tv Hearing on Expanding U.S. Energy Production CSPAN January 31, 2023 9:00pm-11:36pm EST
finances? >> questions will be answered to the appropriate people. the media is not judge and jury. sorry. >> you're under investigation. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more including cox. >> homework can be hard. squatting in a diner for internetwork is even harder. that is why we are providing lower income students access to affordable internet, so homework it can just be homework, cox, connect to compete. >> cox, suort c-span is the public service along with these other television providers giving a front row seat to democracy. >> the house energy and commerce committee held a hearing on expanding u.s. energy production , topics included climate resilience global competition
commerce committee meeting and hearing of the 118th congress >> bill johnson who will chair the critical minerals subcommittee. climate and grid security subcommittee and bill johnson who will chair the environment, manufacturing, and critical minerals subcommittee. energy is foundational to every aspect of our lives, whether it's making energy more affordable and reliable, securing our supply chains, beating china, protecting the environment, addressing climate change, or putting energy security back at the center of policy making. these should be bipartisan goals. we have already proven they can be over the last few weeks. one of our actions on the floor was passing hr 22, the protecting americas strategic petroleum reserve from trying to act. it passed with 113 democrats voting for it. just last week, hr 21, this strategic production response
act passed in another bipartisan vote to help ensure a vital energy acid is not drained for nonemergency political purposes. these are just the beginning of a robust agenda to restore american energy dominance. we need to be doing more to secure and unleashed american energy. countries are rationing energy, switching back to coal fired plants. people are die due to a lack of heat and electricity. america does not have to follow europe down this path. addressing emissions and unleashing abundant, affordable, and reliable energy are not mutually exclusive. in the last decade, we have lead the world in emissions reductions while increasing the availability of affordable energy through innovation. we did this while maintaining some of the highest environmental and labor standards in the world. we must continue innovating and taking advantage of our
abundant natural resources and reducing emissions. natural gas is one of our greatest economic and strategic resources. we can't afford to shut it down. instead, we must expand production and continue to build pipelines, the safest, most reliable infrastructure to move it around the country. we must increase our capacity to export lng to the rest of the world, to reduce carbon emissions, and combat russia and china's use of energy to expand their authoritarian influence. we also have an opportunity to achieve a new renaissance in american nuclear technology. once again, we can lead the world in its development and deployment. to be successful, we need to rethink our restrictive regulatory approach and combat the anti-science opposition to expanding nuclear energy. we need to review the nuclear regulatory commission's procedures and practices to be sure it can efficiently license new and advanced reactors.
thankfully, we are close to finishing a plant in georgia, but one new nuclear plant is not enough. ensuring safe nuclear power is essential for ensuring american energy and also for protecting the environment and addressing climate change. we can do this without any inefficient burdensome regulations. safety can be an excuse for doing nothing. to reestablish american nuclear energy globally, we must build new advanced reactors, establish a permanent spent feel repository while exploring the potential for fuel recycling, and establish a reliable domestic fuel industry which supplies and enriches uranium and reduces our reliance on russia. across the board, we need to update the regulatory landscape to pave the way for energy sources and technologies of all kinds, hydro power, nuclear, natural gas, and oil. republicans support all of
these technologies, but we don't support picking winners and losers through massive subsidies and rigging regulations to favor certain industries. our energy solutions are climate solutions. we have a responsibility to our generation and future generations for cleaner water, air, and reduce emissions. every energy technology and source has a role to play. we need to be able to ensure that we are not becoming entirely dependent on unreliable intermittent energy sources that rely on chinese supply chains. it's time to flip the switch and unleashed american energy. this committee is at the very center of securing our global leadership and making peoples lives better. i want to work with everyone, republicans and democrats, to achieve these goals. these cannot continue to be partisan issues. my door is open to every member of this committee who wants to leave on unleashing american energy. i will recognize our full
committee ranking member mr. pallone for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairwoman rogers. we just had our organizational meeting. for those of the public, we're very proud of the fact that we now have the first woman chairperson of the energy and commerce committee. it's a long history that goes back to almost the first days of the republic. let me just make that announcement. i'm sure all of you realize it, but i want to mention it again. i want to say that we are meeting for the committee's first hearing of the 118th congress. the first two weeks of any congress are an opportunity to lay out our priorities for the next years. unfortunately, the energy bills that republicans have brought to the floor this month have only demonstrated just how misguided and misplaced their priorities are. both bills that were mentioned by the chairwoman, the one that deal with the strategic petroleum reserve in china and the one that we just tell with
yesterday or last week that dealt with the strategic petroleum reserve and said that we could not use it unless we opened up more public lands on the same percentage basis, we are both misguided because they limited -- it was an attempt to limit this administration's ability to bring down gasoline prices at the pump. instead of moving towards clean energy which is the future and the only way we're going to have less dependence on dictators and have less volatility in the market, it was an attempt to try to give more opportunities to big oil which frankly they don't even want. we know that during the gasoline crisis that we have had over the past year or so this idea that somehow big oil want to the point more, they wanted to pump the leases they already had, that was simply not the case. they wanted to keep the price artificially high.
that is another reason why they opposed to using the strategic petroleum reserves. it brought prices down. all i'm saying is as we move toward on energy transition, plus keep in mind that encouraging renewables like we did with the inflation reduction act, as we did with the bipartisan infrastructure law, this is the way to go in the future. i am certainly one of the key people who believes that we have to use all sources of energy, whether it's nuclear hydro power, the other things the chairwoman mentioned. we have to use all of the above. the bottom line is that we are going to be left behind if we don't move toward renewables and encourage them the way we did with the inflation reduction act. make no mistake that the rest of the world including china are already embarking on a major transition toward clean energy. china's investment in clean energy is so vast that the international energy agency
forecasted over the next several years 40% of solar and wind energy will come from china alone. republicans consistently oppose our reference to catch up. if we don't use the proceeds for the inflation reduction act, we're going to be left behind. that means left behind in terms of innovation, left behind in terms of the number of jobs, and the irony of it is that although most if not all republicans in the house voted against the inflation reduction act, many of those credits are going to the very red states and the industries in the red states that want to take advantage of it. this is how -- this is a bipartisan issue. we need to move toward clean energy. i just wanted to mention that one of our witnesses today is dr. ian rick owen. i want to thank you for all of her work as staff director for the select committee on the
climate crisis. i look forward to her testimony and the testimony of all the panel. i just wanted to take a moment to thank my longtime or our longtime staff director of our energy and environment policy team, we are kessler. he's retiring this week. after 25 years of dedicated service to congress of which 12 years was spent with this committee, rick has more than earned his retirement. earlier in his career, rick also worked in my personal office on energy and environmental issues. the last congress, rick was instrumental in our work on the inflation reduction act, fighting to make sure meaningful climate investments including many provisions from our own clean future act were included. during his tenure, he was also instrumental in helping us pass the frank lautenberg chemical safety act, legislation facing the use of dangerous h f sees, and many, many more energy and environmental laws. he spent a devoted member of my team and our team of always guiding us by a sincere desire
to improve peoples lives. i personally am grateful for his many years of service. i wish him nothing but the best in the future. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> all the best, rick. chair recognizes energy climate and grid security subcommittee chair duncan for five minutes. >> thanks for recognizing we. i first want to start by saying congratulations on holding your first hearing as chair of the energy and commerce committee. you have been a champion of expanding all forms of american energy. i'll forward to working with you in the rest of the committee to deliver affordable and reliable energy to all americans i look forward to also getting to know my colleagues on the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle and trying to find common ground that we can work on to move america forward. i also wanted to saying all the democrat members that voted for
the sbir last week. it was truly a bipartisan bill. thank you for that. i want to thank the four witnesses that have attended a hearing today. i look forward to your insights on the state of american energy. america became a global leader in crude oil and natural gas production while also leading the world in a missions reductions. we do this by encouraging the entrepreneurial spirit in the private sector. it is estimated that shell revolution saved u.s. consumers 203 billion dollars annually. that breaks down to about 20 $500 per family of four. it also lower energy related greenhouse gas emissions by -- the most in the world. the emissions reductions are not ex exclusive. democrats and president biden takes a whole government approach to phase our oil and gas industry. that's just wrong. their energy to discourages
investment and the regulatory approach seeks to create government control in the economy and energy sectors. republicans have solutions to reverse the democrats regressive energy agenda. it starts with unleashing all forms of american energy by creating a regulatory structure that encourages investment innovation. i -- middle class americans have been hit the hardest. according to the i.e. aa -- one in five households have to forego basic human necessities like food and medicine in order to keep the lights on and heat their homes. the democrats rushed to bring policies making energy unaffordable for american families. high energy prices, high energy increases the price of everything and contribute to rising inflation. our policies put the american consumer first so they don't have to decide between putting
food on the table or keeping the lights on. we don't only have affordable energy but also reliable energy. there is no question that a severe -- necessary for national security and a strong economy. our energy grid is an attractive target for our adversaries. pipelines, refineries, and other energy infrastructures are extremely vulnerable to attack. our policies must prioritize strengthening and hardening our grid. energy security is national security. our ability to export plays an important role in this. since congress lifted the crude oil export ban in 2016, you've seen the benefits of the energy sector. what america is the world leader in energy production, the world is a safer place. there is no doubt about that. we have seen how putin has used energy as a political weapon to keep this stranglehold.
the best way to decrease the leverage of opec and russia and the best weapon against putin is a more aggressive u.s. energy production policy. nuclear energy plays a critical role in exporting technology. it gives us the ability to set global nuclear norms. many of our adversaries recognize this and are prioritizing building their nuclear sector. it's time that the united states takes a hard look at the regulatory obstacles that stand in the way of nuclear advancement in this country. republicans have solutions to bring more nuclear online about addressing inefficiencies while also maintaining our global gold standard in nuclear energy. i look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle so we can once again be a global leader. ranking member mentioned china. no doubt that china is adding renewables to their energy matrix. they're also building a heck of a lot of fire power plants, fossil fuel generation, mining
where earth's that they need for the technology, which is very detrimental to the environment. we have to address those issues. china will be a big part of that addressing. i want to thank chair rodgers for holding this timely hearing. it's time to flip the switch and unleash american energy production and achieve american energy dominant. i look forward to the hearing and our witnesses. with that, i yield back. >> thank you so much, madam chair. it's really fun to say that. i want to say, one of the things that makes the energy and commerce committee so unique is not just our vast jurisdiction but the willingness of members to work together in a bipartisan way to get things done for the american people. i've had the honor of serving on the storied committee since i was a freshman member of congress. as the chair of the oversight investigation subcommittee for the past four years, i am proud of the work that we did to hold the oil and gas industry is accountable for the high gas prices last year and to help
move our country forward. in just the past four years, the full committee has passed legislation to strengthen our energy infrastructure, accelerate the deployment of nuclear energy technologies, and help reduce the harmful emissions that are driving the climate crisis. thanks to those efforts, we have put our nation on course to be coming energy independent and no longer dependent on the global oil market, which is the goal. i am hoping this hearing does not indicate that the majority is looking for ways to turn back the clock on that progress. i was disturbed that the memo that i read did not mention renewable energy sources one single time. it doubled down on outdated policies advocating increased fossil fuel production which will impede u.s. energy independence and ironically make us more dependent on an unstable international market. that is because oil and gas is
an international market and if we produce more here it just goes to the international market. we have all heard the slogans -- drill baby drill. don't be fooled. these policies will not expand our potential for new renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. that will only increase our dependence on oil and gas. that will weaken our economic, environmental, and national security in the process. there are nothing more than a giveaway to the oil industry who have had their profits. like ranking member -- i was dismayed by the energy bills considered on the floor. just last week, congress considered hr 21, a bill that would open up our public lands to oil and gas exploitation and limit the presidents ability to respond to future energy emergencies. we've sent this all to expand oil and gas drilling before.
it doesn't work. last february, the united states produced more than 11 million barrels of oil per day, one of the highest levels of production in u.s. history. the price of gasoline skyrocketed. we as a nation were immediately reminded of how reliant we continue to be on a global commodity that is subject to disruptions of international markets. the only way to secure economic prosperity, our environment, and our national security is to break the addiction to oil as soon as possible. to do that, we must transition to clean energy technologies. i think that we could work across the aisle on this. i think that we could work together on supporting the research that we need to advance new clean energy technologies that will both make us energy independent and help us reach our nation's climate goals. i'm sorry that my colleagues
did not support the chips and science act that has made investments in our energy and science agencies. i will also say i do think -- and i'm looking forward to working with chair duncan and with our friends on the other side of the aisle. we've already talked. i do think that we can find bipartisan ways to both reduce our dependence on the international oil market and also to develop clean energy that will address the climate crisis. what we have to do, madam chair, in my opinion, we have to stop retreating to our corners and seeing everything as a zero sum game for whatever side. the markets and the utility companies and others have realized this. they have been moving to clean energy sources as fast as they can. they need our help to be able to have the research and development to be able to make this secure, to make the grid
secure, and to make the sources so that we are able to transition to a clean energy economy and be independent and also address the climate crisis. i look forward to working with you and this committee. i'm excited about it. we have to really hold out the branch and not talk about just drilling. with that, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes subcommittee chair for environment manufacturing and critical minerals johnson for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i too want to congratulate you for being selected as the chair of the best committee in the house of representatives, the house energy and commerce committee and were holding your first full committee hearing astaire. it's about such a vital issue. american energy expansion, strengthening economic environmental -- eye to look forward to working
with you and our members on both sides of the aisle to do the right thing. i agree that it's time for all members of our committee to come up with solutions to the major problems driving inflation in our country, the staggering inflation which threatens to low american standards of living and make us less secure. just over two years ago, america was energy dominant for the first time in 70 years. we were the largest energy producers in the world. fuel was affordable for working americans. unfortunately, the president and the democratic majorities in the last congress decided to wage an all out legislative regulatory campaign to suppress allergy dominance. this led to skyrocketing and unaffordable natural gas and electricity prices for many americans.
we have demonstrated american ingenuity. we are clearly able to do this. this campaign against american energy and energy workers is attempting to cancel proven, increasingly cleaner forms of existing energy resources in favor of only a few forms of weather dependent energy resources. that has very serious negative economic and national security implications. put simply, energy security's national security. we've heard it said over and over again. it's true. it takes energy to produce raw materials to manufacture products, to produce farm products like produce, eggs, and poultry to get those products to market. in fact, energy is at the center of everything. americans have seen firsthand that limiting domestic energy production and cheapening the value of the dollar through reckless federal spending is a textbook way to drive inflation
higher. we can do better. we must do better. i'm not reflexive lee opposed to some of the -- greater renewables in that country. the cost of the potential negative impact on the quality of life for american consumers. we can't just take what sounds good and in town halls and wealthy metropolitan areas and insist that folks in less wealthy, more rural areas just jump in line and do it as well. if we want a viable sustainable energy solutions that make all american secure that appreciated oversee of our landscapes and does not rely on premature aspirational technologies or the availability of mineral supplies from foreign countries being available, it's time to turn the page on the current
national energy strategy or lack thereof, particularly since it is one that makes us more dependent on nations that hadas. to illustrate the point, i asked colleagues to consider a report in the washington post. it suggested that senior u.s. military officials are predicting and preparing for a war within 1 to 5 years within china, the very concur we depend on for the critical minerals required for many of the green solutions. this is why we need to maximize the production of clean, reliable, affordable american energy and the associated critical minerals right here at home along with approving the process. friends, it is time to get serious about making rolling blackouts on our energy crisis a thing of the past and lower and gasoline prices with our increased american domestic production rather than being
dependent on our artificial -- more domestic supply is necessary to meet these challenges. we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that our assets are recipe for success. we produce energy better, safer, and cleaner than any other place in the world. these facts used to be a source of national strength and pride, not to mention american international diplomacy. let me conclude with a hearty welcome to our witnesses today. i appreciate you sharing your experiences with us. thank you for yielding to me. i yield back -- i've exceeded my time, so -- >> the chair recognizes ranking member konkel for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. congratulations on your great achievement. chair johnson, -- i've had the privilege of working with the two previous republican leaders,
representatives john shimkus and david mckinley. during that time, we certainly had our disagreements. we also found issues where we could go beyond partisanship and work together. whether it is drinking, harmful air pollution, the many other issues under the subcommittee's jurisdiction, i do hope we will be able to find policies where we can work together. as we begin to consider how our nation can improve our energy security, foster innovation, and become the global leader in the energy economy of the future, i believe there have been great strides by congress made in the past several years. in the 116 117th congress is, this committee played an instrumental role in the development and enactment of several historic energy and environmental laws, including the energy act of 2020, the aim act to face down hydrofluoric are bands, the infrastructure investment in jobs act, and the inflation reduction act. the iija included $62 million
for d.o.e. clean energy investments including programs which will make our lecture grid smarter and more resilient. it will build a domestic battery manufacturing and recycling supply chain and support the development of cutting edge energies. the i.r.a. built on that down payment with 317 billion dollars in funding for a d.o.e.. the clean energy programs and expansion of a wide range of tax incentives and other climate and clean energy investments -- these efforts took our long term national energy security seriously, positioning the united states to become the leader in many of the energy technologies and supply chains that will come to dominate the global energy system over the next several decades. we are already starting to witness the benefits of these long term commitments to a clean energy future.
many more private sector companies are making plans to manufacture and deploy clean energy technologies across our country. electric vehicles, semiconductors, solar components, batteries, offshore when turbines, and electrolytes ours are all part of the growing effort to create new industries right here at home. it has been estimated at the i.r.a. could result in 9 million jobs over the next decade. many investments will support the deployment of affordable clean energy solutions resulting in major savings for american consumers. these economic and job creation benefits are only part of the story. there will also be a significant reduction of pollution which will mean fewer hospital visits and missed days of school and work, reducing climate and traditional pollution making us a healthier and more productive society as we continue to fight to avoid potential consequences of global climate change. what we do know is that even after the i.r.a. and iija,
there is much more work to be done. as we consider how to best build upon historic bills, i will caution that -- it will not improve our long term national energy security. on the contrary, our environmental laws will be a driver of innovation, complementing the investments we have already made to support the development and deployment of next generation technologies. i do want to welcome the great public servant to the committee, dr. ana kogan, who can advise us on how to build upon the problems of the last four years. kathy castor played a critical role in the climate and create energy successes of the 117th congress. i can think of no one better to help us understand where we have come from, what we have achieved, and what is left to do to transition our nation and our planet to a more just and sustainable energy system. thank you for joining us today.
i want to thank you for making this the first hearing of the new congress. the american people should know more about the work that has been done to make our country less reliant on polluting industries. we should be able to provide more information to our constituents and local businesses about how to take advantage of the generous tax credits and rebates in the i.r.a.. i look forward to having more opportunities to share that information with the months ahead. i acknowledge rick hustler for the great work yes and with this committee and certainly with the subcommittee that i shared. rick, i thank you for an outstanding -- i thank you for the hard work and passion and the success we have all enjoyed. god bless you as you go forward with your new career opportunities. with that, madam chair, i yield back. >> our first witness is the
honorable paul debar. he was the secretary of the department of energy. you're recognized for five minutes. >> ranking member pallone, members of the committee, chairman rogers -- i was with the chair last in washington state a couple of years ago as we were making great environmental progress to her district. not so long ago, under the leadership of secretary perry and bruin, the u.s. became the undisputed dominant country in energy. when i was under secretary in 2017, crude oil exports jumped from zero to 1 million barrels a day. we were amazed by the jump. in 2019, experts jumped 3 million barrels a day. that year, for the first time since the 1950s, we went from the largest energy importer in the world to a net energy exporter. jimmy carter's founding mission -- the u.s. became the undisputed
dominant country in energy. we became the number one producer of crude oil in the world, increasing from a low of 4.8 million barrels a day to 12.9 a, monumental jump. we became the number one producer of natural gas and the marginal producer and the global price setter of crude oil, taking the crown from opec. we extended our lead as a top country in the discovery of new energy technologies, including solar lithium ion chemistry and new drilling technologies. we were a solid manufacturer for nuclear electric vehicles. we allow the country to build, whether it was batteries, lng, or pipelines. this resulted in energy price deflation and the u.s. led the world in a reduction of tons of emissions. no other country came close to that combination, production,
technology, and manufacturing, not china, not russia, not saudi arabia. this dramatic turn in energy posture not only created economic growth and security and produced a new foreign policy playing field, we were no longer at the bidding of a cartel. this allowed us to take the lead in stabilizing the global energy markets when covid hit. we were so strong that the 2020 opec production agreement was announced from the white house. that was energy nominates. we do this by concurrently focusing on all of the above energy policies, increasing all of the above energy supply, strengthening energy national security and the diplomatic posture, producing energy price deflated meant, and reducing emissions. this happened for three reasons. u.s. energy technology innovation, government policies that encouraged all of the above energy supply, and
investment by the private workers. the trigger was a vast amount of energy innovation technologies, much of which is now being -- did not exist 20 years ago. this committee and i bipartisan and after many years of negotiations past several acts that made a big difference. those compromises i can summarize as if you give me my pro supply policies i will give you your pro supply policies. what this balanced approach has taken a detour. we are back in asking others for their help. here in the steps of the committee -- require agencies such as interior epa to promote, license, and approve all the above energy types. ferc need significant legislative reform including the reform of the federal power act in the natural gas act to make them do their statutory obligation to ensure that there is enough energy supply. they need to be required to
approve transmission projects for all types of energy. they need to radically overhaul iso rules that encourage base load that is being shut down faster than intermittent is being built. capital providers need to be pushed so that investment criteria are not all about esg and that they should also care about prices, reliability, national security, and supply chains versus supporting energy production moving overseas to autocratic regimes, including one using slave labor. that does not seem very issue to me. we need to continue to support discovery, science, and innovation, the leading strength of america. our moment of energy dominance was a combination of many factors. innovation, all of the above, pro supply policies, markets willing to invest, strong energy diplomacy. as we confront the challenges and the energy markets today,
we would do well to remember the ingredients that made us so successful not so long ago. >> thank you. thank you for your testimony. our second witness is miss donna jackson with a national center for public policy research, project 40 1:21. you are recognized for five minutes. >> chair rogers, ranking member pallone, members of this committee, i thank you for allowing me to testify today. my name is donna jackson. i'm the director of membership development for project 21, the black leadership network of the national center for public policy research. project 21 is one of the oldest and largest black conservative think tanks in the country. our hundreds of members come from all walks of life, small business owners, law enforcement, health care workers, teachers, energy workers, clergy, health care workers, both professional and non professional. most of us are not career
activists, lawyers, or lobbyists. more than a few of us actually live in the communities we hope to improve. i applaud this committee for kicking off the new session of congress by looking at increasing domestic energy supplies and reducing energy costs. needless to say, these costs are tough enough on the middle class, but they are even tougher on those struggling to reach the middle class. they are actually harder than you may think. the u.s. energy and information administration had some a very useful statistics. they talked about the problems that american have in paying their energy bills. one third struggle to pay their energy bills. a fifth of them have to forego necessities. these numbers are double, nearly double for minority communities. this report was actually a
couple years old. added inflation makes it that much harder. perhaps even more damaging is their immediate difficulty of paying for sky-high energy bills. making it from paycheck to paycheck. -- in so many ways, it's painful and unaffordable. domestic energy is part of the ticket out of poverty. we have so much of it, so much of it. for example, we see the entrepreneurial spirit of the black immunity. in many black-owned businesses, small on businesses, these businesses are struggling and failing out of the weight of high energy costs. they also have a regulatory compliance is that they can barely afford. it's disproportionately
impacting small businesses that really want to make it in this country. it all adds up to a regressive tax to those seeking to better themselves, their families, and their communities by owning and operating their own businesses. unaffordable energy means individuals have less to spend on necessities. the industrial employment has historically led to the emergence of a vibrant matte black middle class. what we are seeing are these energy costs destroying these high paying gateway jobs for low income and minority communities. we have very few options to earn money to be able to make it into the middle class. in the energy industry itself. it represents a very reliable
source of well paying jobs for people that don't have the options of being able to participate in the keyboard industry. we are destroying those options for these individuals who have the american spirit, want to be self-reliant and not dependent on government assistance. we should not be making minority and low income individuals an afterthought in saving this planet. their lives matter. our lives matter. i applaud you that you are considering the fact of the hardships that unaffordable energy poses to people like me who have self esteem, self respect, and we want to be a part of this great american experience. thank you.
>> thank you for your testimony. next, we will hear from doctor anna henri cohen, sat director of the u.s. committee on climate. you are recognized for five minutes. >> good morning charade, yours ranking member pallone, members of the committee. i am on henry cohen, and i most recently served as a majority staff director for the climate crisis. for climate scientist turned congressional staffer, it will be hard to top serving a staff director for the select committee during the last four years under the leadership of representative kathy castor and with other members of this committee, what congress passed the most consequential climate and clean energy laws in u.s. history. the last four years have underscored how energy, climate, and economic security are tied together. between the economic impact of the vaccine covid lockdowns, ongoing supply chain disruptions, russia's invasion of ukraine, and extreme weather
events, it has become clear than ever that the united states needs to invest in building an energy economy that meets the needs of the 21st century. to thrive, we will need affordable energy that addresses the climate crisis, including public health, and reduces our reliance on volatile global powers and their resources. the legislation enacted in the 116th and 117th congress says, especially the infrastructure and jobs act, the inflation reduction act, and the chips and science act make critical down payments on these -- on achieving those goals. we are already seeing the benefits of those laws accrue across america. since the enactment of the i.r.a. and august to 2022, almost 90 billion dollars in clean energy projects has been announced. initiating new economic development opportunities across the country.
and we will see even more in the coming years. the need for the clean energy transition is clear and growing in urgency. the united states faced 34 billion dollars in climate related disasters in 2021 and 2022, with a cumulative price tag of more than 180 billion in direct economic losses alone. other countries around the world had faced devastating heat waves, droughts, and floods in recent years. without comprehensive climate action, the science points towards continued disasters with regional, national, and global consequences. the climate crisis in need for energy security will require governments of all levels decreased engagement on energy and climate policies, to realize the potential created by the new laws, and use the available tools to ease impacts on families when new climate and energy challenges arise. climate, -- congress, and especially this
committee, we need to understand and respond to the increasingly dynamic global energy landscape to maintain. u.s. global leadership and competitiveness. successful antigen climate legislation must meet the test of cutting climate pollution guided by science. reducing energy costs on families, advancing equity and justice, and creating good family sustaining jobs. as this committee takes up in urging climate legislation, member should evaluate the bills with these metrics in mind, just as we did at the select committee and working with the standing committees and a 116th of a 117th congress. my written testimony summarizes many of the accomplishments of those laws. my testimony also summarizes the current global energy investment landscape as countries ramp up climate action. the climate considerations are not the only driving force between increased --
ink clean energy. just yesterday, bp's chief global economist point to the russian invasion as a reason the countries are seeking to increase access to domestically produced energy. most of which, he said, will likely come from renewables and other non fossil fuels. as we've heard, china is leading that clean energy race, and we must catch up. they may be out front now, but the united states can close the gap to power america in ways that improve our global competitiveness and help solve the climate crisis. american ingenuity is our superpower, giving up on a technological competition is not the american way. instead, we need energy and climate solutions that meet the needs of the 21st century, and we need them now. i will close on a personal note.
many of you who know me from d.c. may not know that i was born and raised in corpus christi, texas, or that my dad spent his career in the chemical industry, and my brother currently works and safety operations for oil and gas. i am well acquainted with the challenges that communities face and balancing energy, production, and public health, and i know we can do it in a way that we can find a way forward for the clean energy future that works for everyone, and does not pet public health against economic security. thank you. >> american ingenuity is our superpower. next, turn to our final witness, mr. robert malley, president of rapid in energy group, you're recognized for five minutes. >> jay roberts, distinguished members of the committee, i'm bob mcnally, president of rapid
an energy group. two years working for president bush, i am an analyst, historian, and student of the energy markets policy in geopolitics. i like to briefly summarize my view and where we're going with oil prices, and we start with a good news. the best part of the last 20 years is that opec is no longer controlling the global oil market. let me tell you the bad news. the best marvelous 20 years, opec is no longer controlling the global oil market. that is why we are seeing a return of the price volatility. it's paradoxical be true. when oil market does not have a successful double supply manager, or before it detects the railroad commission, oil prices wildly gyrating boom and bust cycles and hurt our society, economy, and environment. -- we're what we've seen in the past. oil prices are going to gyrate between 5 to 7 year boom phases when they go, up and bust faces when they go down. the late summer 2021, we exhibit a bus phase, lower -- and we are in the foothills of
a multi year bomb cycle. president putin's decision to invade ukraine hit fast forward on this boom cycle last year as we saw with five dollar gasoline. will prices quickly be treated one of the supply that we thought we were going to lose which uncle off line. now the shale boom is a huge economic and security benefit, but it will not insulate our consumers from oil price volatility. and so we cannot retreat into energy isolationism. we must work with allies to support domestic production and support infrastructure. bolster free trade, maintain ample stockpiles, and prevent adversaries to hold a world hostage to economy wrecking disruptions. as major this new multi year boom phase, it's all the more important we resist a correct policy mistakes. these include old ones like 1970 eras of windfall profits taxes, or it restricting exports. on the windfall profits taxes, they are going to go up during booms and found during bus, and seizure of them will only worsen supply and increase prices later.
restricting energy exports will not lower pump prices at all. for any meaningful period time, if at all for our consumers. monger term, it will raise them. you get less supply, less supply, and you get higher prices. moreover, restricting exports now would help putin and help iran and hurt our allies. newer errors to resist or correct include an overall shift unfortunate from all the above to keeping it in the ground. as we enter a boom cycle and facial political wrist, it is critical of the capital flows back to fossil fuel production. fossil fuels 80% of our primary energy supply. oil alone? 31%. renewables, they are great, 7%. policies that delay or impede the return of capital expenditure to fossil energy will only tighten supply demand balance is further and punish consumers with even higher energy prices. so tragic petroleum reserve cries out for course correction, members of congress. at the hundreds of a 2 million
barrels, the reserve is down by about a half, the lowest in 40 years, due to a recent emergency and nonemergency sales. and the energy gyrations after russia's invasion of ukraine illustrate the following. a frittering away of our emergency supplies. to their credit, president biden in the congress agreed to cancel 140 million barrels planned emergency sales. it signaled interest in refilling, and to rodgers, you shepherded a bill that will also impose restrictions. finally, this is often overlooked, but very important as you begin your work. i would like to highlight for the committee's attention, and overlook, a crucial area for improvement. a large gap has opened between increasingly unrealistic energy transition targets on the one hand, and objective and timely analysis to assess the cost and likelihood on the other. president biden and some members of congress have called for outlined the gas and coal by 2035. that is 60% of our generation. it is astounding but there's
been no cost estimates by e of this proposal. meanwhile, and a political pressure, the i.e. has ceased providing a policy neutral reference cason area and adopted a peak rosy demand scenario. on that basis, they've called for no new investment in oil and gas in the world. i can think of anything more catastrophic grungy than that. now to conclude, our country is blessed with enormous energy resources. the sweats and the smarts exhibited by our intrepid energy secretary workers underwrites are standard of living. market commissions may loom, and policy risk certainly abound. but if you leverage, and if we leverage, realism, pragmatism, and innovation, we can protect our economy, security, environment. i wish you in your committee success. >> thank you for your testimony. i will begin the questioning and recognize myself for five minutes. restoring american energy dominance and putting security at the center of our energy
policy should be the top priority. and we should be sure that our policies don't put americans and our allies are teaching disadvantaged to geopolitical adversaries like china. the biden administration's national security strategy, released in october, mentions climate within 60 times. it talks about quote, an urgent need to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. by contrast, the chinese presidents annual report to the national congress of the ccp a few weeks later only mentions climate twice. and once a gradual withdrawal from traditional emoji must be based upon safe, reliable, replacements. he talks about less restrictions on fossil fuels. there seems to be a mishmash. of priorities here. mr. barr, your testimony makes the point that, as a dominant energy producer within all of the above mindset, but america strengthened its national security, lowered prices, and
helped drive down carbon emissions. but the developing world will continue to demand affordable traditional energy for the next several decades. so it doesn't make sense for the nine states to cede its energy dominance in traditional energy to china. >> thank you chairwoman for the question. i would like to make the point that china is absolutely not the benchmark for clean energy. some people like to point out about how much they manufacture, but they produce more missions than the whole oecd combined, and we lead the world the reduction of tons of emissions and china is increasing by three times per year than we are cutting. these are just numbers, these are just facts. and i wrote a paper columbia, i published last week, 57% of all of the beach use in china from all energy use is from coal and it's going up. it is going up. and so china is not the
benchmark. they do manufacture something as well, but they are not the benchmark. i wish everyone just kind of new kind of the fact pattern on that. u.s. leadership for the energy allows us flexibility around prices, this is what we are hearing earlier, and as many people here who are veterans, there are less people in the way where i was younger when i was in the military in allows flexibility that did not exist and it allows us from a security point of view to support our allies, where if we hadn't been building what we have been building in texas and elsewhere, we would not be in the place to help our friends. >> when you speak briefly about how we can make sure that we export our energy and technical innovations against advanced nuclear to developing countries, rather than having china and russia increase their influence? >> so chair, as congressman tonko pointed out, u.s. leads
the way imaginations. we need you better manufacturing, or not that it. but almost everything that's out there in the world was invented in america. the lithium -- lithium ion battery was funded by d.o.e., the national science foundation, that was there when we won the nobel prize. during drilling batteries? we lead the world in drilling technologies. solar? thanks to secretary chu and deal we, drove down those costs. so the important part, we need to continue to support innovation, we lead the world on that, we need to figure out how to take some of those and continue to build on our leadership to export. >> thank you. i'd like to turn to miss jackson, and you make a very compelling point about energy affordability. just a recent review of the energy information administration data shows that residential electricity prices are up 24% since january 21.
industrial rates are up over 30%. would you just talk briefly about why lowering energy prices so important to the communities that you work with? >> minority communities already are at the low end of the spectrum in terms of resources and finances. the average income for minority communities, black americans is $48,000 a year. they're basically living on about 30 $700 a year. they don't have that much extra money to be able to spend on an affordable energy. that disproportionately impacts their standard of living. we are experiencing the largest decrease in the standard of living that we have ever experienced in my lifetime. we are struggling to be able to pay our bills and be able to go to work. we are struggling to be able to buy food. we are struggling to buy shoes
for our kids, clothing, and we don't have any extra money left over for either necessities. not luxury items, necessities. we want homeownership, but we can't save any money. we want to be able to start our own business but we can't save any money. every, week we are in a negative deficit. >> thank you. please deal to the ranking member of the full committee mr. pallone, five minutes. >> thank you chairwoman rogers. i appreciate the opportunity to talk about energy expansion and security today. however, as i alluded to in my opening statement, i reject the premise that fossil fuels are the key to expanding our energy security here in the 21st century. dr. cohen, and you testimony, you highlighted some of the
115th a 117th congress and the president biden took to enhance energy security, particularly to the energy act of 2020, the infrastructure investment jobs act, the chips and science act, inflation reduction act, all of which this can be played important as enveloping. so let me ask, you could you speak about how the investment that we need in our electric grid in the bipartisan infrastructure law and the hundreds of billions of dollars investment made in the inflation reduction act enhance our energy security by speeding the energy transition? >> thank you for the question. . >> it has been expanding the grid is one of the most critical aspects to transitioning to a clean energy economy, reducing pollution from the electricity sector, which has them not gone for other sectors. and so then about the infrastructure bill and in the inflation reduction act, we have critical programs to invest in the resilience of the
grid in the expansion of the grid, and i think we, those will come into fruition soon, and we are already seeing some good signs on building more transmission as well as using the existing footprint to replace and after the technology so that we can carry more electricity in electrons on a given footprint. >> thank you. i also suspect we will hear quite a bit about the so-called benefits of dirty sources of energy. but even from a pure energy security perspective, fossil fuels commit believe costs. so when you talk about how some of the vulnerabilities at the fossil fuel based economy both as it relates to our dependence on petra dictators as well as consumers, and could you talk about the risk we face to our energy security if some of the critical investments, including the i.r.a., we roll back. >> that's a big question.
but, yes, as oil and methane are now international markets, so as we stay dependent on them, here in the united states, the demand and use of them around the world as well as either geopolitical attacks or disasters that impact the delivery, have repercussions on both the price and therefore our u.s. economy. in the united states, we have a few states that are oil and gas producers, and they see that benefit and their economy, and most of the states are actually consumers. and so as we see volatility in price, that has a negative consequence on everybody's economic outlook. so, we have to keep that connection in mind, and as i
said in my oral testimony in in my written testimony the feature is moving to reducing the use of fossil fuels, ramping up clean energy fuels, and that enhanced our domestic energy security, it helps improve public health, and as we are seeing, it means more economic development and jobs in the united states. and all that movement is underscored by especially the infrastructure bill and the inflation reduction act. >> and you have only a minute left, but i want you to mention, you mention with regard to the select committee, on climate, and actions that congress could take to build on the work of this and on the i.r.a. towards a more clean energy economy, but what are some of the things this committee should be focusing on in this congress in that regard? you have 45 seconds. live through that i will try to get through. one, i think there does need to
be more focus on grid enhancement. actually, senator manchin's proposal had some language on the grid that i think energy and commerce staff also liked to help deploy more things, it would cost allocations, so i think that something that the committee should look at. workforce issues are incredibly important. and i know in the last congress, this committee along with education and labor worked with some very important legislation going towards the energy workforce. i think that needs to be a focus. and finally, the consequences of the climate crisis are here. adaptation and resilience has to be a focus of every committee that has some jurisdiction. epa has some important programs there that fall under the jurisdiction of the energy and commerce committee. >> thank you, madam chair, that sounds like some bipartisan things we could work on. >> thank you. >> chair recognizes the
gentleman from ohio, but mr. latta. >> thank you madam chair for pulling to carrying, and correct graduations to in your first hearing today, and looking forward to working with you to get energy to the forefront here in the night states. i also want to thank our witnesses for being with us today, your testimony, it's always important to have you here, so that we can get your views out. but if i could start with my questions, secretary dabbar, and your testimony, on page three, you set up about reestablishing energy dominance here in the united states, but i wanted to point on one of your sentences. the state, they need to radically overhaul rules to encourage power that is being shut down faster than new intermittent plans are being built. i come from ohio. what we do, we make things. we have major manufacturing in
my district across the state. that means, we're talking about steel, we were talking about float glass, we are talking about our central -- over in defiance, i think about all the different things that we have. we have to have massive amounts of power. in 2014, we had a polar vortex that went across the midwest, and every power plant in the state was up and running, but we did not have one blackout or brown out because every one of those power stations was up. i think it's important to point out about our base level of power, can we get base load power, and i'm ready for all the above energy strategy, but in republicans in 2008, but my question is, when it comes to base load and peaking, and i think that that is a problem that of people don't understand. where is that limit where we have to be yet to make sure that we can make sure that these lights come on every day, and this plans go on every day with that capacity. >> so i'm a big fan of wind and solar, they are great at low
cost on kind of a spot basis. they are the worst technologies when it comes to availability and it immensely. these are just technology fact matters. and what's happened with i.s. owes is that they have become kind of rude goldberg kind of contraptions. they used to be when many people here were part of initial setting up eyeglasses about free markets, about having market cleaning prices, in transparency. and reality, what is happened, or pasta and arts, production tax credits, all of these different things have made these constructs incredibly fragile and have encouraged base load from being shut down. and new york, they shut down good, well running nuclear power plants to replace them with intermittent. many areas of this country, more power plants are being shut down and being built. that's just a fact, that just numbers. and so at the end of the day,
we under the federal power, act under the authority of -- our allowing an increased vulnerability in the power markets year after year. and i strongly think that ferc need some more guidance from this committee on increasing reliability before it goes in the wrong direction. >> let me go on. you talk about on nuclear, it's also important bring this up, because i know that i am working with senator we brought this in the senate advocate for with -- domestic nuclear industry, because it's so important, and i think it is important, and one of the question what we have, how critical is it that the united states bills of the nuclear fields infrastructure in this country. >> so congressman, i want to purport about this in an article in the hill. there are portions of nuclear fuel fabrication that are fine, such as making fuel rods, but i
think as many people here now, the u.s. is significantly exposed to russia and terms of uranium enrichment. 47% of all the uranium enriched services that are a key component to making nuclear fuel is from russia. it makes opec seem like a minor component of crude. i know there's been a lot of discussion about how to incentivize enrichment being rebuilt in this country, window we eccentric shut down the last enrichment plant in kentucky. the u.s. has had no ability, and as a side point, the u.s. has lost its ability to make heightened rich uranium for nuclear weapons program. most people have no idea that we've lost the capability of making new nuclear material for weapons, and that's all related to this topic. i think this congress can take a look at how to incentivize about bringing it back from russia. >> and again, when you think about with russia, what's going on today, and our dependence on
them, it is critical for this country to get out there and make sure that we are using real security program that we can rely on. i want to thank eyewitnesses and the chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you gentlemen, the chair will now go to miss as you -- eshoo. >> thank you mister chairman. i wanna thank all the witnesses. i have to tell you that i have a little bit of a tough time figuring out what you are for. really, what you are for. i hear a mix of woe is us, we were in great shape, we are not anymore, some are for a mixed portfolio of energy sources, and if you were to sum up in a sentence, starting with, i don't have my glasses on, mr.
dabbar? yes. what is it that you want the congress to do relative to energy. is it displacement of other sources of energy? are you saying that we should pursue more oil. one sentence, what is your top line to the congress of the united states today? >> i think, in one sentence congresswoman, i think properly incentivizing and authorizing all forms of energy that support reducing emissions concurrently with that. is the right general set of policies to do. >> what does that mean though? what does that mean? if you are promoting oil, and that there be more oil expiration, just say it, because it is clear.
and then it's up to members to decide how that, i think that we have to have a mixed portfolio. i think with the countries around the world we, including the united states, i'm big trouble given what emissions have cost us. we know that we have to have energy to operate, but it is a matter of what it is with. if it's oil, say so. so that it is clear. otherwise, it sounds like to me, kind of a convention of, generally speaking, a convention of energy suppliers having a discussion. do you want to redo your one sentence, or you sticking with it?
>> i would make one comment, congress woman, that a colleague of mine at columbia made a point there's a difference between supply and demand. as long as there is a demand for energy type, so as long as we're still having internal combustion engines for a period of time, maybe long, maybe short, you can have that debate, it's better for america to produce that oil. saudi arabia right now intense -- >> but your colleague over here said the good news is that the opec is not in charge of the bubble or whatever anymore, and so you don't see, i don't think, well whatever, it's a difference of opinion, of witnesses here. how about the gentlemen at the end? what is your one sentence? >> congressman eshoo, i would say to go back to all of the above. federal policy, in the last two years, has shifted from bipartisan all of the above to anti fossil fuels.
keystone pipeline decision, caught in federal leasing, the ban on gas and coal -- >> that's a long sentence. because my time is running out. doctor. >> congresswoman, what i would say that congress needs to evaluate their actions on is getting america in the world to a net zero carbon pollution economy. you need to evaluate everything that's coming through here, whether that will help advance that colon states, or us working with partners. it may not mean the total in the fossil fuels, but it will be a diminished transition to achieve that goal. >> miss jackson? >> after letting the markets decide what energy sources we should use. if you prop up a energy industry -- >> that's one sentence, thank you. >> of course he's upside something, they will introduce. that >> thank, you i yield back, thank you everyone. >> the gentlewoman yields back.
it now goes to mr. guthrie from kentucky. >> thank you very much, i'm sure some of the more power plants are being shut down all of them being built. the concern of that is under zimmer 23rd, we were all wondering if we were gonna get home for christmas because of all the snow coming in, ice coming in, storms coming in, planes couldn't fly, all of that tension are coming, and then i get a phone call from a white saying that we were out of power. so in kentucky, where i represent, and i represent the paradise plant that john -- parents are, from the finally shut down the coal plant after that had been around for a long time, but we are having rolling back -- blackouts in kentucky, december 23rd and december 24th. and so my constituents experience that. so mr. mcnally, according to the energy information administration, carbon emissions from coal from united states is 2.5% of global carbon emissions, and yet we are shutting down coal plants where people are not able to have heat on the coldest days of the
year. so my question for you, if you are talking about implications for policy makers of the international industry agency, they provide forecasts that do not include accurate base load power needs? and also, i just got my second question for you. what information are experts, statistical energy information agency she's -- like eat i -- do you think that these forecasts gloss over the factors that should be considered a liability? >> thank you congressman guthrie for that question. and if i could, if i could atacama innocent dance or phrased my sentence, it would've been, and get objective and timely data so that you can do your work. indeed, one of the main reasons we need to have iea especially returned to what we call a business as usual or reference case scenario, is that you cannot do a cost-benefit analysis without one. when folks refuse to put a forecast out saying, look, here
is the future if we just freeze policies in place. they don't do that. then you cannot assess the cost and benefits of different policies to maintain adequate electricity supply for your constituents why we are trying to decarbonize which is important. and so we have to insist that the international energy agency go back to providing the tool that we need to evaluate policy. on the epa iaea side, they are led by -- their wonderful resource for this country. however, they have been a wall in terms of providing you with objective, honest, forecasts of the implications of the policies that are being pursued by this administration or proposed. that is simply unacceptable. we ought not be afraid of science and analysis in forecast, but you are literally flying blind at this time. >> okay thanks, and mr. dabbar, a lot of times when people back home, they will ask me, let's say we do, what i think california is electric only vehicles by 2035, if that was to come to pass with a country, something to that nature, you are dismissing, you have some
environmental issues are trying to address, because so many other implications on issues, people ask me, what are gonna do with the batteries once they are used? where earth minerals and i think we have three trillion in afghanistan when we pulled out of that chaotic decision from the biden ministration, i think the chinese were waiting to move in. so what are the implications -- i know we are trying to decarbonize, but one of the other implications of some of the decisions coming from things like the green new deal, the i.r.a., things such as that. >> so one of the things that i find very problematic is arbitrarily picking technologies by legislators. the technology market moves much faster than a legislative process. i will give you an example. i just wrote a paper in the hill in which i pointed out that california has looked at banning all internal combustion engines. and congresswoman kelly's district, they figured out how to manufacture negative carbon
gasoline that when you burn it, it's not zero, okay? it's not the technology neutral option is something interesting coming out of illinois, rather than saying everything has to be electric vehicles, why not let innovation drive the opportunities that we have in front of us and not being invented? i think that there's a lot of great examples that we should have a technology neutral policy and let us drive to the future based on that. >> thank, you just about a half minute that have left, what are some lessons learned from europe and their decisions and their carbon? maybe you are mr. binali can answer. >> don't become dependent on russia or any other adversary for your critical supplies of energy. a lesson we have to take a heart as we heard with regard to china. >> and you hear people say that the reason why we need to do all the wind and solar, because we can be independent ourselves
and still have fossil fuels in this country. without that independents, and so my time has expired, and i yield back. >> i think the gentleman and the chair and i will now recognize the ranking member of the energy climate and grid security subcommittee, someone i look forward to working with, and this congress, mr. -- five minutes. >> thank you very much mister chairman. i ask for unanimous consent to -- ukraine which to accelerate a shift away from fossil fuels. >> without objection. >> this article reports that the own energy outlet acknowledges that quote, the increased importance placed on energy security as a result of the russia ukraine war leads overtime to a shift away from fossil fuels and locally produced non fossil fuels, accelerating the energy transition, and quote. and so this hearing is about discussing the strength of our economic environmental and national security, in other words, it is energy
independence. now as i mentioned in my opening statement, my colleagues have put together and put forward policies and ideas that suggest that they think that energy independence handles -- and just an increased domestic development of oil and gas resource as. but as i said, energy independence can only happen with a rapid transition to clean energy. it's a doctor unruh cohen, first of all i want to thank you for your work on the select committee, and i also want to thank my colleague kathy castor for her wonderful work on that committee too. in your expert opinion, with increasing oil and gas protection help protect the american public from the volatility of the american oil market, and if not, why not? >> it increased u.s. production will not necessarily protect american consumers from volatile energy prices. because we are still connected to the international market,
and if something a world away causes production to go out and saudi arabia, and we have a price spike, and that passes through an entire economy. >> even if the oil and gas is produced here? >> that is correct. >> now we'll increasing oil and gas production reduce the cost of extreme weather in climate related disasters? >> it will not. >> and while increasing oil and gas production ensure that our economy, the u.s. economy, is thriving. >> it will not. >> we'll increasing oil and gas production mean that the united states no longer imports crude oil from countries like saudi arabia? >> most likely not. >> okay. so if increased oil and gas production will protect consumers from price shocks, from the increasing costs of natural lassiter's, from the boom and bust oil economy, and it won't make us energy independent, what do we need to do, very briefly, to achieve energy independence, and how do
we need to get there? >> i think our goal should be energy security, which means relying on clean energy produced here in the united states and working with our allies around the world. and there's a whole host of technologies that help us do that, and we will see an acceleration in those based on the laws that recently designed. >> you are not suggesting that tomorrow we would have to stop using oil and gas, but you are saying, you would have to need to have a transition, is that correct? >> we need a man's transition. that is what we need for our economy. that is what we need for our energy workers, that is what we need for our communities that depend on energy for the tax base. that is why we had so many things in the inflation reduction act south those communities and those workers transition. >> and speaking of those, i
want to talk to you for a minute miss jackson, because of my congressional district, i have a lot of low income communities that are also environmentally very vulnerable. and i have a neighborhood -- which is just down wind from a gas plant, from a gas refinery. they have had terrible, terrible environmental problems. theirs lead in their soil, terrible asthma increases. all kinds of other problems. so i want to ask you the question, i know you advocate for low energy cost, and i agree with that, because those people of a hard time paying for their energy in the winter, but wouldn't you love to see him economy where we could both reduce those environmental impacts on low income communities, and also have low energy prices? that would be a yes or no answer.
>> that would be yes was stipulations. >> okay, thank you. i yield back. >> i think the gentlelady, and i do apologize to the gentleman from kentucky for not recognize him as the chairman of the health subcommittee. so welcome to that, and good luck. and i want to go to the chair of the oversight investigations of committee, mr. griffith, for five minutes. >> thank you very much mister chairman. mr. dabbar, the inflation reduction act, we have heard about that we've heard about trying to do all of the stuff in america, and one of the stipulations and that act when they were doing all of the green new deal type of south inside of what was supposed to be the inflation reduction act was that we would do it in america. do it in the united states. so i have a couple of questions in that regard. and that is, one, recently the deal we awarded a 200 million
dollar grant to battery maker -- even after the company told the securities and exchange commission that they were heavily dependent upon policies made by the chinese communist party's apparatus in china. do our d.o.e. officials do a decent job of vetting these, or do they just fill them out, if they are not just texas, that is good enough? >> yes congressman, i can't exactly define what deal we did on the micro vast, but as you correctly said, the company itself told the securities exchange commission it was a chinese controlled entity, and that it did not need american accounting standards, and the securities exchange commission was looking at delisting them from the united states. even though technically it was legally incorporated here, the
vast majority of the operations were in china by their own admission, and with the associate, it was, i think it was the intent of the inflation reduction act and the infrastructure act to strengthen american companies, and for those battery technologies, they move away from china, and that is a bit of a question on why they decided to see that. >> so you would say that that was a bad decision by deal we need to give them $200 million. >> i think there are plenty of other companies, there are plenty of battery companies, and i'm not certain why awarding it to someone who is self admits that there are a chinese controlled entity, there's probably other ones and united states to support. >> me ask you about contemporary empress technology company limited. this is a chinese battery manufacturer, and also attempting to get both virginia
money and federal money, made a deal with ford, and in that deal, ford would own the physical plant, but the chinese company would have all of the technology. they would control all of the technology and all the actual manufacturing. is that really a way to bring american, green technology into the forefront, or are all we are doing is becoming a colony of china when it comes to battery technology, when we take our text back for -- taxpayer dollars and give it to the chinese, even if they have afford nameplate on the outside of the factory. >> yes congressman, it appears that forward and the largest chinese battery manufacturer, the largest in the world, decided that the structure legally to get around the inflation reduction american requirements, and having forward front them, but it was really going to be a cattle plant, i applaud the governor
of virginia to turn that down. but whether was this committee in the ways, means i would hope that someone would write a letter to treasury as they look at writing a letter. the tax code underneath the inflation reduction act, and make certain that lawyers, with respect to lawyers, don't come up with all of these options that legally get around the treasury roles. but they allow chinese companies to get a greater foothold in the united states, and hopefully that is quite bipartisan. >> i hope that will be bipartisan, and i can assure you that we will continue to do oversight from this committee, and hopefully other committees will do it as well. but with the remaining time that i have less, i would be remiss if i didn't give miss jackson sometime. if you could expound of late and missed electric bill payments in light of the fact that the rates are going up for everybody in the country, including poor folks. how the latent missed --
bills come out on families living paycheck to paycheck. >> we are not living paycheck to paycheck. we're living paycheck to wednesday, and they were borrowing money for people to they would last us to the end of the week. the impact is devastating. this is the deal, this is the situation. we should be making sure, our communities should not be an afterthought. and so when you're sitting down, they're thinking about how you're going to work with energy, we should also be considering the cost. >> and the calls for the poor families in particular, thank you very much, my time is up, i yield back. >> thank you, i will go to this matsui for ten minutes. >> thank you mister chairman, i want to thank the witnesses for being here today. transportation is one of the most polluting sectors of our economy. emissions from gas and diesel engines are directly responsible for the premature deaths of 17,000 to 20,000 americans per year, and that
does not even take into account the impact of vehicle emissions as one of the leading climate -- causes of climate change, and that is why i've been a long-standing champion of stronger vehicle emissions rolls, and stronger feel connery standards, and why i leave yearly appropriation efforts supporting clean transportation across different agencies. doctor unruh cohen, what are the health benefits of clean transportation, especially with regard to frontline communities. >> thank you for the question congresswoman, the public health benefits of switching to cleaner transportation transit, other ways to get around the country, and in our communities, it's huge. so much, so many communities are impacted by knox, smog,
particulate matters, black carbon, they come from both on road and off road fuel use that we can significantly decrease those, and it leads to immediate health benefits, both for asthma and kids, and we are even at the point where we've identified some of those pollutants. it can cross the placental boundary in women, and so babies still on their mother's womb are being impacted by air pollution. >> thank you. in 2021, i -- the medium and heavy duty electric vehicle infrastructure act, which we find ev trying equipment for medium and heavy duty vehicle fleets. this would help state and local governments and municipal service providers and tracking companies electrify their fleets. the inflation reduction act expands the 30 seat alternative fuel refuelling and property tax credit to help governments,
businesses, and individuals by install ev charging stations. doctor ana unruh cohen, what will the ev charging infrastructure look like in five years given the incentives and the inflation reduction act and the bipartisan infrastructure law. >> well, as yogi perez said, it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future, but what i am confident is saying is that things will look totally different. the investments for both the infrastructure bill and inflation reduction act are really going to mean a huge expansion, and improvement and our charging structures across the country. we are going to see a huge increase in electric school buses, which is going to be incredibly beneficial to the budget as well as the health of school districts all across the country.
and you know, i think we will be in a position where people feel very comfortable traveling, going on the great american road trip and their electric vehicle. >> thank you. california leads the country in rooftops away capacity with more than 8 million california homes benefiting from the cheapest source of energy known to man. i am a strong supporter of rooftop solar as proud champion expanding the 25 year presidential clean residential tax credit in the inflation reduction act. we talk about resilience, it's important to remember that many homes in florida, puerto rico with rooftops, did not lose power, and dr. andrew, cohen what role does rooftops have in the clean energy transition, and how can it help make our electric grid more resilient? >> thank you for that really important question. rooftop solar has incredible benefits, both to save consumers money on their
electric bills, and build that neighborhood resilience. i think increasingly, we will see neighborhoods with rooftop solar's, developing microgrids, so that with additional placement of power, be the, and batteries, other things like critical schools, fire stations, those types of places are not community, so that when disaster does happen, there is still a power source, there is a place when people can come to get electricity and do the things that they need in the aftermath of disaster. >> okay, thank, you i'm running out of time, so thank you very much for your testimony. i yield back. >> i think the gentlelady, and i'll go to the subcommittee chair for innovation, data, and commerce. mr. bill -- for five minutes. >> thank you very much in your shrub committee -- so the biden menstruation came into office, americans have
been faced with persisting energy crisis. we are in the midst of unprecedented increases and cost of living that continue to hear from my constituents on a daily basis, regarding how difficult it is to make ends meet. i wanted to highlight one in particular if i may. patricia is an 84-year-old constituent who lives in hudson, florida in -- county with her 62-year-old disabled daughter. they live an extremely strict fixed income. their electric bill has gone up an average of $50 per month in the past year, despite the fact that they do not use central heat or air conditioning in their home, and you know what it's like to not have air conditioning in the state of florida. and so in coupled with other inflationary increases, and the price of food and medicine,
this mother daughter -- has been pushed to the brink of financial hardship. sadly, many of my constituents have similar stories to patricia, and very clearly to mrs. jackson's testimony. and the most vulnerable americans are disproportionately affected. the united states needs energy policies to make energy more affordable for americans, not more expensive. that is the bottom line. particularly, i want to focus on approving the permitting process for pipelines and expanding pipeline infrastructure. i mentioned that the stat, i mentioned it earlier in the round table, that we had last week, but according to the american petroleum institute, florida will face a 42% mark it forward prices for natural gas than the average this calendar year.
one of the main factors contributing to these higher costs, it is the lack of adequate pipeline infrastructure. mr. dabbar, could you please talk a little bit about how delays and pipeline permitting from the mountain valley timeline, and the canceled atlantic coast pipeline, impact the ability for these projects to be completed or even deter the undertaking of these projects in the first place? and again, what recommendations do you have to help expedite pipeline infrastructure for the american south east? >> yes congressman. so the, when a company comes along and wants to build a pipeline, where transmission line, they estimate how much it is going to cost and how long it is going to take to start building, and how long is going to take to build. there are two things that really exploded the challenges
around that. one is that the extended approval process when people come up with a project cost, and the approvals take a very long time. this project costs, because of inflation, becomes an economic. we are seeing that for example in massachusetts actually with offshore wind right now. they proposed a contract, and the approvals have taken so long, and inflation topic is on top of it, and all of a sudden, the offshore wind projects, they withdraw them because they don't make economic sense anymore. and so the combination of inflation, plus very very long approval processes are really impeding any sort of construction in this country today. >> thank, you another question for mr. -- addition to the latest on the agency side, is there anything we can do in congress to reduce the lace brought about by the courts? >> congressman, i've never
written a lot from scratch, like everyone here has, and i do think that the federal power act in the natural gas act are not definitive enough to make ferc approve and meet their statutory obligation to deliver energy. of any type. everything is getting held back. and so i would recommend that this committee take a look at how to facilitate things such as time stops, time clocks, the maxim amount of time to review. that's not to say yes or no, but it puts a timeline on it so it doesn't take ten years for a ten mile road. >> very good, thank you, i yield back mister chair. >> the gentleman, i will go to miss ann kuster for five minutes. >> dr. cohen, thank you for returning so soon to help us focus on policies that will help american build greater energy policies to help solve
the urgent climate crisis. while it is disappointing that republicans in congress have dismantled the climate committee, i have incredible pride in the progress that our committee and the democratic led congress made for america. talking about lower costs, clean energy. creating good paying jobs and building healthier more resilient communities. we could not have accomplished all that we accomplish without your leadership and expertise. so thank you very much. you know at the outset of the creation of the climate committee, we convened ended broad outreach to people all across the country. isthmus, labor, faith leaders, scientists, farmers, entrepreneurs, and members on a bipartisan basis. it culminated in this solving
the climate crisis action plan which made 715 policy recommendations to help solve the climate crisis. and i am so proud to report that as of today, 438 of our policy recommendations were passed in the house of representatives, and 314 were passed into law. the report was described as the most detailed and well thought out plan for addressing the climate crisis that has ever been part of u.s. politics. extraordinary synthesis of expertise from social and scientific fields. what that did, it really culminated in a lot of the new loss, inflation reduction act, the largest clean energy in climate investment in u.s. history. the bipartisan infrastructure law, which helped make these
more resilient and electrify transportation, and the chips and science act, which will empower industries to lead the clean energy transition, and i love the stat that you cited in your testimony. in the nine months since the inflation reduction act was signed, companies have announced more than 90 billion dollars in new clean energy investment. it's these magnets now for capital investing in our workers, our communities, and in the clean energy future. and though the climate committee ended with the last congress, our flight fight has to continue, and i want to highlight everyone, i will spin this around to their offices. we did a year and report that highlights the accomplishments and then additional opportunities because there are so many more opportunities that we have to focus on. meanwhile, the last eight years
have been the hottest on the planet. the inter governmental panel on climate change and the recent assessment made clear that the next few years are critical to limit warming. thankfully, progress begets progress, and with our accomplishments, we are poised now to move into significant implementation. you answered a question from rap ask you about -- representative eshoo, about getting to zero. getting to enter a soon as possible. going to a little bit more detail on the first steps of implementation of how we get there to reach our climate goals and reduce climate pollution. >> thank you for the question. and one of the good news just going back to some of the discussion in the inflation reduction act, we also had nearly eight billion dollars set aside to agencies to help them do those analyses, and get
the projects permitted that we needed permitted. and so i think that is one of the first things that we need to say. and so we need to see that implementation on the ground and we needed to see that and we need to build the ev infrastructure. we need to have great and expand our trans mission infrastructure and use the programs that we passed an infrastructure in the inflation reduction act. we also need to see the partnership with states and local communities and business organizations, because much of what we passed in the inflation reduction act are, there are tax credits, there are other programs and initiatives that are going to help states do even more. and so i think it will be really important for congress to work with the biden administration to see those implementations and the implementations of those two laws in particular come into
fruition. >> we really are the deciding pivot point. thank you again, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back, she would not go to the chairman of the subcommittee on environment manufacturing critical minerals, from ohio, mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you. today it is clear from our testimony that america needs a course correction on a national energy strategy. because the current strategy is not working. in fact, it is increasingly evident that we don't really have a national energy strategy at all. a change in direction must be made. republicans on this committee have the plans in the legislative proposals to do just that. it's not even said that energy security's national security. that goes for us, here in america, and for the rest of the world. other countries are thinking about this. look at china. do you think that they cornered the market on rare earth and critical minerals by accident?
do you think it ever occurred to him that in a time of great power competition, this would give them the upper hand? i will get back to that in a moment. right now, america is in a similar spot with natural gas. global demand is booming, and demand will remain high for decades to come. we have plenty for use here at home, and to export abroad. natural gas can and should be our global power differentiator. we should want the world to rely more on us for natural gas, not the other way around. so first, mr. mcnally, i appreciated your recommendations and your testimony, making changes to the natural gas act to get the red tape around elegiac's exports. i legislation that would do that. can you explain to our committee when we are leading and exporting energy resources
around the globe, even though it certainly supports jobs and investment here at home, how is it that that also improves americas geopolitical position abroad. >> thank you for that question, congressman johnson. nothing less than making the united states an arsenal of energy as we were an arsenal of democracy under president roosevelt during world war ii, we are the world's worlds natural gas producer. this year going to be the biggest exporter. two thirds are experts have been flowing towards our beleaguered allies in europe, facing the largest war since world war ii on the continent there. and we are beating the qataris, the norwegians, as we shawnees put together. and as winston churchill said, security energy comes from diversity. and diversity alone. and think of our allies, both in europe and in asia, japan,
south korea, they know they can rely on the united states as a arsenal of energy, an ample source of energy imports, especially when they face our geopolitical rivals. and so it's hard to state that when you look at history, our current predicament and the outlook, how important being an arsenal of energy, keeping domestic production strong, and policies favoring exports alive. >> while continuing with you, mister mcnally, back to critical minerals in rare earth, it is hard to believe that our military relies on china for this stuff. we need to scale up domestic production rapidly, and if you read the reports, i do believe america can do this safer and than anywhere else that is currently being done. can you go a bit further into how environmental regulations to be improved or change to allow this to happen here in the united states. >> thank you congressman. congress might want to consider
establishing a national stockpile for critical minerals. and tax credits in other incentives to produce it here at home. and we might want to think about restricting the dependence, at least at some point in the future, maybe how to go cold turkey, but in the coming years, to require that we get off of chinese sources for our critical minerals and so forth. so i think there are a variety of things. that you and others have been thinking about doing. frankly, it just common sense. and i think that you should pursue that course and will. thank you. >> in a final kind of statement here, i've heard it mentioned several times, to get to these bipartisan solutions, one of the things that we have to do is not go into our respective corners on this important issue, and words matter. and i think one of the things that if we could just come to an agreement, the word transition does not mean that
you brought a lot of people out in america, and i think that it does, right? the biden administration uses the word transition to talk about getting rid of fossil fuels. that is a negative way to use that term. we can walk and chew gum at the same time. we can increase market driven innovation on renewables without throwing out the bathwater and destroying the three legged triad of gas, coal, and nuclear, that provide the resilience, the reliability, the affordability, and the sustainability to our electric grid. with that, i yield back. >> chairman, i now recognize mr. -- for five minutes. >> thank you very much. mister chair, ms. henry cohen, i'm going to talk a little bit about the profits of the oil and gas company, which to be very candid, drive me insane.
so we have seen through 2021 and 2022, exxonmobil, chevron, bp, shell, they made a record breaking combined profit that is anticipated to be well over 200 billion dollars. they're also getting taxpayer subsidies during this time, and i will come back to that in a moment. we also have information today that chevron announced $36 million of profit and exxon this morning announced a profit of 56 billion dollars. some of our colleagues on the other side suggest that this is a necessary evil, it is what has to be done to fund research in production and so forth on the part of that industry, but then you think about how they're using these profits,
and we see that chevron announced that it would be spending 75 billion dollars to buy back its own shares, it only investing 12 billion dollars into its business to increase production. and of course these profits, that we've seen over the last few years, they've come at the expense of ordinary citizens out there being gouged at the pump. and so, it is clear that at a minimum, taxpayer subsidies to that industry don't make any sense given the profits that they are posting. would you agree with that? >> yes i would, mr. sarbanes. >> and to the extent of the government is providing investments, the investments reflected in the inflation reduction act infrastructure
investment and jobs act in clean energy, and building our future, there are those the kinds of investments that make a lot more sense? >> yes mr. sarbanes, that is correct, and in our work on the select committee, we argued that we should be aligning our tax code and our investments to drive the u.s. economy to this net zero carbon pollution. >> i mean look, it makes, there's something to be gained by going back and looking historically. the united states wanted to establish its fossil fuel industry at one point as premier in the world, and so the government stepped up as a partner to try and drive that kind of innovation, and it was a very successful partnership. now we have the opportunity to go create a clean energy future, globally, that is what we are
trying to do with the pieces of legislation that we passed. but the models really no different. . just mature, successful, very profitable fossil fuel industry is no longer in need of support. if anything, we should be looking at ways to suss out their profit making enterprise being fair to the american consumer, and was unfair. and how we can look to different kinds of investments to stand up this other set of opportunities, but before we went out of time, just speculate with me on why the industry can't seem to free itself of this alternative reality. i would think that with the profits they are raking in, they would want to step into
that clean energy future using all of their assets and leverage, and exercise leadership globally. and establish themselves under players in that arena, and for some reasons their reflex instinct is to keep doubling down on the old way of doing things. what is the problem there, what is the >> difficulty with the frame of thinking. i think, as you look at oil companies, you need to examine whether they want to be oil companies or whether they want to be energy companies. we need energy companies in the 21st century. that may be all range of things. even if there are saying they want to be energy companies and that may mean their diversifying their portfolios, the next -- you have to look as you mentioned, where they're putting their money. it isn't just a token piece of investment in other renewables or other technologies. or are they're making a
significant shift. >> thanks very much. yield back. >> gentleman and the chair now recognizes gentleman from the crossroads of america, the great state of indiana, mr. bucshon. >> thank you, mister chairman. my constituents and south of salina and -- need access to reliable, affordable, environmentally sustainable energy. all of us want to breathe clean air. we want clean water to drink. we want clean land to utilize and enjoying the future. that's universal. when -- now visiting energy stakeholders recently. someone explained the current ideologically driven efforts to replace all the fossil fuel generation with wind and solar in this way. i'm paraphrasing. basically said this is of elevating politics and science and physics. i can tell you which one will went out. i think what he meant by that is we need to start looking at the facts. and you get away from the ideology.
in that vein, dr. cohen, i want to ask you will yesterday questions. quickly. does the u.s. government own any gasoline station in america. ? >> did you say gasoline -- i assume d.o.d. had some fuel laying -- >> did we build them? the answer the question is now. and so i just don't see what the u.s. taxpayer should be funding ev charging stations across the country. i support evs but why should we be doing that. we're doing that because the market won't barrett. the free market. at this point, in our country won't bear it. if in the future does, i'm all in. but the private -- >> the u.s. government is currently engage -- >> i did not ask you a question. every point you make on energy issues in this hearing depends on a massive federal government subsidies. not the free market. i just want to point that out.
we have a disagreement i think between our two sides here. believers in the free market -- law technology wherever it goes, all the above. or massively subsidized green energy at the expense of energy security, national security and cost. mr. the bar, i ask you this question. do you believe coronavirus in the energy sector are primarily motivated by what, politics? physics, science? if they're looking to invest -- one of the pressure is being put on them by politics? >> congressman, there are still primarily focused on profit. that's excellent for america. there is pressure from investors around esg because of people who feel like that they need to do a certain schiff. they do certainly get that pressure. >> of course they do.
where do you think -- same question -- have any comments on that? >> i would agree with my colleague. it's profit return on capital. i would point out -- >> all give you my view. were using ideological politics to try to divide -- to direct investment in a free market capitalist system. that is in -- let the system work. mr. dabbar, you mentioned that -- needs to radically overhaul to facilitate increase base load power. what should we do? >> the markets that right now try to support base load. the capacity markets don't work. and more power plants are being shut down that are being built. i think that -- needs to come up with new rules. that specifically require
either the i associate maybe even going back to the utilities. like in the old days. where they have an obligation to serve. right now, there is no obligation to serve. and that is the challenge in the markets right now. the individual power plant owners don't have an obligation to serve and the wires companies don't have an obligation to serve. other than keeping their wires up. with supply itself where it used to be the individual utility had a obligation to serve. meaning to actually make -- half power plants. that has been pushed out to the idea so's and they are not incentivizing power to actually be built. >> thank you for that answer. i want to point out when you mentioned should be using china as a benchmark. let me just partially tell you why. since 2021, they're building 33 gigawatts of coal fire power generation. three times more than the rest of the world combined.
they're building 14 new power plants since 2021. in their own country. listen to this. they will finish another 27 abroad. they're driving this worldwide. of course, it is true. they're trying to expand renewables also. no doubt. currently there is about 1000, 118 coal fire power plants in china. 225 in the united states. i want to concur with that testimony that they are not our benchmark and first of all the other thing is. we are our benchmark. we should be the benchmark of driving the global energy economy. i yield back. >> thank the gentleman. chair not goes to mr. -- for five minutes. >> thank you, mister chair. before i get into my questions. dr. cohen, i believe you wanted to respond to the last exchange that you had. >> thank you for that, mr.
tonga. just a couple of points. the physics that democrats have been concerned about all the physics of climate shane's. we've known since 1856 in experiments that happen in seneca falls, new york, by -- putting carpeted oxide in the atmosphere warms things up. secondly, the government is totally involved in many ways in subsidizing transportation. whether it's the hundreds -- centuries-long oil subsidies, bio fuel subsidies, we are involved the, u.s. government, for many years. building highways, were involved in transportation. this is nothing new. >> thank you. miss jackson, i agree totally that we need to be focused on energy affordability. in advancing solutions to reduce low income americans energy burdens. it's a must. in 2015, i would acknowledge that one in three households reported experiencing energy and security.
one in five reported reducing aura foregoing acidity such as food or medicine to pay an energy bill. 11% of households reported keeping their home at a healthy or unsafe temperature. this is not a new challenge. we haven't had had a real problems with energy affordability in our country. we also have a very important programs. programs that can help alleviate these burdens like -- the elise weatherization assistance program. dr. cohen the select committee's report recommended significant support for d.o.e. for the rotation assistance program. can you explain why we should be providing upfront funding to low income families to support cost-effective energy reform -- retrofits of their home? >> thank you for that question. weatherization is one of the most important things we can help low income families deal with. the incentives for renters.
sometimes precludes upgrading on energy efficiency. and so instead of seeing their energy bills skyrocket with insulation. with that weatherization. they can stay warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer. reduce their energy use and thus their energy bills and insulate them also from the volatility of electricity markets. on a personal note, my mother benefited from this program and colorado. and it has meant a warmer house for her as she seen some deadly cold weather there in colorado springs lately. >> thank you. in the 117th congress the, bipartisan infrastructure law provides some 3.5 billion dollars for the weatherization assistance program. it's funny we'll do a lot of good. households receiving weatherization assistance save an average of $372 each year under energy bills.
these are real savings than we could huge difference for families struggling to pay their utility bills. there are other honest aegis we could make to the program to approve it further. like allowing more funding to go to each household to account for the increased cost of construction materials and to allow service providers to trade and retrain a qualified workforce. dr. into cohen, i mentioned realizations this of program funding in the ig a. are there ways the inflation reduction act is expected to reduce energy costs for americans? >> yes, there is a whole host of additional things in the inflation reduction act that will help homeowners be able to purchase more efficient appliances. we'll see more money flowing to state programs that help provide rebates and upfront cutting the cost of front as people are purchasing those appliances. as well as just the overall
advancement of adding more clean electricity. people will see a general reduction and electricity costs. my written testimony quotes some of the analysis that have been done in the inflation reduction act. that gives us some sense of the benefits to come. thank >> you. mr. debar. based here testimony. you see very proud of the work you did at a depart of energy to support the development of innovative energy technologies. mentioned breakthroughs and battery chemistry, sore technologies, nuclear energy. can you explain what you see is the role of the federal agencies like d.o.e.? to partner with the private sector and academia to support emerging energy industries? >> yes, congressman. as we talk in the past. brookhaven and elsewhere. around the country. new energy technologies. we lead the world in a new york and elsewhere. one thing i want to point out is that beyond with the miami battery chemistry. lithium-ion's great. great american invention. noble prize. but there are many other
technologies and -- that can outperform potentially lithium-ion. that will reduce critical mineral requirements and imports from elsewhere around the world. and actually have -- the support by this congress, many labs, dewey. leading the way to even more innovation on that front. >> thank, you with, that i yield back. >> thank the gentleman from new york. now i, go to the tar heel state. north carolina. mr. hudson, five minutes. >> thank you, mister chairman. i want to see her doing excellent job there. you look at without governor hands. . it's an honor for me to serve in this committee again. this congress. our committee has long history coming together. produced bipartisan solutions. i look forward to continue to reveal my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. in the coming congress. i want to thank our witnesses for your time today. and for the excellent testimony provided. for the last two years, the registration has failed to take meaningful steps to address energy production.
energy prices have surged to historic highs because of this. and all of our constituents been paying the price. this weather has been extremely difficult for my constituents. brittany those on a fixed income. that energy policy, a rising energy prices and the disruptions of supply. the result from that, disproportionately impact working families in lower income communities. miss jackson, i appreciate your testimony to that effect. and i would like to extend you an opportunity to answer the question earlier about -- affordability for a lower income. if you like to expand on your answer. >> yes, i wanted to piggyback on her. you are talking about weatherization -- the problem of minority communities is that they don't own their homes. what they want is homeownership and we have climate policies that restrict that because it makes building materials and the cost of building new homes so expensive that it creates
artificial scarcity and pushes them out of the marketplace. the other thing is -- electric vehicles. when you create a mandate electric vehicles. what you're doing is excluding black people from being able to own a private vehicle. which is very much indeed so they can be able to get jobs that are outside their communities. most of those jobs don't exist. where they are. the weatherization can benefit of course the landlord who owns the home. subsidies for solar panels benefits who. the landlords who own those homes. we're renters. the majority of -- creating higher energy costs is increasingly keeping us out for homeownership. >> thank you for that answer. change of the ructions. last month, to paris substations in more county north carolina were targeted with vandalism causing a multi
day loss of power for nearly 45,000 residents. besides of having heat up during the calls for the year, residents of southern pines and surrounding communities of thousands of dollars as a result of spoiled food and medicine. lost wages for workers and income for business owners. disrupted transportation. and created a lack of accessibility in essential services. i'm proud of my neighbors for the way our community or supportive care of one another. this was a tough time. just two weeks ago, another substation was intentionally vandalized in neighboring randolph county. disruptions to our energy supply are dangerous. there are costly. they're unacceptable. especially when more than one third of the u.s. households reported skipping or reducing expenses like medicine or food or to pay their energy bill in the first place. i'm looking for it working my colleagues to find solutions to these problems. and hear from stakeholders and how we can address grid security. i'll start with you, mister
dabbar. how do energy disruptions caused by a vulnerable grid disrupt our national security? >> congressman, it is a high degree of worry when we were at the department instead of the office -- there is a fun of a good amount of equipment that is produced overseas. including we found from china that they could easily have backdoor. because as mr. mcnally pointed out, energy is just time. there's very little storage electricity. there is some. is incredibly minor compared to the man. it is fragile. the system is very fragile because it's very just in time. small disruptions can have -- can have a massive impact. the importance of building software, hard support. it is an amazing vulnerability for the country. >> thank you. we got 30 seconds left. want to chime in there?
>> congressman, as the resident of southern pines, i was directly impacted by that outage. i was also directly impacted by the breeze and russian-based attack on the colonial pipeline. it is a standing we've not spent more attention on that. that was the largest foreign attack on our energy sector ever. close as we came up with a japanese bomb the tanks of pearl harbor. with backroom or to a few years. there's acosta's for his. they had us and cut that vital artery that sits -- serves airports. major airports. military bases. we are not deterring sufficiently. i think we have some recommendations. we put in the testimony to improve how we manage the next attack. i think was well managed at all. >> mister chairman, i see him at a time. with your indulgence, i will submit writing questions for witnesses on what they see as a role of the department of energy in the congress and working towards this goal of good security. thank you. >> members are my the can submit questions to witnesses and writing. the chair will not go to miss
clark for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mister chairman. to our ranking member mr. -- for holding this important hearing today. let me also add my voice in congratulating chairwoman rodgers on being appointed as chair of this historic committee. that said, i am deeply disappointed with the majority's failure to explicitly include any references to environmental justice, racial or economic disparities. or inequality. in their document organizing the jurisdiction of this committee. i remain steadfast in my commitment to environmental justice and protecting the most vulnerable of our citizens. the exclusion of a clear commitment to environmental justice demonstrates a complete disregard for the historic marginalization and unjust systems exacerbated by our country's dependence on fossil
fuels. the impacts of the climate crisis including climate disasters like historic heat waves, hurricanes and flooding. disproportionately hurt the most vulnerable among us. historically marshall is communities of color, those living with medical conditions that require electricity. older people, communities where there are language barriers. pregnant women and children. far too often, outdated energy sources like authority peak or plants, power plants. which spew twice as much carbon dioxide in 20 times as much nitrogen oxide than regular power plants. most often located in low income and communities of color. democrats understand that our country cannot continue to invest in sources of energy that exacerbate -- excuse me environmental injustice is. pollute our communities rely on markets. dominated by foreign dictators.
that's why we pass the inflation reduction act. which invested a historic 369 billion dollars in clean energy made in america. bringing down greenhouse gas emissions. this bill which was not a single -- not a single republican in the house voted for. included provisions to lower energy costs. electrify homes and so every american, not just the wealthiest, can be part of the transition to the clean energy community. this transition must be both adjust and inclusive. which is why we have to look back as well as forward to remediate past injustices. i want to think all of our witnesses for joining us today. my first question is to doctor unruh cohen. can you expand on the intersection between climate change and racial injustice? >> thank you, congresswoman clark, for that important
question. unfortunately, the climate crisis hits the most vulnerable. and that tends to be poorer communities. communities of color. because they've had to develop in that lower lying area. places that are -- on the coast. not to mention our tribal communities in particular. time after time, we see those communities and people who are at least able to adapt. really being hit. -- e in puerto rico now of multiple times. it just illustrates within our own country the challenges we face. then when you look globally, you see countries that have contributed chest a minimal amount to the warming that we've experienced. feeling the huge impact from
the warming that we've already seen. >> as natural disasters caused by climate change continue to increase in frequency and severity, we must invest in resilience and low income communities and communities of color. so that our homes and critical infrastructure are prepared for when the next super storm wildfire flood will heat -- that's why i partnered with my colleague congresswoman -- to introduce the energy resilient communities act in the last congress. dr., unruh cohen, could you explain the role of distributed energy sources like micro grids, powered by renewable energy and building out our nations resilience to climate change disasters? >> yes, as i said earlier, -- we've solar in other microgrids in a normal day contribute help lower cost for electricity when
disaster strikes. they can be isolated from the grid and continue to be able to provide power and electricity to communities as they're confronting some terrible times. >> thank you, mister chairman, i wanted to ask for unanimous consent to submit this report from the american public health association entitled energy justice and climate change. key concepts are public health of the record. >> without objection. >> i yield back, mister chair. >> thank the gentlelady. -- must be called up. they're also one of the mitten state. mr. walberg for five minutes. >> thank, you mister chairman. through the grease is mourning. appreciate the panel being here today. wish we had more time to talk about some reality issues as well. appreciate the reality that has been brought. recently, utilities in my state
of announced -- they will be closing ovary -- even faster than initially planned. i support cleaning up our environment and diversify your power supply, we need to ensure that it's done intelligently. that it's does not come out of expensive rub -- cost or jobs and did i say reliability? in some areas, the coal plants are being replaced by clean natural gas which is cleaned up the world. relief clean up our country. and could clean up the world if you allow them to take place and pushed it. another, is wind and solar will take up the mantle. the summer, there were already capacity shortfall concerns in the region. they don't know if you've ever been to michigan in january. i worry that solar and wind just won't cut it. -- companies seem to be in a race to transition. to green energy.
meanwhile, demands furniture growing especially -- push for ev adoption electrification. i'm not sure these companies even believe in this race. but they lack the courage to stand up to the -- my issue. the green religion. how is this transition impacting reliability across the country and should we expect concerns about the brown outs, the blackouts to grow? >> thank, you congressman. may i suggest there is an absence of just corn all itch. if you think from movies is until harriet tubman, five millennia. the fastest humidity can travel land was a horse. the we transition from horses to carson points and so four of us not a peak horse policy. it wasn't central planning. it was a human innovation to sol cravings we had. actually, --
we'll started. we have to be very wary when we try to think that government central planning can effectuate a rapid and quick energy transition. the truth is energy transitions happen very rarely. very slowly. in due to innovation and so forth. when we see government get involved, do you have unintended consequences. the earliest version of the corporate at her to a committee program -- determined about 20 years ago, it was killing people by forcing automakers to downsize and down -- we had an important kind of a human cost. we were treating blood for oil. out of a well-intentioned policy to conserve oil. my recommendation would be that everyone, all of us, me included, study the oral history energy history. have humility. learn the facts. learn about energy transitions. be very careful when calling for sweeping government intervention in energy markets
that sustain our quality of life. >> i'm from the government, i'm here to help, you right? -- nuclear plants are desperate. one of lake michigan, while i carry. the last nuclear reactor being built in the u.s. came online in 2016. it took 40 years to get it from conception to operation. meanwhile, china is now the world's fastest expanding nuclear power producer. we need to re-evaluate our countries approach to this technology. mr. dabbar, the coffin timeline to jump through all the regulatory hoop seem to discourage investment in new traditional nuclear actors. i get that. how can small modular actors reshape u.s. investment in nuclear power. or can they? >> congressman, in theory, small nuclear -- are similar to the naval reactor. is never reactor. the baton budget. it's much more likely that if something is contained can be produced in a central factory.
it's gonna be on time and on budget. that is not good enough. i ran the mental program at the earlier. in a very large nuclear business. it was on time and on budget for a long time. when we left, it was back on time and on budget. people did not believe that could happen. and so part of it is good technology. part of it is culture, transparency, running projects well. i'm going to do a forum on that a columbia. how to make certain we can do that nuclear going forward. >> i wish you good success. with that, i yield back. >> i think the gentleman. members are advised both can be called about 1:30. trying to get to two more. one of the side. -- recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mister chairman. i grew up with freeways and power plants surrounding my community. as a child, remember not being able to go outside and play because of smog alerts.
that was normal for us back then. it's improved because of government responsibility. state, local, federal, et cetera. that's the responsible way that government should be involved in trying to manage what is good for the american people. not just considered to be -- let the markets take care of themselves. by the, way the oil industry in america is very subsidized. it's not necessarily a free market system. has it been for a long time and it's in today. since i was a kid, science has shown that realities of climate change have worsened. the fact is the communities like mine have felt the brunt of climate change intimately. because we've been on the frontlines unjustly. paying the price for -- also for the power points on all sides of -- excuse me, on my fed attended on the other side of town. well certain companies know what companies get richer. unfortunately, my republican colleagues are beholden to the
special interest of the fossil fuel industry. and continue to fight for the expansion of oil gas and coal. expanding our nations dependency and fossil fuels doesn't strengthen our economy our national security. or our response to climate change. it hurts your economy and burden of the american people unjustly. democrats understand that when we don't prioritize our climate and health, it hurts the american people. and leads to higher prices in energy, at the gas pump, it makes our national situation vulnerable to our adversaries. once more, it has devastating long term effects. that's why both bipartisan infrastructure law and the inflation reduction act included critical investments in clean energy infrastructure. and greater resilience. in your testimony, dr. cohen. you refer to the -- sixth assessment report being a code red for humanity. i know that the damages that
stem from the climate crisis will disproportionately harm disadvantaged communities. can you elaborate on why it's necessary to prioritize equity and justice if we truly want to avoid the worst of the station. >> thank you for that question, congressman. i think it goes back to your childhood experience. until we had governments standards, safeguards for public health. communities like you. kids like you. we were growing up surrounded by smog in -- mr. -- mcnally made a point about horsepower. i think it would be important for this committee to remember that the u.s. automobile industry was still using whale oil as a lubricant until we banned the import of it in 1971. there are important reasons for
the government to intervene inequity in addressing environmental injustice is a critical one right now. we smell of time of the select committee. thinking in recommending we integrate that. i think we've -- worn a place where we have turned that corner. every climate energy bill really needs to have that environmental justice and equity winds. the biden ministration is moving forward on that with their justice 40. i think congress needs to continue to support those types of programs. >> when was the epa created? wasn't an early 1970s? >> it was, yes. the 1970s. >> has the epa been a good impact on improvement of our environment and our country or is it something that maybe should never come about? >> i think the epa, in this mission to protect public health and welfare, has been incredibly critical to our economic development.
we have seen the u.s. have a phenomenal economic growth since the 1970s. as well as cuts in air and water pollution. we need to do more as we learn more. we can absolutely protect every american's health even while we grow our economy. >> one of my colleagues talk about foreign attacks but at the same time, i think they called it the freeze. it happened in texas. that turn out to be not only deadly but also beyond that. long term shocking for families that were paying hundreds of dollars a month for their energy bills. then five themselves had five and $10,000 or more in energy bills. was that an attack from another country? was that mother nature? >> that was an extreme cold. the natural gas industry in texas not being prepared for it. >> or not being regulated very well? >> i think they could do better. speaking as a native texan.
>> thank you, a yield back. >> the turnout grows to the peach state. even though we grow more peaches than you do in my district. mr. carter from georgia. five minutes. >> thank, you mister chairman. i want to take this opportunity to begin with -- congressionally the chairwoman. i'm excited about what's ahead for us on this committee in the next two years. in this session. i want to congratulate her. i want to congratulate her on the choice for the first full hearing that we have. what better bipartisan subject we have been american energy. i think we all agree that we want america to be a positive energy leader in the world. kudos on choosing this. it's extremely important. mr. dabbar, you mentioned the fact that we want to return to american energy dominance. it is very important. this would require allowing
america to unleash all of our energy potential. and we are certainly not doing that at this point. when we talk about energy security globally. we gotta be talking about reliability. it's paramount. we understand that. i think that's probably where we haven't heard more about global power relying on solar or wind because they're just not reliable at this point. nuclear is. because base -- 24/7, it's clean. it's everything we want. it's exciting to think about the future as far as innovations go. the advancements that we've seen infusion. -- we talked about some. ours i'm excited about that. i think people should be excited about it. let me ask you this. and the context global energy security, when we talk about global energy security. how important is it for us to have a domestic -- it robust domestic nuclear energy to compete with adversaries like china and
russia. around the world. >> so our energy costs have been the lowest -- including electricity. that is a great sucking sound of industry. we're seeing the opposite of that intermediate the moment. high risk energy policies, high prices. their industries moving out. it's great, they're moving to america. there's actually big strength of what we have as a result of all that. and so that's energy security driving the economy. driving us as a nation. it's also about us in the world. once again, reference all the veterans. here we fought a lot of wars. a lot of worries around energy. the whole kuwait worries about them innovating, about energy. our ability. with all disrespect. when we move from 4.8 million barrels a day of crude oil to all 0.9. we came off. look at the numbers. we came off of energy risks.
that's just numbers. we reported less from opec. we were left exposed to opec. and the energy prices were set in a permian basin. for the world. that's something driving innovation, driving cost down. that allowed us to have flexibility. that is incredible. >> thank you for that. i read with interest your -- the article that you coauthored in the heel about what's interested russia's nuclear power dominance. it was interesting. also alarming. alarming that we've got to address this with our allies. something we got to work together with our allies. also mentioned about europe. adjust the -- i had an opportunity to go to europe with a conservative climate caucus. what we witnessed there is a situation where they've allowed policies to get ahead of innovation. shutting down nuclear plants. relying on wind and solar when they're not ready for it yet.
we want to go to renewables. we all want to do that. we gotta do it in such a way that we don't allow our policies to get out of our innovation. that's exactly what they've done. the point that you bring up in this article that you coauthored. they are alarming. i appreciate you -- i go want to go quickly to a sack. cinemas jackson, you bring up some great points. i had an opportunity to read an article that you wrote as well. about the minority exploitation game called environmental justice. you mentioned ford motor company. about how they have 60 billion dollars for -- in the i.r.a., 60 billion dollars for environmental justice programs. about the size of forward motors. employees over 200,000 people. all this money we put into the -- was put into the i.r.a.. i'm not saying we. he was put into -- it could've been used for better ways. can you give us an example? >> absolutely.
the biggest injustice of environmental justice is poverty. the fact that we're using environmental justice money to -- that's going to lobbyists. never going into the community to create economic mobility. it's not creating any business districts. not industrial parks. nothing that's going to improve the lives of those individuals. that money was equivalent to 2000 -- the tulsa black wall street. we could've built 2000 black wall streets. for the equivalent of that environmental justice money. in other words, we wouldn't be having a conversation about poverty right now. because all of our black communities would be thriving. but instead, we're gonna get a few retrofits, a few windows and nothing is going to change about the economics. >> thank you for that. i yield back, mister chairman. thank you.
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on