
	renewable electricity for some other people. And whether
	renewable electricity is all zero- and low-carbon sources of
	renewables or net zero, we can talk about that. But there is a
	need to move.
	And I also just want to, finally, note the presence of
	Reverend Woodberry here. There is a moral component to this
	too. And I am aware of Pope Francis speaking out on this as
	well as the Evangelical Environmental Network.
	Let me ask a couple questions of the witnesses. I will
	start with Mr. Powell.
	Climate models show that we are going to need significant
	deployment of current and new clean energy technologies,
	including renewables, nuclear, carbon capture renewal, removal.
	While regulation is an important driver for technology
	deployment in the U.S. to help global emissions reductions, one
	of the most important things we can do is to lead on clean
	energy innovation.
	What is the Federal Government not doing right now that we
	should be doing to accelerate the deployment of these
	technologies?
	Mr. Powell. Well, first let me thank you, Representative
	Peters, for your leadership, especially in nuclear innovation
	and cosponsoring the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities
	Act, which we were pleased to see passed through Congress last
	year. That set a good precedent for creating a test bed in the
	Federal Government for developing and expanding these
	technologies.
	And so now I think the next step is, well, how can we go
	further? And how can we use other powers of the Federal
	Government to ramp these up more quickly? I think a good idea
	would be something like the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act,
	which takes the next step. It sets an aggressive goal to
	demonstrate multiple advanced reactor technologies within the
	next decade.
	It expands the power of the Federal Government to use its
	PPA authority to purchase some of the power from those
	reactors, to get them set up, and to get them financed.
	It expands the availability of fuel that they would use.
	And I think we could take those kinds of approaches and
	apply it across all of the different clean energy technologies
	in order to scale them up more quickly.
	Mr. Peters. OK. I am interested in talking to all of you
	about deployment as well on other technologies.
	Mr. Williams, I believe action on climate change is an
	opportunity to create economic growth. But it is undeniable
	that a shift away from fossil fuels will have an impact that is
	tough on certain sectors. I think we need to provide workers in
	those sectors with a path to jobs that pay just as well or
	better, including retirement benefits and protections, the kind
	of jobs that can support families.
	In your testimony you talked about specific things the
	committee could do in an infrastructure package. What do you
	see as the most important things for Congress to include in any
	climate legislation to protect workers?
	Mr. Williams. Thank you for that question, Mr. Peters. We
	agree completely. That is a critical issue. In my verbal
	testimony I made sure to lean into the statement that we cannot
	let any workers or communities be left behind in this effort.
	There are a number of ways to do that. And the best way--
	among the best ways--is to direct the investments that would
	come from this to workers and communities that may be harmed,
	but just generally a commitment that we want to actually retain
	as many jobs as possible, first and foremost. And then, if that
	is unavoidable, make sure that there is that deep commitment,
	as you mentioned, to ensure that wages, benefits, healthcare,
	so on and so forth, people are taken care of throughout that
	process and that there is significant economic development in
	communities that see that dislocation.
	Mr. Peters. We have seen, I think, a lot of progress in
	California that we can learn from as well on that front.
	Finally, I just want to say with respect to Mr.
	Worthington, I haven't had a chance to ask you a question, but
	we talk about all the people who are underserved in terms of
	energy around the world, it strikes me that the cell phone is a
	good thing to look at. You know, a lot of places without phones
	didn't build out whole set of sort of telephone grids,
	analogous to the energy grid, they did essentially microgrids
	with cell phones.
	And I would suggest that a large part of our foreign policy
	should be the deployment and promotion of microgrids, just like
	the United States Marine Corps has at Camp Pendleton near my
	district, that don't rely on a centralized fossil fuel-based
	source but can rely heavily on renewables and on storage. And I
	think it is very feasible that we should really make that part
	of the mix.
	Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
	The Chair recognizes Representative McMorris Rodgers.
	Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all of the
	witnesses that are here today. I appreciate you being here and
	sharing your perspective on the environment.
	As you may know, I come from Washington State. And we are a
	leader in hydropower production. And because of research and
	innovation, new technologies, we are seeing even better salmon
	returns because of the fish, new, improved fish ladders and
	turbines. You know, we could double that hydropower without
	building a new dam in America simply by investing in
	hydroelectricity also. Only 3 percent of the dams actually
	produce electricity. And this is a clean, renewable, reliable,
	affordable source of electricity.
	So I wanted to start with a question to Mr. Powell. In the
	last Congress, I led legislation to streamline the hydropower
	licensing process. It takes on average 10 years to relicense a
	dam right now in America, compared to 18 months for natural
	gas. In your view, how does hydropower fit into the bigger
	picture? And what are we risking with proposals such as the
	Green New Deal that ignore the positive environmental benefits
	of hydropower?
	Mr. Powell. First, thank you, Representative McMorris
	Rodgers for your leadership on hydropower and preserving and
	expanding this very important resource. As you know,
	historically hydropower has been the most important of our
	renewable resources in the United States, and is appropriately
	viewed as a renewable energy resource right alongside wind, and
	solar, and biomass, and geothermal, and other renewables
	resources.
	In many ways it is the most valuable renewable resource for
	three reasons:
	First, it has the highest capacity factor of the renewable
	resources, so it is available for more of the year.
	Second, it is a flexible resource. It can be turned on and
	off, and ramped up and down in a way that many other renewables
	resources cannot be.
	And third, it can also be part of a storage solution. So
	pumped hydropower can serve as a, you know, vast battery. In
	fact, the very largest storage facilities in the United States
	are pumped-storage hydro facilities.
	So we see expansion of hydropower, either by powering up
	nonpowered dams or certainly ensuring that our existing
	hydropower facilities around the country are relicensed, and
	that we can continue to get good use out of them, and
	modernizing those facilities as key priorities of the clean
	energy portfolio.
	Mrs. Rodgers. What do you think Congress could do to
	expand hydropower production in the United States? And why do
	you think that should be a part or a central part of a climate-
	focused policy?
	Mr. Powell. So it needs to be a central part of a climate-
	focused policy. As Chairman Tonko said, at this point the
	climate challenge is too urgent to leave any of our tools off
	the table. And so certainly the largest renewable resource
	can't be left out of that solution.
	The idea that we would depower all of that hydropower,
	which I believe powers between 6 and 8 percent of our power
	grid right now, and replace it with new power, you know, the
	billions of wasted dollars that would be spent in doing
	something like that would be very counterproductive to a
	climate solution, and would certainly not be a cost-effective
	way to advance climate policy.
	Mrs. Rodgers. As we add more intermittent renewables to the
	grid like wind and solar, grid-scale energy storage will be
	critical to ensuring a flexible and resilient system that can
	deliver affordable and reliable electricity to consumers when
	the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining. I share
	ClearPath's goals to expand energy storage.
	Last Congress, we passed legislation. Mr. Griffith led it.
	We have also upped research dollars for new, innovative energy
	technology. I rep--or I am very close to the Pacific Northwest
	Laboratory. They are doing a great work in this space.
	Can you just help us understand more about what is going on
	in the private sector and what specifically we need to do here
	in Congress to accelerate innovation in energy storage?
	Mr. Powell. Sure. Well, first I should acknowledge PNNL's
	leading role in the energy storage innovation space. They have
	pioneered some of the most promising new technologies that are
	already being scaled up and commercialized in grid scale energy
	storage.
	I think the first thing to remember is that energy storage
	is far more than just batteries, right? It can also include
	things like pumped-storage hydro. It can include innovative
	ways of using water pressure to store energy underground. It
	can include heat storage and many other solutions. So I think,
	first and foremost as we fund against that priority for our
	Federal R&D engine, we should be thinking of what we want to
	come out of a storage solution as opposed to the necessary
	technology that would go into the storage solution.
	And I think we can set very aggressive goals against that,
	as some legislation introduced in the past Congress did, and
	then drive most of our dollars and coordinated activity across
	the Department of Energy toward achieving those performance
	milestones.
	Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. With that, I am going to yield my
	time. And I appreciate your sharing that info.
	Mr. Powell. Thank you.
	Mr. Tonko. The chairwoman yields back.
	The Chair now recognizes Representative Barragan.
	Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Last night at the State of the Union, the President may
	have ignored the threat of climate change. But with Dems in
	control of the House, this committee and Congress will no
	longer ignore the threat of climate change.
	I also want to take a moment to thank Reverend Woodberry
	and Mr. Williams for mentioning the impact to communities of
	color and low-income communities that climate change is having.
	When I think of climate change, I don't think in terms of
	green. I think in terms of black and brown. When I think of
	climate change, I think of my black and brown constituents who
	make up 88 percent of my district and who are
	disproportionately impacted by negative impacts of climate
	change.
	I think of black and brown communities throughout the
	Nation forced to live under discriminatory environmental
	policies that cripple their cities and towns economically, and
	leave them vulnerable and dependant on the very companies that
	are polluting our neighborhoods.
	When I think of climate change, I think of black and brown
	people who are confined to communities where decades of lax
	environmental policies and enforcement have literally sickened
	entire generations. I think of black and brown people across
	the country, this Nation, who face the painful reality of
	shortened lifespans filled with health complications caused by
	the toxic environment in which we live.
	I think of black and brown children forced to live in
	neighborhoods where the air quality standards are astonishingly
	low and the use of asthma inhalers is alarmingly high. I think
	of black and brown communities and children whose asthma
	diagnosis amounts to nothing more than a death sentence, with
	brown children in these communities having 40 percent or more
	likely to die from the affliction than their white
	counterparts.
	So, ultimately, when I think of climate change, I do not
	see an environmental crisis, I see a systematic environmental
	racism that needs to be acknowledged and addressed.
	Reverend Woodberry, do you acknowledge that environmental
	racism is a real threat to black and brown communities?
	Reverend Woodberry. Yes. Thank you for your question.
	Absolutely. And we want to urge Congress that, as we move
	forward with legislation, we ensure that we are not replicating
	models of injustice. Let me give you an example.
	Last year in August, we cut a ribbon on a solar farm, small
	solar farm in Dillon County on Highway 9 in the middle of a
	soybean field. But we were very careful while working with Duke
	Progress Energy, the utility, over a 2-year period to make sure
	that this solar farm was built in a just and equitable manner.
	And so, out of the 1,200 households that will be supplied with
	energy from this community solar farm, we made sure that one-
	third of the residents who were 200 percent of the Federal
	poverty limit had the $250 emission connection fee waived.
	And in addition to that, we have to be careful that, as we
	move toward renewable energy or we do energy grid upgrades,
	that we are not once again replicating models of injustice. So
	we were able to get the utility to do 1,500 free energy
	efficiency upgrades. Because whether an environmental justice
	home is connected to fossil fuels or renewable energy, if that
	home is energy inefficient and they are heating and cooling the
	outdoors and paying a disproportionate amount of their income
	on energy costs, we have not solved the problem.
	And what we want to avoid is creating an energy divide the
	way that we have done in the past by creating an educational
	and digital divide.
	Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Reverend Woodberry.
	If I could with the last 20 seconds, Mr. Williams, what are
	your recommendations to the committee to address environmental
	inequalities in black and brown and low-income communities,
	including opportunities to create these clean jobs?
	Mr. Williams. Sure. Well, first, thank you so much for your
	statement and your question. If we put forward a wholehearted
	effort to solve climate change but in the process do not remove
	toxic chemicals and other forms of pollution from workers'
	communities, then we haven't succeeded. So we agree.
	So there needs to be a significant, comprehensive effort
	that incorporates that into efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
	emissions as well.
	In terms of job creation in those communities, absolutely,
	targeted investments in disadvantaged communities, previously
	overlooked communities, absolutely needed. Policy items like
	community benefits agreements, local hire provisions, all are
	absolutely critical as we invest in trying to find new
	solutions.
	Ms. Barragan. Thank you. I yield back.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back.
	The Chair now recognizes Representative McKinley.
	Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Powell, I would like to have a conversation with you or
	some interaction with my remarks here. I think we have heard on
	the panel so far most Republicans and Democrats agree that
	there is a--the climate is changing, and that industrial
	activity is a major contributor to that. But I think the
	reinforcement is that we strongly disagree with solutions on
	how that might be.
	Would you agree that America acting alone is going to make
	a difference to the global environment?
	Mr. Powell. It will not.
	Mr. McKinley. Thank you. Let me add to that.
	So I want to add that, if anyone thinks that decarbonizing
	America is going to save the planet, whether that is 10 years
	or 20 years from now, you are delusional. Just 3 years ago, the
	EPA Administrator said that, her quote was, ``American action
	alone will not make the difference needed to impact global
	climate change.''
	The Cato Institute came out and said that decarbonizing the
	United States would lower the global temperature by just one-
	tenth of 1 degree Celsius by the year 2050.
	But without this global commitment that everyone seems to
	be ignoring, this is what we are having to deal with. Do we
	really think, any of you on this panel, that if we decarbonize
	America we won't be faced with severe weather, we won't have
	droughts, that coastal communities won't be flooded? How can we
	say that without the rest of the world on board?
	Here is what is going on, as CRS has already published.
	[Slide follows:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Mr. McKinley. This is what is going on, that China from
	2000 to 2016--China has increased its global emissions--or its
	emissions--by 290 percent. India, 235 percent. And at the same
	time America has reduced it by 16 percent.
	Are you familiar with the MIT report, their technology
	review report that--maybe you are. And what that said was--and
	it was just a recent report--it came out and said that, unless
	India reduces its emissions, the result will be a climate
	catastrophe regardless of anything the United States does.
	I want to make sure we always keep this in context. We
	don't live in a vacuum. We don't live in a little microcosm
	here that the air of the United States is, if we can get it
	clean we will be fine. We involve from the globe on this.
	So we get down to, what are our solutions or what are our
	options? And so if I could from you--you and I have had this
	conversation--it appears that most of the Democrats or people
	on the other side of the aisle are saying that they want to use
	a hammer approach. Let's put more regulations, cap in trade,
	carbon taxes, some kind of hammer approach. Isn't that what you
	are hearing as well primarily, Mr. Powell, that it is a hammer
	approach to solve this problem rather than a carrot and
	incentives for innovation?
	Because I think if we could do the innovation that we
	started last year with 45Q, with 48A, we could go on with that.
	Look, we have already talked about the Allam cycle, the net
	power plant, the turbine efficiency. Aren't those things going
	to be really the best solution rather than the hammer approach?
	Because I am assuming you are aware of the hammer approach
	throughout Europe, France particularly lately with the yellow
	vests, what happened there when they rejected that notion of a
	hammer approach. So, if we could just continue this innovation,
	this effort for research, I think many of you talked about the
	research concept, if we could do that we could, America, use
	our science and technology that we have used to do space,
	medicine, healthcare, all, and implement a strategy. Wouldn't
	it be something that we then could export to the other nations
	so that--like Mr. Worthington was saying, a billion to a
	billion five that don't have energy--if we develop the
	technology to reduce emissions and we could see that, export
	that technology and give them a chance for a better life,
	wouldn't that make more sense than a hammer approach that
	people are rejecting?
	Mr. Powell. So technology is the genie you can't put back
	in the bottle. And the political will for climate solutions
	will come and go here in the United States and around the rest
	of the world, but technology will last.
	Mr. McKinley. OK.
	Mr. Powell. So we can export the technology and we can have
	a higher confidence that that will be taken up around the
	world.
	Mr. McKinley. I just hope that everyone on the panel will
	recognize that what we do here is, we are just part of a big
	system. We have got to get the rest of the world engaged in
	this, otherwise we are still going to have severe weather, we
	are still going to have drought, and we are going to have
	flooding of our coastal communities.
	Thank you very much.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
	The Chair recognizes Representative McEachin for 5 minutes.
	Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want
	to start by thanking you for your leadership in the fight to
	stop climate change. I can't think of a more important
	discussion with which to begin the new Congress. And I also
	would like to thank our panelists, especially Reverend
	Woodberry, who has been a great champion for environmental
	justice, and Mr. Williams, whose organization has helped show
	that organized labor and the environment movement share the
	same goals and can succeed by working together.
	And in that vein, Mr. Williams, I would start with you and
	build a little bit on the question that Mr. Pallone stole from
	me, quite frankly.
	You know, one of my proudest accomplishments as a State
	legislator was to help clear the way for an offshore wind farm,
	which means well-paying jobs for Virginia workers. And I
	believe that we can replicate that success across the country.
	So how do we ensure that the coming green energy revolution
	helps all workers, even those who right now are working in the
	fossil fuel industry? That is the part I want you to build onto
	your answer that you gave Mr. Pallone.
	Mr. Williams. Sure. Offshore wind--well, first, thank you
	for your leadership, Mr. McEachin, it has been extraordinary.
	And we are already seeing benefits in Virginia for offshore
	wind investment and those policies working. Offshore wind is an
	extraordinary opportunity and one where we have seen,
	especially from the labor movement and the environmental
	movement, really the cobenefits percolating up in such a
	beautiful way.
	There is only one project currently built. But there are
	thousands of megawatts on the cusp of being built up and down
	the east coast. That is going to create high-quality union jobs
	in coastal areas up and down the east coast. But then going
	into the country, the supply chain potential of that and
	helping build out and support American manufacturing is just
	critical and incredibly impressive.
	We think that there needs to be significant support to make
	sure that that industry keeps moving forward and that policies
	deployed ensure that these projects are using project labor
	agreements, that they are, if needed and if possible, targeting
	it to communities that certainly need economic investment.
	So I just couldn't agree more, offshore wind is an
	absolutely critical part of this conversation.
	Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
	Reverend Woodberry, we know that environmental injustice
	hurts minority, rural, and low-income communities. But does
	facing unique challenges mean those communities also enjoy
	unique opportunities? For example, if we use the policy process
	to create new green-collar jobs, can we expect those jobs to be
	created in an economically just way? And if not, are there
	steps that we can take to make sure that they are, that they
	are done in an economically just way?
	Reverend Woodberry. Absolutely. Thank you for that
	question.
	What we need to do is work on a macro level but also on a
	micro level so that we are putting in place community-based
	climate solutions and also doing community in-place training.
	So we have seen this done successfully in Buffalo, New York,
	with Push Buffalo where, in the community that was being
	gentrified, they were able to get a building that was abandoned
	and convert that building into housing for senior citizens as
	well as offices for NGOs and a community center.
	We also have seen it done, we had some training back in
	2017 where we did a train-the-trainer for a solar installation
	for nonprofit leaders from Georgia, from your State in
	Virginia, from Mississippi, and South Carolina. And they have
	gone back in their communities to do solar projects and low-
	income, people-of-color communities.
	As a matter of fact, Monday I had the privilege of speaking
	at the University of Virginia. And we are going to be launching
	a solar project in the Buckingham community in June.
	And we can actually take these small-scale, community-based
	successful programs and projects and actually export them
	overseas. So I cochair an 88-year-old organization called
	Agricultural Missions, Incorporated. We are just completing an
	8-year project in Sierra Leone and Liberia where we brought
	community water pumps to 47 towns and villages. And we will be
	going to Sierra Leone and Liberia in April so that we can work
	with those same community leaders and organizations in these
	towns that have never had electricity so that we can work on
	implementing a 4-phase solar project in those towns and
	villages.
	So we can export the technology. We can also export
	community-based climate change solutions with renewable energy,
	providing jobs and opportunities for low-income communities and
	people of color in this country and around the world.
	Thank you for your question.
	Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Reverend.
	And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
	The Chair now recognizes Representative Long for 5 minutes.
	Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I begin my
	remarks, I would like to ask for everybody to keep John and
	Debbie Dingell in their thoughts and prayers. Debbie had
	tweeted out this morning that ``Friends and colleagues that
	know me and know I would be in Washington right now unless
	something was up. I am home with John and have entered into a
	new phase. He is my love and we have been a team for nearly 40
	years. I will be taking each day as it comes. We thank people
	for their friendship and support and ask for prayers and
	privacy during this difficult time.''
	I know reading this in an open hearing may not be privacy,
	but she tweeted it so I am assuming that she would be OK with
	that. And John was sworn into Congress the year I was born,
	1955, and Debbie has followed in his footsteps. And very good
	friends of my wife, Barbara, and I. So just want everyone to
	keep John and Debbie in their thoughts and prayers, if you
	will.
	I want to focus my questioning here today on how to reduce
	carbon dioxide emissions while keeping energy and commodity
	prices low, particularly in rural and agricultural communities
	like those that I represent. I have a large rural area.
	Mr. Worthington, coal represents 81 percent of Missouri's
	power generation in 2017. And two of the biggest industries in
	my district are farming and trucking. And from what I have seen
	with the New Green Deal wants to completely replace fossil
	fuels with renewable energy and decarbonize our economy, which
	would be a very worthy goal if it was anywhere near possible
	within the time frame they want to do it.
	Do we currently have any technology to decarbonize the
	farming and trucking industries while continuing to produce and
	move goods to market without harming consumers?
	Mr. Worthington. That technology does not exist today at
	scale to accomplish those goals. We can possibly get there,
	given time and given tremendous investments in research and
	technology. Agriculture presents a significant percentage of
	greenhouse gas emissions. You might think of them as being
	naturally occurring in the agricultural business. I don't think
	we are going to change that component over time. There is no
	technology fix for the emissions out of agriculture.
	We have a long, long way to go to develop the technology
	that would allow for a 100 percent renewable economy.
	One recent report that came out in December, part of a
	scientific journal called Joule, indicated that, if such energy
	storage options existed, $100 a kilowatt hour for lithium ion
	batteries, for example--that is a third of the current cost--
	the cost would be $7 trillion. Seven trillion dollars, just the
	storage component of a 100 percent renewable system. Seven
	trillion dollars is 19 times the amount that Americans spend on
	electricity in 1 year. Nineteen times the amount of electricity
	in 1 year.
	And that would be, again, a cost of lithium ion batteries
	that is a third of what the cost is now. So, even with
	additional R&D investments, the cost is still going to be
	staggering----
	Mr. Long. OK.
	Mr. Worthington. [continuing]. For the Green New Deal.
	Mr. Long. Thank you.
	And, Mr. Powell, I will turn to you. And I travel quite
	extensively with my duties here in Congress. Been to China
	several times. And I think one time I have seen the sun while I
	was there. I mean, sun dials are not big sellers because you
	can't tell if the sun is up or not or what part of the sky that
	it is in. So anyone in their right mind wants clean air to
	breathe, clean water to drink, and I hope that hearings like
	this will bring out commonsense solutions that we can all agree
	on as Republicans and Democrats and come together to eventually
	reach these goals.
	And, Mr. Powell, I share your desire to reduce carbon
	emissions, as any right-thinking person would, I would think.
	And in your opinion what is the right way to do that? Should
	Congress encourage market-based solutions to encourage cleaner
	energy? Or should we follow the New Green Deal, which would
	raise taxes and impose the stringent mandates that have
	potential costs we just heard about to communities and
	industries like those that my district deals with?
	Mr. Powell. Well, first, Representative Long, thank you for
	your leadership on advancing nuclear power and solutions to the
	spent fuel issue and your work with Leader Shimkus on that
	issue.
	Market-based solutions, all things being equal, should be
	the more cost-effective solution to the problem both here in
	the United States and also the things that we can export to
	other economies like China. It is very difficult for us to
	export our policy over there. They do their own thing. But they
	are happy to buy, and take, and scale up our technology. In
	fact, the real risk is that the Chinese in many of these things
	are actually moving very quickly and attempting to take also
	parts of the global market in those technologies as well.
	And So I think from the U.S. economic competitiveness
	perspective, there is a real priority that we stay competitive
	with these technologies alongside the Chinese.
	Mr. Long. OK, thank you. I am past my time. I yield back.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
	recognizes Representative Blunt Rochester for 5 minutes.
	Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want
	to thank you for your leadership and also for your charge to
	the committee that we rise to the challenge. I want to thank
	you for that. I would like to thank the witnesses as well.
	I can think of no more pressing topic for us to be
	addressing than climate change. Actually, as we were sitting
	here, over my phone a New York Times article came out to say
	that it is official, 2018 was the fourth warmest year on
	record. It is happening to us right now.
	And in Delaware we are the lowest-lying State in the
	country. We are urban, we are rural, we are suburban, and we
	are also coastal. So the consequences of climate change and sea
	level specifically impact my State directly.
	I also wanted to just say a word about the global
	conversation that we are having as well. I actually did live in
	China, and I actually do think that we need to stay
	competitive. But the real issue is not whether the world
	recognizes it, it is do we recognize it? When we get out of the
	Paris Climate Accord, we send a message to the world.
	My first question is to Dr. Ekwurzel. And if you can just
	talk a little bit about the potential impact of sea-level rise
	for a State like mine if we don't immediately take steps to
	address carbon emission and climate change more broadly?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Delay in action on reducing global emissions
	is absolutely critical for the State of Delaware. As you know,
	the low-lying communities, we also have situations where there
	are churches that the parking lots--people can't even get to
	church on Sundays.
	Ms. Blunt Rochester. Yes.
	Dr. Ekwurzel. It is really affecting the daily lives. And
	we have been working with communities to share those stories
	and to figure out how can we adapt.
	Adaptation is really key for the State of Delaware for
	doing coastal resilience.
	Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much.
	And I would like to turn it to Reverend Woodberry. And
	thank you also for your work.
	One of the things, a lot of people think that sea-level
	rise really only impacts those coastal communities and beaches.
	But, as was said, in Delaware we have areas that are considered
	environmental justice communities. And I was hoping, Reverend
	Woodberry, if you could just talk about strategies that you
	have seen that are effective in helping those communities get
	their voice out there and also advocate for themselves, actual
	strategies.
	Reverend Woodberry. Actual strategies. So we have to look
	at being more proactive rather than waiting for climate impacts
	to take place. And thank you for lifting that up. And sea-level
	rise impacts even freshwater. So we are finding waterways,
	estuaries that are becoming more brackish. It is impacting sea
	life. It is impacting fishing. A lot of low-income people
	actually don't fish for sport, but they fish because they need
	the food in order to survive and feed their families.
	Some of the solutions that we discussed recently in New
	Orleans after experiencing the Hurricane Florence and Hurricane
	Michael, was that we need to work desperately to put people to
	work to make our homes more resilient to deal with adaptation.
	So I mentioned briefly in my statement that we can look at
	doing bioswales. In a lot of our communities, we have
	brownfields that are being polluted by industries that are gone
	that we can actually create bioswales and use plants for
	remediation that can draw out heavy metals and toxins, and
	actually provide drainage and pools so that urban areas or
	rural areas do not have to be as flooded as they are now.
	Also, it is very important that we keep our forests and our
	trees standing, particularly along our river areas. Hardwood is
	very valuable. But what we are finding is that a lot of low-
	income communities are actually losing their forests and their
	trees. We have a lot of folks, particularly people of color,
	who have their property that is owned by several families, and
	oftentimes they are not able to pay the property taxes, and the
	only option that they have is to have the trees cut down.
	Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Reverend.
	Reverend Woodberry. So adaptation reserve is really
	important.
	Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much.
	And, Mr. Williams, my last question is really about, in
	relation to Reverend Woodberry, many of these communities like
	Southbridge where we live in Delaware bear the brunt of these
	economic impacts. Can you talk about jobs that can be created
	to help mitigate and also strengthen the community?
	Mr. Williams. Sure. And thank you for the question.
	Again, this is an infrastructure discussion. This is
	directing investments directly towards those communities. We
	should target them to communities that are going to be hardest
	hit, are already hard hit economically, and we should make sure
	that we are not just tossing money and saying, ``Go forth.''
	But there should be standards there to make sure that there
	are good jobs and they are lifting up people who haven't had
	the opportunities, whether it is building sea walls, or
	retrofitting buildings, or even working in healthcare and such,
	just making sure investments get targeted there.
	Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. I am out of time. I yield
	back.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back.
	The Chair recognizes Representative Flores.
	Mr. Flores. Thank you, Chairman Tonko. And thank you,
	Chairman Tonko and Leader Shimkus, for hosting this meeting
	today. I was pleased that all the panel and almost everybody up
	here on the dais has agreed that climate change is real. The
	question is, how do we deal with it?
	Reverend Woodberry, I want to thank you for your closing
	comments where you said that we have got to focus on
	mitigation, and adaptation, and resilience. And then you
	further closed by saying that forests are by far the best
	carbon sink that is available today, and that we need to not
	forget about that as a source of carbon capture.
	I would--I want to say this--you know, we have already
	heard this, the U.S. leads the world in emissions reduction.
	And everybody keeps talking about Paris. And the EU countries
	that are part of the Paris Accord have failed to meet their
	carbon reductions.
	We, on the other hand, have been leaders in this. And it's
	in large part to technology that has created that American
	success story, partially because of the transition to cleaner-
	burning natural gas and the development of cost-effective
	renewables.
	For my own part, I am doing my part. Right before I ran for
	Congress, I didn't know I was going to run for Congress, but I
	commissioned the largest residential solar system on my house
	in Central Texas. And so I am glad to be part of that. And over
	the course of the last 3 years, I have converted over 90
	percent of my light fixtures to computer-controlled LED
	technology. So I have one of the lowest emissions footprints
	per square foot of anybody up here on this dais.
	That said, you have got to be careful how you do this. I
	don't think we get it through a chaotic, headlong rush toward
	decarbonization. I think we get it through thoughtful use of
	technology and figuring out what is the pathway for this
	moonshot, and what is the realistic time period that it gets
	there.
	One of the things that--one of the technologies I think
	that gets us there is nuclear. We hear a lot of projections
	about replacing the existing fossil energy power generation
	with solar and wind. But there are mixed messages about the
	role of nuclear energy in the future. And it seems to me that,
	if we are really serious about climate change, we need to get
	serious about the role of nuclear power.
	I don't understand why some advocates for that chaotic
	decarbonization do not take nuclear seriously. They are
	ignoring the role of next-generation nuclear power as a
	significant source of baseload zero-emissions power with a much
	smaller land and environmental footprint than nonbaseload power
	sources like wind and solar.
	Mr. Powell, your organization, ClearPath, is doing a
	significant amount of work in the nuclear area. What is your
	organization focused on in this form of clean energy over
	others?
	Mr. Powell. Well, first, Representative Flores, thank you
	for your leadership on advanced nuclear energy, both in
	promoting solutions for advanced nuclear fuel----
	Mr. Flores. We are going to bring it up again, too.
	Mr. Powell. Appreciate that. And also for cosponsoring the
	nuclear moonshot approach that Representative Higgins has
	brought to the House Science Committee.
	We think that a number of priorities are necessary to scale
	up the next generation of nuclear power. Obviously, we need the
	fuel for those reactors.
	Mr. Flores. Right.
	Mr. Powell. We already have a test bed that has now been
	established in the last Congress. Now we need a moonshot goal
	to demonstrate multiple advanced reactors and deploy most of
	our resources through the Department of Energy towards
	achieving that goal.
	We also need to use the full resources of the Federal
	Government, like its PPA authority to scale it up.
	And then, lastly, to this global problem we need to be
	thinking about how we use nuclear as a tool of diplomacy and
	economic development around the world and how we use new
	authorities like the BUILD Act and the Development Finance
	Corporation to start exporting that good U.S. nuclear
	technology to other countries and help them solve their
	emission problems with 24/7/365 clean energy.
	Mr. Flores. The United States is developing advanced next-
	generation nuclear technologies. But it has also been
	demonstrated that we have a great record for our current light
	water reactor fleet. The United States nuclear reactors have
	operated for over 4,000 reactor years without a major accident,
	according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
	If this knowledge and successful safety record can be
	shared with the rest of the world, we could make great strides
	in reducing emissions through safe nuclear power, particularly
	next-generation nuclear power, to generate clean, zero-
	emissions electric power.
	So, Mr. Worthington--and then I will ask you the same
	thing, Mr. Powell--should the U.S. promote more nuclear as part
	of a global emissions reduction scheme?
	Mr. Worthington. Absolutely.
	Mr. Flores. OK. Mr. Powell? Pretty simple answer.
	Mr. Powell. Yes, absolutely.
	Mr. Flores. OK. For both of you, has anyone looked at the
	environmental impacts of scaling up to 100 percent renewables?
	My home State of Texas is the Nation's leader in wind
	production. But then we have got a lot of land, open land in
	West Texas that makes it feasible to do that where it is not a
	problem.
	Wind, however, is intermittent and does not provide always
	long baseload power. And so, when we saw that with the impact
	of the power demands coming out of the recent polar vortex,
	what are the environmental and land use impacts of wind and
	solar versus nuclear and natural gas? Mr. Powell?
	Mr. Powell. Well, certainly nuclear is a more compact
	solution.
	Mr. Flores. Right.
	Mr. Powell. It produces more power on a smaller amount of
	land. And in terms of the broader environmental impacts, there
	are tradeoffs with all of these technologies.
	So renewable technologies and the storage that would have
	to go along with them have a lithium problem and sort of a
	lithium sourcing problem for where they come from. Just as
	nuclear has a spent fuel problem.
	Mr. Flores. Right.
	Mr. Powell. All of these technologies have their own local
	environmental impacts, and all of those need to be managed as
	part of a holistic solution.
	Mr. Flores. Mr. Worthington?
	Mr. Worthington. What we are worried about is, with the
	rapid deployment of solar photovoltaics, these systems have a
	shelf life. And after they no longer function, they are going
	to have to be recycled. And there are some pretty nasty
	chemicals that are contained when they are manufactured.
	And so we are concerned that we don't really have the rules
	in place necessarily to safeguard that those units are recycled
	properly and the chemicals are properly disposed of. I think
	that is something that has not been adequately studied and----
	Mr. Flores. Right.
	Mr. Worthington [continuing]. Warrants some more review.
	Mr. Flores. Thank you. I do agree that, as we have future
	hearings on this subject, we need to consider the gnarly
	environmental footprint that some storage technologies have.
	Mr. Chairman, thank you for your forbearance. I yield back.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
	The Chair recognizes Representative DeGette.
	Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
	You know, I really want to thank you for having this
	hearing as your first hearing of this committee. I have been on
	this committee for many, many years and seen the, shall I say,
	evolution of thinking about climate change. And this panel is
	the perfect example of that.
	And so I want to start out in the grand tradition of our
	beloved friend and mentor, John Dingell, and ask you all a
	couple of questions that will only require a yes-or-no answer.
	The first question is, do you all agree that climate change
	is real and that human activity contributes to it? Doctor?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Yes.
	Mr. Powell. Yes.
	Mr. Duke. Yes.
	Reverend Woodberry. Yes.
	Mr. Worthington. Yes.
	Mr. Williams. Yes.
	Ms. DeGette. Thank you. That in itself is a revolutionary
	step for this committee. Thank you all for that.
	My second question is, do you all agree that we need to
	address climate change in a way that builds the resilience of
	our communities, especially of those most vulnerable to climate
	impacts, while growing our economy and providing well-paying
	jobs? Doctor?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Resounding yes.
	Mr. Powell. Yes.
	Mr. Duke. Yes.
	Reverend Woodberry. Absolutely yes.
	Mr. Worthington. Yes.
	Mr. Williams. Unequivocally.
	Ms. DeGette. Thank you. My last yes-or-no question--so far
	you are all getting 100 percent. My last question is, do you
	agree that driving innovation in clean energy is an essential
	part of the solution, and that it is time that we committed
	ourselves to doing that?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Yes.
	Mr. Powell. Yes.
	Mr. Duke. Yes.
	Reverend Woodberry. Yes.
	Mr. Worthington. Yes.
	Mr. Williams. Yes.
	Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much.
	You know, all of this agreement here in this panel with the
	Democratic and Republican witnesses makes me really hopeful
	that, as what Mr. Powell said, bipartisan cooperation on
	climate change can be attainable. And I want to thank all of
	you for committing to this.
	I just have a couple of more questions.
	One of my questions for you, Dr. Ekwurzel, is, as you know,
	I am from Colorado and the last few years we have had the 30-
	year low in snow pack. And what is even worse than that is that
	the snow is melting earlier, and so the water is going down.
	Can you let us know what kind of impact climate change is going
	to continue to have on the snow pack in the western United
	States?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Thank you. And that snow pack is a critical
	water resource for Coloradans and all downstream----
	Ms. DeGette. Right.
	Ms. Ekwurzel [continuing]. In the Southwest.
	I want to say that there are three things that climate
	change does to the snow pack. It causes it to melt earlier. We
	have a shorter snow season. Even if you have an atmospheric
	river delivering wonderful amount of snow, the extra heat in
	the winter season is causing it to melt, and sublimate, and
	evaporate into the atmosphere.
	We have what is called a hot drought in the Colorado River.
	We could lose up to 50 percent of that flow just from the
	climate change impacts if we were to do unabated, you know,
	course that we are on now.
	Ms. DeGette. Second, so thank you, a second issue that we
	have, in particular in my congressional district, which is
	primarily Denver, is a persistent smog problem. And of course
	we all know what the issues with smog are in terms of asthma
	and the work and school days, outdoor recreation days, et
	cetera. But what can you tell us--and you talked, we talked a
	lot and we know in the West about the impact of wildfires--what
	can you tell me about the impact of climate change on air
	pollution and smog?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. We call it the climate penalty of smog. One
	of the ingredients you need for greater ozone ground-level
	production is warmer temperatures. The warmer it is, the more
	smog you produce if you have those precursors of volatile
	organic carbon. And you need sunlight.
	Therefore, if we were to reduce global emissions, we would
	reduce the future climate penalty that could only get worse
	with climate change.
	Ms. DeGette. Thank you.
	Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to a couple of the
	things our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been
	saying. The first thing they have been saying is that, well,
	the rest of the world is not coming along.
	Well, number one, we are the ones that pulled out of the
	Paris Climate Accord, not them. And so I would suggest maybe
	one of the first things we could do is get back into the Paris
	Climate Accord.
	And the second thing I will say is, just because other
	people aren't moving as quickly as we are, the President said
	last night in the State of the Union, America is the best
	country in the world. Why don't we be the trendsetter? Why
	don't we be the one exporting all of our technology to China
	and India? Why don't we be the one setting the standard?
	And the last thing I will say is, these other countries do
	want to act. Their citizens are demanding action for the same
	reason why we are demanding action. And I think that that is
	why this committee--this is just the first step, and I know you
	intend to work on legislation, and all of us intend to work on
	that with you because we are actually going to move this
	through. And I know we can do it in a bipartisan way.
	I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back. And we thank you
	for your comments.
	The Chair now recognizes Representative Carter.
	Mr. Carter. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of
	you for being here. This is an extremely important subject. I
	believe that my colleague just asked all of you a question on
	whether you believe that climate change is real or not. And I
	think, if you were to ask that same question to everyone up on
	this dais, they would say the same thing: Yes, it is, it is
	real. It is something that we have to address.
	There may be some difference of opinions on how much of it
	is man-made. But regardless of how much of it is man-made, we
	still have to address it. There may be some who want to say
	that it is just cyclical in nature and that if you look back
	over time and this happens, well, that may be true too. But
	regardless of that, we still have to see the impact and have to
	address the impact that man is having on this.
	These are all givens. These are all things that I think all
	of us agree on and all of us are working toward.
	I want to start--and for that I want to thank all of you
	for being here and thank all of you for your interest and for
	your work on this, because it is extremely important. We all
	recognize that.
	I want to start, if I could, with Mr. Worthington and just
	ask you, I have always been one who subscribes to an all-of-
	the-above-type energy policy. I think it is extremely important
	for a number of reasons for us to have safe, and secure, and
	dependable, and affordable energy. And it is important for our
	national defense. It is important for our citizens. It is just
	very important.
	I know that you mentioned in your testimony that you
	believe that an all-of-the-above approach is essential as well.
	Once we get beyond solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and even
	beyond the traditional fuels, what are some areas that we
	should be looking for to play a greater role in the all-of-the-
	above fuels mix?
	Mr. Worthington. Well, one of the, one of the promising
	technologies is hydrogen. And we have been dealing with
	hydrogen for decades now. We are not at a stage where it is
	economical, but it has tremendous potential, both to serve
	transportation issues as well as electricity. It needs more
	work. It needs more research. But it is a very promising area
	that we are watching very carefully.
	Mr. Carter. What about biomass? Let me ask you about that.
	I represent South Georgia. We have got a number of things in
	abundance in South Georgia, one of which is pine trees. And we
	have got a number of biomass manufacturers. And what about
	biomass, is that something we should be looking at?
	Mr. Worthington. Absolutely. We are actually using biomass
	now in many different applications. We are using it directly to
	produce electricity. We are mixing it with coal to reduce the
	CO<INF>2</INF> emissions from a coal plant. And we are actually
	pelletizing wood and shipping it to Europe. There are many,
	many countries in Europe heat their homes with American wood.
	Mr. Carter. Why is that it is used in Europe but not
	necessarily as much here in America? I always found that
	interesting. I have visited a number of these plants in South
	Georgia, and that is what they tell me: We ship it to Europe.
	Mr. Worthington. Yes, it is a very good question. I am not
	sure I know the answer. It may be a matter of convenience. Our
	industry has made heating with fuel oil and natural gas very
	convenient. We have liquefied petroleum gas.
	I think it is--I have never answered that question before,
	but I would have to say it is probably because we have more
	options than what the Europeans do. And particularly now with
	our abundant shale gas resources, we are just literally awash
	in gas.
	Mr. Carter. Right.
	Mr. Worthington. And it is inexpensive, it is affordable,
	and it is going to be available.
	Mr. Carter. OK. Mr. Powell, I am going to you and ask you,
	and to kind of follow up on my colleague from Texas, nuclear
	power is certainly something I feel like we need to be looking
	at. Georgia Power right now has the only two nuclear reactors
	under construction in our country. That is something that we
	are depending on and something I think we should look at very
	carefully.
	Can you tell me the role that you see nuclear power as
	playing in our country's energy future?
	Mr. Powell. Absolutely. And, first, let me thank you for
	your leadership in nuclear power, for the State of Georgia's
	commitment in getting those reactors built. That is incredibly
	important for keeping the national nuclear supply chain robust
	and strong going forward.
	I think the next generation of nuclear power in the United
	States will be much smaller, less capital intensive, and more
	flexible. So I think the future of nuclear power----
	Mr. Carter. We are certainly glad to hear that in Georgia.
	Mr. Powell. Yes, exactly. I think it is unlikely we will
	build more gigawatt-scale reactors like the great technology
	going up in Plant Vogtle. I think it is much more likely we
	will build small modular and microreactors that can be combined
	together in the same way that wind turbines are combined
	together in large arrays with hundreds of units. I think that
	is the future of nuclear power.
	Mr. Carter. Right. Again, let me thank each of you for
	being here. I appreciate it. This is extremely important,
	something that we all agree on that we have to address in a
	reasonable and a rational way that is going to provide for
	safe, secure, dependable, affordable energy for our citizens.
	And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
	The Chair recognizes Representative Schakowsky for 5
	minutes.
	Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, after 6
	long years, having a hearing directly on global warming, on
	climate change. And I wish it were that all of us agreed. Maybe
	this tweet from the President, who never mentioned this crisis
	last night in the State of the Union, is a joke. I would like
	to think so, but maybe not.
	During the polar vortex he tweeted, ``What the hell is
	going on with global warming? Please come back fast, we need
	you!'' Not so funny to me. I was in Chicago at the time anyway.
	But I want to talk about transportation and its
	contribution to climate change. The transportation sector is
	the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States,
	and only getting worse. And I am very interested in improving
	our fuel economy standards and decreasing carbon emissions.
	The past four decades the corporate average fuel economy,
	what we call the CAFE standards, have been an extremely
	valuable tool in reducing greenhouse emissions. Unfortunately,
	this administration is attempting to weaken vehicle fuel.
	So let me ask you, Dr. Ekwur--you know who you are. I will
	leave it at that. If you could talk to me about the importance
	of the CAFE standards and making them perhaps even stronger
	than they are.
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Absolutely. We do need to double down on
	lowering the carbon, decarbonizing our transportation sector,
	increasing incentives for electrification of the transport
	sector in cars, and buses, and trucks.
	And what we see is that it is also going to lower the
	ground-level smog as well. It lowers emissions to the
	atmosphere that causes climate change. And also, we improve the
	health of incentives, reduce the inequities with asthma
	sufferers and so forth.
	Ms. Schakowsky. I am wondering if you can explain this to
	me. What we have seen over the recent years, some decrease in
	carbon emissions and global emissions, but we saw last year
	just in the 1 year that internationally 2.7 percent increase
	over the previous rates. One scientist called it a speeding
	freight train. And then in the United States last year, 1 year,
	marked the largest increase in 8 years, 3.4 percent increase.
	So what is going wrong here?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Absolutely. The U.S. was decoupling our
	growth from a high-carbon economy. We have a lower-carbon
	economy. However, that turned around and now the U.S. is
	emitting more than it did in the prior few years.
	So we cannot take our foot off the pedal, so to speak, on
	incentives that reduce and have cleaner options for when we
	move around, or power, or turn on the lights.
	Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
	Mr. Duke, what impact will rolling back efficiency
	standards have on greenhouse emissions?
	Mr. Duke. Thank you for your attention to the extraordinary
	benefits that come from fuel economy standards on light-duty
	and heavy-duty vehicles. And if we just look at the sweep of
	history on this program, I think it is important to recognize
	that it was actually Republican President Ford who put in place
	the first commitment to double our fuel economy back during the
	initial oil crisis.
	And that worked. We got immense consumer benefits and
	national security benefits out of those efforts. Unfortunately,
	we then hit the skids on the program when we failed to update
	the standards for a 25-year period until 2010. And that cost us
	by some estimates a trillion dollars in additional expenditure
	at the pump.
	So the good news is that we have a set of standards now in
	place for heavy-duty vehicles that are proceeding and that are
	going to be helping us transition to advanced technologies for
	super trucks and the like that will save quite a bit of fuel
	for industry and our economy.
	The bad news is, as you suggested, there is a rollback
	under consideration which, frankly, goes much further than the
	automakers themselves requested in engaging with the
	administration on this. And that is because they know that they
	need to compete with China. China already has 60 percent market
	share on electric vehicles. Our automakers need to be
	competitive, and they can be competitive. Tesla retains the
	number-one spot. GM is in the top 10. But we need standards
	that are clear and steadily improving to drive progress and
	make sure we stay in the game on technology. And fuel economy
	is part of that.
	Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. I want to thank all the
	panelists. This has been really enlightening.
	Yield back.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back.
	The Chair recognizes Representative Duncan.
	Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	If the Green New Deal policies are adopted, the price of
	utilities will inevitably go up. How would the increased cost
	of utilities as a result of this proposed Green New Deal--
	carbon tax, cap and trade, high costs associated with renewable
	energy generation--improve the lives of, say, those in Marion
	County, South Carolina, that Reverend Woodberry spoke of?
	People who Reverend Woodberry said were living on fixed incomes
	of $600 to $800 a month.
	The average median income in Marion County is $30,562. And
	the average median income in my district is $47,000 a year. But
	the carbon taxes levied on South Carolinians' electricity, gas,
	et cetera, will increase. These increased costs will impact
	every person and business in the State and, unfortunately,
	would disproportionately impact those in the lower-income
	communities.
	And at the end of the day, people care about things that
	are tangible to them: how much it takes to fill up their gas
	tank, how much their electric bill will be, and if they have
	any money left over at the end of the month to put food on the
	table. That is what my constituents care about.
	We here in America, we take for granted what is known as
	365/24/7 baseload power supply always on. That always-on power
	is generated primarily in three ways: hydroelectricity, nuclear
	power, and fossil-fuel-generated power. Everything else is
	intermittent. The sun doesn't always shine, the wind doesn't
	always blow. And we don't have the technology available yet to
	hold large quantities of power in some sort of battery to
	provide power when it is needed. We take for granted that 365/
	24/7 baseload always on power.
	But there are people all over the globe that don't take
	advantage of that. And those are in some European countries, by
	the way. But think about how the United States can be a leader
	in improving the quality of lives of so many people around the
	globe with the export of our fossil fuels so that these folks
	can have always-on power.
	Think about the infant mortality rate across the globe
	where people don't have a steady 24/7 baseload power supply.
	They can't keep the incubators on to keep the babies alive.
	If we want to improve the quality of life--Mr. Worthington
	mentioned 1.3 billion people in the world don't have power--
	think about the quality-of-lives issues that he was bringing up
	earlier. Air quality. Air quality kills, what, 400,000 people
	around the globe annually because of bad air quality. They are
	cooking on charcoal, and dung, and wood products. They can't
	keep food fresh because they don't have electricity to have a
	refrigerator to keep the food fresh, so the foods spoil, and
	they are having to eat it and constantly replenish it.
	They can't keep windows in the window spaces because they
	don't have electricity to provide air conditioning, so at night
	they are trying to keep cool, mosquitoes fly in. When
	mosquitoes fly in, they bring diseases that kill so many people
	around the globe every year.
	Food safety, preparation of food, cooking of that food, air
	conditioning, lights to read to their children and have their
	children read to them, these are quality-of-life issues that we
	take for granted here in America that fossil-fuel-generated
	power can provide for people around the globe. But yet we want
	to vilify and demonize fossil fuels that make our lives so much
	better.
	Doctor, you are from Massachusetts; right?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. I live right here in DC.
	Mr. Duncan. OK. Well, Cambridge, Massachusetts, is where
	the organization is located?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Yes.
	Mr. Duncan. Unless you all rode a bike here today, you came
	in some fossil-fuel-generated power, whether it was an electric
	car, probably the electricity that went into that car was
	provided by some sort of power generation. Could be nuclear,
	could be hydro, but generally it is probably fossil-fuel-
	generated.
	Many people in this room who came to this hearing today may
	have gotten on an airplane. And I know just about every Member
	in this committee got on an airplane to fly here. An airplane
	is running on a fossil fuel. Folks, your cars, your trains,
	your planes, are all generated, are all powered by fossil
	fuels. And we have got a lot of work to do if we are going to
	make those airplanes fly on electricity. We have got a lot of
	work to do if we are going to provide electricity through
	intermittent power supplies to give us that 24/7 baseload
	power.
	But it is not the Government's role to incentivize or
	penalize companies and individuals that aren't investing in
	this, it is up to the marketplace. And I am going to use Elon
	Musk, because I think he is a leader in two areas. He is a
	leader in EVs with Tesla, but he is also a leader in space
	exploration. And guess what? He is not being incentivized that
	I know of for space exploration. He actually said let's pull
	away from NASA and the bureaucracy and let's think outside the
	box and figure out how we can save costs, make renewable
	rockets so that we can travel to the moon and then, ultimately,
	to Mars. He didn't do that with the Government forcing him to
	do it. And he didn't do that with the Government incentivizing
	him to do it. He did it because he had a desire to do that, and
	he brought the best people together in a capitalist, free
	market environment to think and come up with a solution.
	That is the solution if we truly believe in global warming
	and improving the lives of so many people around the globe. We
	do it through the innovation and the innovators, not through
	punitive or incentives from Government.
	Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
	Reverend Woodberry, you were made mention of. Do you want
	to respond in a minute or less, please?
	Reverend Woodberry. I will say that I do believe that
	innovation, I do believe that America could move quickly. My
	family is actually from Marion County. In the 1960s my
	grandparents, my grandfather was a sharecropper. He used
	kerosene lamps. They had a stone fireplace and a wood-burning
	stove for heat. In 20 years we went from having two roads paved
	to every road paved, everybody moving from outhouses to indoor
	plumbing. No more kerosene, but instead having electricity for
	everyone.
	We can move quickly and we can use technology. We can use
	the Government to help because that is who made this happen.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Tonko. The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from
	California, Representative Matsui.
	Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really do
	appreciate the witnesses here today.
	I find this really refreshing at this point, because I
	think everybody believes that climate change is real. There
	seems to be that agreement. And I think that is, in essence,
	great progress. This is agreement of a National Climate
	Assessment, which really said that it is real and the risk is
	now.
	And it really concludes that greenhouse gas emissions from
	human activities are the explanation for global warming over
	the last 60 years. And for the second year in a row, the
	transportation sector was the largest emitter of greenhouse
	gases in the United States. And the International Energy Agency
	has found it is the only sector that has become less energy
	efficient over the last 15 years.
	My colleague Ms. Schakowsky brought this up, and I want to
	have a further conversation on this about fuel economy and
	decreased auto greenhouse emissions. That is what the Obama
	administration did for light-duty vehicles through 2025, and
	how important it is in combatting climate change. These
	standards were written in 2012 with the support of the auto
	industry, the environmental groups and the States.
	Now, these are good for consumers, who save billions of
	dollars at the pump over the life of their vehicles. And they
	are good for the American workers, who benefit from the
	development of innovative technologies that create profits and
	support jobs. The standards are projected to reduce gas
	emissions by 540 million metric tons and reduce oil consumption
	by 1.2 billion barrels, and nearly double the fuel economy of
	light-duty vehicles to an average of about 54 miles per gallon.
	Now, at a time when our country desperately needs to become
	more resilient when it comes to adapting to climate change, I
	am really disappointed that the Trump administration moved to
	reverse much of our progress with their proposal to roll back
	the curtain on fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards. And
	that is why I was pleased to introduce the Clean and Efficient
	Cars Act yesterday which will protect our fuel economy and
	greenhouse gas emission standards through 2025.
	My legislation maintains the Federal Government and auto
	manufacturers' promise to the American people, a promise for
	clean, efficient cars that cost less at the pump, better for
	the environment, the health, and the future of our children and
	grandchildren.
	Mr. Duke, you mentioned in your testimony that, despite our
	clean technology edge, the United States is not moving quickly
	enough to reduce carbon pollution. What effects do you believe
	the Trump administration's proposed rule to freeze the current
	fuel economy and greenhouse gas standard have on climate-
	related environmental impacts?
	Mr. Duke. Representative Matsui, thank you for the question
	and thank you for your leadership on this crucial topic. It is
	absolutely correct that the transportation sector has now
	emerged as the most emitting sector of our economy. And it is
	one where there are extraordinary solutions today and on the
	horizon to deal with the challenge.
	What industry needs in order to scale up these solutions is
	clarity and certainly against which they can make their
	investment decisions. And we had that, for example, in that
	President Ford's initial push to double fuel economy the first
	time----
	Ms. Matsui. Right.
	Mr. Duke [continuing]. Provided exactly that clarity. And
	we saw the industry deliver. We saw the Big Three at that time
	deliver.
	Once again we have the potential to double fuel economy
	with the 2010 standards for light-duty vehicles and, with that,
	also move into the electric vehicle competition with China in a
	complete way where I am confident that our automakers can win
	the day.
	What is troubling is that, with the proposed rollbacks--
	which, again, really exceed what industry itself was calling
	for, maybe not what certain other industries were calling for
	but what the autos themselves were calling for--with those
	rollbacks, it basically makes it harder for us to compete in
	this global marketplace. Again, China has a 60 percent electric
	vehicle share, so we don't want to cede that ground.
	And I should also note that there is plenty more that can
	be done and should be done to improve internal combustion
	engine vehicles as well. There are opportunities to cut
	emissions from those conventional vehicles much more than we
	already have today, and cost-effectively. And so we need to
	stick with the plan that we had in place and keep that investor
	certainty in place so that we can continue to compete.
	Ms. Matsui. Exactly right. Because we keep moving forward
	and we have the momentum, and we have to pull back. Business
	does not like a lack of consistency. We all know that.
	Mr. Williams, you mentioned in your testimony that millions
	of American jobs depend on continuing American leadership on
	clean vehicle technology that includes over 250,000 Americans
	employed across 500 U.S. factories and engineering facilities
	that build technologies that improve fuel economy and reduce
	pollution. Can you really on a global scale discuss what this
	will do, just this simple kind of pullback that we have?
	Mr. Williams. Sure. One of the immediate impacts of it, the
	agency's own analysis says that it will cause, result in the
	billions less in technology investment that supports 50,000 to
	60,000 jobs in the U.S. that we would immediately potentially
	lose.
	But the other piece of it is that this is devaluing the
	investment that a number of other companies across the supply
	chain have made based upon those 2010 standards. So, whether
	you look at ALCOA making aluminum in Iowa and Tennessee, or
	ArcelorMittal Steel making steel for the auto sector in
	Illinois, those investments they made because of the need and
	the standards set forth to make more efficient vehicles. If we
	step back, countries like China and countries in Europe and
	throughout the world will take over this industry and
	completely leave us in the dust.
	Ms. Matsui. Thank you. I have run out of time. I yield
	back.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back.
	The Chair recognizes Representative Johnson, 5 minutes.
	Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	You know, last Congress we began a discussion on our
	domestic nuclear industry's ability to compete on the world
	stage, particularly with state-backed enterprises coming from
	countries like China and Russia. I hope to continue that
	discussion in this session of Congress.
	And I also would like to point out a similar issue
	occurring on the coal front. As Mr. Powell's testimony states,
	China is financing about 100 gigawatts of coal projects in at
	least 27 countries. Like with our nuclear energy deployment, I
	worry the U.S. is missing an opportunity here, especially as
	ongoing public/private work is driving down the cost of carbon
	capture and storage technologies, as well as making
	nonsupercritical projects feasible here in the U.S.
	In other words, the United States is capable of solving
	these technological problems, but we have got to make sure that
	we stay engaged on the global front in doing that.
	So, Mr. Worthington, can you discuss why so many countries
	are looking to China for their energy needs?
	Mr. Worthington. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for that
	question.
	The World Bank made a decision a couple years ago that they
	were going to refuse to consider financing for a new coal
	plant. There are countries in the world that coal is their only
	option. Kosovo is a great example. Kosovo has a 50-year-old
	coal plant that badly, badly needs to be replaced. The World
	Bank made a commitment to finance a new project. And as soon as
	they made that commitment, they started figuring out how they
	were going to get out of their commitment.
	The Chinese have stepped in in Asia, Africa, and South
	America, and they have been willing to finance projects that
	the World Bank refuses.
	Mr. Johnson. And I have heard from our State Department and
	from our former U.N. ambassador, Ambassador Haley, China is
	doing this kind of stuff.
	Mr. Worthington. Right.
	Mr. Johnson. I mean, they are doing this kind of stuff all
	over the world, all over their region. And they are using these
	energy projects as a way to get their foot in the door. And
	then they have big influence in those countries.
	So are the technologies supplied by China the most advanced
	fossil technologies in the world?
	Mr. Worthington. Not what they are selling to other
	countries.
	Mr. Johnson. Right. Exactly. Would it benefit these nations
	if the United States participated in these markets, could we
	bring the best to the table?
	Mr. Worthington. There is no question. And the other thing
	that the Chinese do is, they insist that the developing country
	buy Chinese products.
	Mr. Johnson. OK.
	Mr. Worthington. So they are not just financing, they are
	providing all, they insist on providing all of the equipment.
	Mr. Johnson. Right, right. So how can the U.S. do better
	from an international engagement standpoint? What should we be
	doing?
	Mr. Worthington. Well, we have tools ourselves with the
	Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corporation,
	Trade Development Agency and so forth. Some of these U.S.
	agencies over the last number of years also adopted an
	antifossil energy----
	Mr. Johnson. Right.
	Mr. Worthington [continuing]. Approach. I believe that is
	being reversed. And I believe that they are open for business
	now for fossil projects.
	But the key becomes the new president of the World Bank.
	President Trump should identify a new president of the World
	Bank shortly. Hopefully he or she will not have the antifossil
	bias that the predecessor did.
	Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Powell, have you got any comments on
	that before I move on to another question quickly?
	Mr. Powell. I think we can use the new instruments that we
	created in the BUILD Act, like the Development Finance
	Corporation. And to your point about sort of China using this
	strategically, I think we should remember with a nuclear plant,
	for example, 10 years to build, 80 years to operate, 10 years
	to decommission. That is a centurylong relationship----
	Mr. Johnson. Oh yes.
	Mr. Powell [continuing]. That they are getting with that
	other country. We have that opportunity as well in so may
	countries, and it does seem like we are squandering that
	opportunity.
	Mr. Johnson. Absolutely.
	Mr. Worthington, your testimony states that natural gas
	emissions have declined while production has increased. And
	that is thanks primarily to technological innovations
	throughout the industry. I know eastern and southeastern Ohio
	have benefitted greatly from this increased production,
	especially as proposed new ethane crackers and other new job
	opportunities, ethane storage hubs, et cetera, continue to
	emerge.
	So how can we ensure other countries and the world benefit
	from these technological advances? And what role can U.S. LNG
	play?
	Mr. Worthington. U.S. LNG can play a pivotal role. We have
	got a couple units exporting now. We have four more that are
	coming online either still this year or the early part of next
	year. We have an opportunity to more than double our LNG
	exports and to countries like Poland, China, India, Italy, even
	the U.K. So it is a tremendous opportunity.
	We are a dependable supplier. We don't use LNG, we don't
	use natural gas as a political weapon the way some of our
	competitors do. And we should just do everything we can to
	expedite the next fleet of LNG export facilities.
	Mr. Johnson. Yes. Russia in particular, they get about, Mr.
	Chairman, they get about 50 percent of their revenue from the
	sale of oil and gas, much of that to our allies in the region.
	I yield back. Thank you very much.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
	I now would recognize Representative McNerney from
	California for 5 minutes.
	Mr. McNerney. I want to thank the chairman and I thank the
	panel for your testimony this morning.
	First I would like to observe how reasonable the
	Republicans sound today on the issue of climate change. There
	must have been a conversion on the road to Damascus recently.
	Dr. Ekwurzel, do you agree that most or all climate models
	consistently underpredict the climate change rate?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Yes. Because there is a double-edged sword of
	uncertainty with climate change. The best-case scenario is, we
	could do that well. But the worst-case scenario tends to keep
	surprising us. It is a bigger error bar on that.
	Mr. McNerney. And given the lag between CO<INF>2</INF>
	emissions and its impact on the climate, do you believe there
	is a realistic way we can avoid temperature increase of less
	than 2 degrees C by carbon reduction emissions alone?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. We have to have a mix of emissions
	reductions, all sources of carbon storage as well that we can
	think that is safe for communities so we can get to a net-zero
	situation by mid-century.
	Mr. McNerney. So then what our alternatives to reduce
	emissions to avoid climate catastrophe? What are our emission
	alternatives?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. As been said, we have to manage our forests
	so that they don't go up in flames and lose the carbon they are
	sequestering. We have to increase the land sink in agriculture
	practices. We also have to perhaps carbon capture and
	sequestration, there may be a bridge for innovation through
	utilization; however, it has to transition. We have to figure
	out to sequester the carbon and keep it out, away from the
	atmosphere.
	Mr. McNerney. Well, considering climate intervention or
	geoengineering such as injecting sun-reflecting particles into
	the stratosphere, how much understanding do we have of climate
	intervention as to its effectiveness or its possible side
	effects?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. We have a lot to do with the social sciences
	of the governance of such an issue of just injecting stuff into
	the stratosphere that would affect perhaps monsoon rains and
	all sorts of consequences around the world and give us perhaps
	hazy skies, beautiful sunsets but hazy skies and other
	consequences. We need more research in this space before.
	Mr. McNerney. Well, what do we need to do to develop
	sufficient expertise in climate intervention to even decide if
	it is a possible way to manage climate change while we reduce
	our carbon emissions?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. First of all, make sure we invest in NASA and
	NOAA and our infrastructure to make sure that every time a
	volcano emits anything that we are able to track it and figure
	out what the consequences are, because that is the modern, the
	natural analog to what these experiments would say. And there
	are many other ways we can study this problem before we would
	do some other experiments.
	Mr. McNerney. Well, then, do agencies such as NOAA and NASA
	and the DOE have the capabilities to generate a baseline
	understanding of the stratosphere?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Absolutely. And there are sensors and
	satellites we would love to have deployed and to double down on
	science investment on these persnickety problems, as you say.
	Mr. McNerney. Well, I might be proposing legislation to do
	that.
	And before I finish, I just want to say, Mr. Shimkus, thank
	you for attributing the quote to me that it is just an
	engineering problem. But I have to say that was taken out of
	context. I was referring to nuclear waste being an engineering
	problem, but I also said that nuclear waste will need a
	political solution. Now, that whole context also applies to
	climate change. There are engineering solutions that need to be
	addressed, but we need to have the political will to put those
	solutions into effect. And so instead of just sounding
	reasonable, please work with us to find solutions that are
	sufficient to the threat.
	I yield back.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
	The Chair now recognizes Representative Ruiz of California
	for 5 minutes.
	Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Dr. Ekwurzel, the National Climate Assessment outlined many
	severe public health effects of climate change due to increases
	in air pollution and expansions in the ranges of disease-
	carrying organisms. I ask this question because I am an
	emergency physician with a public health expertise as well.
	In addition, a study recently published in the New England
	Journal of Medicine by Haynes and Christie found that in the
	United States it is estimated that almost 60 percent of the
	excess deaths may be caused by the use of fossil fuel from
	power production and traffic. A previous study in 2009 from the
	same journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, found that a
	decrease in air pollution is associated with an increase in
	life expectancy of more than nine months.
	This is real. This has real effects for individuals back
	home when they ask, how does this affect me? It is not an
	esoteric, ideological, partisan kind of conversation. This is
	real, pragmatic life effects on your relatives and your
	children.
	In Riverside County, where I am from and represent, ranks
	amongst the worst in the Nation for ozone pollution. High-ozone
	days contribute to many hospital admissions, especially for
	children who suffer from asthma, and seniors with COPD. I know
	because I personally have treated many of them in the emergency
	department.
	Let me ask you a question. Isn't it true that climate
	change is making it more difficult to improve air quality?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Yes. The ozone, ground-level ozone with
	higher temperatures, we call it kind of a climate penalty on
	health.
	The other thing is that Southern California and Arizona
	have a situation with the extra dust, and the conditions in the
	spring lead to something that is called a Valley Fever that
	people can be in hospital emergency rooms. We lose lives to
	things that are climate influenced.
	Mr. Ruiz. And as a public health expert, I am concerned
	about the impact climate change is having on the spread of
	vector-borne diseases. Is it true that climate change is
	expected to influence the spread of vector-borne diseases? And
	what kind of new illnesses will Americans be at risk for and/or
	have succumbed to more?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. What we see is that a lot of the pests and
	some of the disease-carrying situations in the tropics are
	moving into southern parts of the United States.
	Mr. Ruiz. Like what?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Such as dengue fever and other mosquito-borne
	illnesses.
	Other things like West Nile Virus that used to be in a part
	of the U.S. is now spreading northward and westward.
	Mr. Ruiz. Yes. So dengue fever, describe the symptoms,
	would you?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Yes. I defer to your medical expertise on
	those symptoms.
	Mr. Ruiz. Well, I mean it is not pleasant, put it this way.
	So because we are running out of time.
	As a physician I have seen firsthand that the public health
	infrastructure serving people in rural areas and in other
	vulnerable communities, underserved communities, is often
	underresourced and overburdened, working over capacity. And the
	residents of these areas, like in my district, are often coping
	with multiple challenges that make their health conditions more
	severe.
	So the National Climate Assessment discusses the special
	problems and increased vulnerabilities of individuals in
	underserved communities. Can you describe these problems?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Sure. Climate change exacerbates the
	historical inequities. And we have to consider these solutions
	to help. Low-income communities, children, older adults, people
	of color are often at greater risk. And low-income communities
	are often exposed to these risks and due to historical
	decisions.
	And the health impacts, it is really important that we
	ensure the vulnerabilities of front-line communities are
	identified and extra precautionary measures are taken to keep
	people safe.
	Mr. Ruiz. So oftentimes decisions are made by, you know,
	governments or corporations to start a business with some
	potential air pollution without the consent or the meaningful
	consultations with the communities that they are going to
	affect currently and in the long term. These communities, like
	those in my district, have a very bad physician shortage
	crisis. They don't have clinics to go to. They already are
	experiencing high asthma rates because of the living conditions
	in which they exist. And they face a higher morbidity and
	mortality at a younger age than other folks.
	That is why I introduced an Environmental Justice Act which
	will specifically address this issue for vulnerable populations
	with Senator Cory Booker. We have introduced that together.
	So we are all well aware that prevention is far less
	expensive than treatment and is obviously much more beneficial
	to patients. I hope we will listen to the warnings of the
	National Climate Assessment and the IPCC report and start to
	address climate change. It is not only an environmental
	problem, it is clearly a significant public health threat with
	real consequences for real people. I know, because I treated
	them in the emergency department.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back?
	Mr. Ruiz. Yes.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
	And we recognize Representative Soto from Florida for 5
	minutes.
	Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to thank
	Dr. Ekwurzel for defining the challenge that we have to avoid
	surpassing 1.5 degrees Celsius. Global carbon dioxide emissions
	would have to drop around 45 percent below 2010 levels by 2030,
	and reach net-zero emissions by around 2050.
	And, you know, I was thinking about those dates. And it may
	seem far off for a lot of us. However, I want to put it in
	perspective. And we have a special guest that I want to
	recognize here, Lincoln, who just came in. A name that both
	Democrats and Republicans can get behind, by the way. So, by
	2030, Lincoln will probably be just a teenager by then. And by
	2050 he will be in his 30s. Relatively young and still starting
	his life.
	This question, this challenge is not about the folks behind
	the dais. It is not about most of the folks in the audience. It
	is about Lincoln and his generation and what we are going to
	do. In 2050 we are going to look back and say, did we do what
	we needed to get done to protect Lincoln and his generation? Or
	did we let it slip past us in an irrevocable fashion?
	So what is the cost? The cost is the long-term survival of
	the human race. That is the cost. And the threat is
	existential.
	And this is the greatest country in the world. We should be
	leading on energy policy, not defining it by the worst
	polluters on the planet.
	So I think this isn't science fiction to get to these
	levels. I think we already know what we have to do, a mix of
	nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, and perhaps biofuels. Imagine
	utilities adopting all this. Electric plug-in cars, and trucks,
	and ships, and planes, and trains running on it. That we
	resolve the energy storage crisis with a massive energy
	efficiency effort.
	So I want to ask each of you all in a yes-or-no question:
	If we gave you the resources with that mix, could we get to the
	45 percent drop?
	First, Dr. Ekwurzel, could we get there?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. If we start now, it is a challenge but we
	have a chance.
	Mr. Soto. I also want to ask Mr. Williams, could we get
	there if we had the resources with that mix?
	Mr. Williams. We need to start now.
	Mr. Soto. Reverend Woodberry, do you think it would be
	possible?
	Reverend Woodberry. Possibly, but we must start now.
	Mr. Soto. With the Lord's help, right?
	Reverend Woodberry. Absolutely.
	Mr. Soto. And Congress' help.
	And, Mr. Duke, do you think we could do that with that mix?
	Mr. Duke. We could get it done, and could get it done
	cheaper and faster with a broader mix.
	Mr. Soto. Mr. Powell, would it be possible with that mix?
	Mr. Powell. I would second the broader mix getting it done
	cheaper and faster.
	Mr. Soto. And then, Mr. Worthington, with the mix I
	referred to, could we get it done?
	Mr. Worthington. I think you would have to add carbon
	capture and storage to the technologies that you suggested.
	Mr. Soto. OK. Well, thanks for your opinions on that.
	It is my belief the only resource we really need is the
	will of this committee to meet the challenge of climate change
	now for Lincoln and his generation. And I believe we have been
	elected to do just that.
	With that, thank you, Lincoln, for being here today. Look
	at that. See, he has got his political career starting today.
	And I yield back, Chairman.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
	Lincoln and I have met in the past. And, Lincoln, it is
	great to have you here again. And thank you for being super
	inspiration.
	Now to the very patient Representative Castor from Florida.
	We offer you 5 minutes to question the panel.
	Ms. Castor. Thank you, Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member
	Shimkus. I look forward to tackling these issues with you.
	Thank you to all of our witnesses.
	We are facing the crisis of our generation. The climate
	crisis threatens all of our districts, all of our communities,
	as well as America's national security, our economic
	prosperity, the health of our families, and the world that our
	children will inhabit. I appreciated my colleague from Florida
	Mr. Soto's remarks. We feel like we are in the bullseye in
	Florida.
	And my district in the Tampa Bay area is one of the most
	vulnerable in the country to the impacts of climate change.
	Hotter and longer summers, deadly storm surge risk because of
	rising sea levels, more intense hurricanes. It is all impacting
	the water we drink and even down to the stormwater and
	wastewater systems that we all rely on every day.
	But we are not alone. This is impacting everyone across
	America. And the costs are very high. Chairman Tonko and I have
	often talked about the costs of inaction. And right now people
	are bearing the brunt of higher property insurance costs, flood
	insurance costs, electric bills. The list goes on and on.
	But the good news is there are solutions. We have seen
	major advances in energy efficiency, renewable energy,
	innovation, and other strategies to reduce greenhouse gases.
	The Fourth Climate Assessment Report said that future risks
	from climate change depend primarily on decisions made today.
	And it has been heartening to hear some of our Republican
	colleagues talk about a new understanding of what is at stake.
	But, you see, the time is short. The time is short now to
	avoid the worst impacts and the escalating costs of the climate
	crisis.
	And to my colleague Mr. Duncan, who kind of symbolizes a
	lot of the discussion we hear on the other side: No, it is
	absolutely vital that the Congress and this country provide
	some bold national policies to get there and to tackle the
	challenges ahead. We have got to tackle the challenges of
	reducing greenhouse gases, especially in the electric
	generation sector and transportation sector.
	So, to close out, I would like Mr. Duke and Dr. Ekwurzel to
	talk to us a little bit about that. In the past decade, the
	average costs of wind and solar electric systems have dropped
	dramatically and the markets are rapidly growing. With your
	best can-do spirit, talk to us about the opportunities ahead
	for this country and communities when it comes to clean energy
	and the jobs we will create with it.
	Dr. Ekwurzel. I will be real short on the resiliency
	aspect, then I will turn it over to Mr. Duke. Because this is
	really important. When those are senior citizens that are
	trapped inside the facility after a hurricane because there is
	no power because it was disrupted, and the fuel supply lines
	are disrupted, when the storm passes, the sun comes up and the
	air still is blowing wind, and you can have a renewable, you
	know, community solar community wind that can get you back up
	on your feet, and you can be more independent as you deal with
	the climate impacts.
	Mr. Duke. Thank you, Representative, for the question.
	And I just want to underscore how much progress we have
	made and how much opportunity we have now to cut emissions
	faster than ever before. The CEO Jim Robo of the largest
	utility in America predicts that, within a few years,
	renewables, wind and solar, with storage will be 2 to 4 cents a
	kilowatt hour and able to broadly compete with conventional
	power. That is an indication of what we have got in front of us
	as we seek to electrify all of our end uses, and building, and
	vehicles, and beyond.
	And I also want to note that there is lots of innovation
	happening in other sectors. The industrial sector is more
	complicated. It is one that is hard to get your hands around
	sometimes, but I want to give an indication of what is going on
	there.
	There is a company in Boston that is creating metals out of
	electricity in a way that can be cost-competitive even for
	steel down the line. You have got companies that are using
	CO<INF>2</INF> to strengthen cement in buildings in Atlanta and
	all across the country. And much more coming in terms of
	CO<INF>2</INF> utilization as part of the overall toolkit.
	And, of course, we have long known how to cut energy waste.
	And increasingly what companies are doing is getting into the
	system so that they can help with demand response, with
	flexible loads. For example, there is no reason why you have to
	charge your electric vehicle right now whenever you first plug
	it in. It is easy to have that respond to the kinds of rate
	variations that California is now sending to consumers so that
	you can charge your electric vehicle when the electricity is
	most plentiful and cheap.
	And this is just a small snapshot of the innovation that is
	happening right now. Much more to come from small modular
	reactors to carbon capture and storage, precision agriculture.
	We can and are in many ways still leading on this, but we need
	the same kind of 90-plus major policies that China has to make
	sure that our industries can continue to scale with confidence
	on all these solutions.
	Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back?
	Ms. Castor. Yes.
	Mr. Tonko. You do.
	The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland,
	Representative Sarbanes, for 5 minutes.
	Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
	appreciate you all being here today. I am sorry I couldn't be
	here for a good portion of the hearing, but I did get notes.
	And I know it has been a very rigorous examination of what we
	need to do in terms of addressing climate change. And I want to
	thank the chairman for bringing this hearing and bringing
	attention to these issues.
	Having gotten all the questions that you have received and
	responded to them over the course of the hearing, I invite you
	to kind of give a wrap-up perspective on what you think will be
	the most--pick one, two things--the most effective things that
	we can do in the nearest term to try to address this crisis of
	climate change.
	And I am also particularly interested, Mr. Duke, in your
	views on what we can do to incentivize progress on this point
	other than to the detached issues that have been discussed. If
	you can start with that and then we can have others give a kind
	of final perspective.
	Mr. Duke. Thank you, Representative, for the closing
	questions.
	I would like to underscore that the United States has been
	and really remains the most important player on the world stage
	for dealing with climate change. It really was the United
	States and China jointly announcing their targets in 2014 to
	cut emissions, with China committing to peak their emissions
	for the first time--and they are delivering on that, by the
	way--that is what kick started the move to the Paris Agreement,
	and that is the kind of leadership that we had shown
	historically and can and will show again.
	To be in the position to do that, though, we need to have
	the right incentives in place that are as far-reaching and
	market-based as possible. The best way to do that is with a
	price on carbon that is congressionally bipartisan and that
	reinvests the revenue that comes out of that carbon price in
	order to create the right infrastructure, from transmission to
	electric vehicle charging stations, and to do right by the
	communities that are on the front lines of this transition,
	whether it is coal communities or low-income communities
	suffering from pollution today.
	And I can tell you that when we do that, not only will we
	lead on technology and on the diplomatic stage again, but we
	will also clean up our public health problems in a dramatic
	way. When you move to clean energy, you clean up everything>
	You don't just clean up CO<INF>2</INF>, you clean up all the
	public health contaminants as well. And I look forward to
	seeing bipartisan action on a carbon price that makes all that
	happen and that allows our business to do their job and compete
	with China and the rest of the world.
	Mr. Sarbanes. Any other closing observations, this last?
	Dr. Ekwurzel. Don't forget the damages of climate change
	and global emissions. When you stack that up against these low
	costs per kilowatt that are already happening, invest in the
	science, invest in the social science. This is big
	transformation that I think is going to be a cleaner, healthier
	world ahead when we act now.
	Mr. Williams. Mr. Sarbanes----
	Mr. Sarbanes. Yes.
	Mr. Williams [continuing]. It was mentioned on both sides,
	the moonshot. And I think it is important to note that the
	moonshot involved Federal intervention, Federal targets, and
	date-specific goals that was connected with investments and
	incentives. We need the same thing for climate change.
	Mr. Sarbanes. Reverend Woodberry.
	Reverend Woodberry. Community-based solutions that will
	provide energy efficiency, renewable demand-side management
	tools that will create jobs, and also a price on carbon,
	ensuring that that money goes to communities that have a legacy
	of abuse and pollution.
	Mr. Powell. I will say I heard broad agreement that climate
	change is a real and urgent problem that we need to address,
	that we need much higher-ambition policies than we currently
	have, that we need a full toolkit of solutions to solve the
	problem, we can't take anything off the table, and that
	innovation is a really good place to get started.
	Mr. Worthington. I guess I am last. I would just reiterate
	that both from an energy production side and the efficiency
	side, we need all of the above. We need every technology that
	is economically available. Plus, we can't ignore or take any
	technologies off the table, both on the supply and the
	utilization side.
	Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you all. Mr. Chairman, again, thanks
	for the hearing. I think we agree that we have to move super
	aggressively in the direction of the side of the portfolio that
	has to do with green, sustainable energy. The testimony we
	received today will help us do that.
	I yield back.
	Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. And the gentleman yields
	back.
	I believe that completes the list of Members who chose to
	question the members of the panel. I do thank, very much thank
	the witnesses for their participation in today's hearing, my
	first hearing as chair. So I appreciate your cooperation
	immensely. Thank you for the great inclusion of ideas and
	thoughts and opportunities that lie before us. We appreciate it
	greatly.
	I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they
	have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the
	record to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared. I ask
	each witness to respond promptly to any such questions that you
	may receive.
	And then, finally, I request unanimous consent to enter the
	following documents into the record. They include testimony of
	Jason Hartke, President of the Alliance to Save Energy, Climate
	Change in the Great Lakes Region: An assessment of Great Lakes
	Integrated Sciences; a January 8, 2019, letter from the
	Alliance to Save Energy that was forwarded to Speaker Pelosi,
	Leader McCarthy, Senate Majority Leader McConnell, and Senate
	Minority Leader Schumer; a letter from TechNet; a letter from
	the Advanced Energy Economy; a slide that was provided today by
	Representative McKinley in his questioning; and, finally, a
	presentation of slides by the witnesses that accompanied
	today's involvement.
	[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
	Mr. Tonko. So, with all of that, we again thank everyone
	for their participation and my colleagues for their interest in
	the issue. And at this time the subcommittee is adjourned.
	[Whereupon, at 1:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
	[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

	Prepared statement of Hon. Debbie Dingell

	Thank you Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member Shimkus, for
	holding this hearing today to discuss the urgent threat from
	climate change we all face and the way forward.
	Sea levels are rising. Average temperatures are warming.
	Ice is disappearing at alarming rates. Extreme weather is
	intensifying and becoming more frequent--from stronger
	hurricanes to colder winters.
	The world's top scientific minds have made it clear: the
	time for debate is over-urgent and decisive action is needed
	now on a significant scale to address climate change. The will
	of one city, one county, one State, or one country will not be
	enough to meet the challenge ahead.
	In the Great Lakes, we are already seeing increased
	variability in lake water levels, more harmful algae blooms,
	and wildlife habitats adversely impacted, which will continue
	to negatively affect the region's economy and way of life long-
	term.
	It is critical the United States rejoint the rest of the
	industrialize world as a member of the Paris Climate Accord and
	take immediate steps to ensure this Nation is transitioning
	across all sectors to a carbon-zero economy. Repealing, rolling
	back, or weakening the Clean Power Plan, Clean Air Act, clean
	car standards, or any other effort to reduce greenhouse gases
	only exacerbates the climate crisis we need to solve.
	With 2018 listed as one of the hottest years on record, the
	American people have demanded immediate action. Allowing
	greater climate pollution threatens our public health, our
	economy, and our national security.
	We need bold, new ideas to create a pathway to a clean
	energy future and create new, good-paying jobs at the same
	time. We need to make the necessary investments in
	infrastructure, workforce, and education to mitigate, adapt,
	and reverse the growing climate threat.
	Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today at this
	important hearing. I am looking forward to working with my
	colleagues--Republicans and Democrats--on the Energy and
	Commerce Committee to take serious action and pass meaningful
	climate legislation this Congress.
	We must have the courage to act--the consequences of
	inaction are real, and all future generation are put at risk
	each day we do nothing.

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



	From: Richard J. Powell, Executive Director, ClearPath

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




	<all>
	</pre></body></html>