Fostering Equity in Energy Innovation — House Hearing, Subcommittee on Energy (July 16, 2021)
Summary
Record of the hearing "Fostering Equity in Energy Innovation" before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, July 16, 2021, Serial No. 117-25, conducted via Zoom with Chairman Jamaal Bowman presiding. Chairman Bowman said equity cannot be pushed aside in the transition to renewable energy and must be considered in every stage of innovation. Ranking Member Randy Weber gave an opening statement and Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson a written statement. Witnesses were Dr. Dan Kammen of the University of California, Berkeley, Dr. Shobita Parthasarathy of the University of Michigan, Dr. Myles Lennon of Brown University and Bruno Grunau of NREL's Cold Climate Housing Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Fostering Equity in Energy Innovation — House Hearing, Subcommittee on Energy (July 16, 2021).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/house-hearing-117th-congress-fostering-equity-in-energy-innovation-d45d8dfc5f/
, SHA-256 d194cfdd6944dbf8d8d90388c3946da7832e96de470b7874cab95d8f3031b4f9.Full text
[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FOSTERING EQUITY IN ENERGY INNOVATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 16, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
45-195PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina VACANCY
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin VACANCY
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York, Chairman
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon RANDY WEBER, Texas,
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan Ranking Member
JERRY McNERNEY, California JIM BAIRD, Indiana
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey MIKE GARCIA, California
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina PETER MEIJER, Michigan
C O N T E N T S
July 16, 2021
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Jamaal Bowman, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 13
Witnesses:
Dr. Dan Kammen, Distinguished Professor of Energy at the
University of California, Berkeley
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 17
Dr. Shobita Parthasarathy, Director, Science, Technology, and
Public Policy program, University of Michigan
Oral Statement............................................... 32
Written Statement............................................ 35
Dr. Myles Lennon, Professor of Environment and Society and
Anthropology, Brown University
Oral Statement............................................... 70
Written Statement............................................ 72
Mr. Bruno Grunau, Regional Director of NREL's Cold Climate
Housing Research Center (CCHRC) in Fairbanks, Alaska
Oral Statement............................................... 78
Written Statement............................................ 80
Discussion....................................................... 97
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Myles Lennon, Professor of Environment and Society and
Anthropology, Brown University................................. 118
FOSTERING EQUITY IN ENERGY INNOVATION
----------
FRIDAY, JULY 16, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m.,
via Zoom, Hon. Jamaal Bowman [Chairman of the Subcommittee]
presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you so much. Good morning,
everyone. Can you all hear me? OK. Good morning. This hearing
will come to order. Without objection, the Chairman is
authorized to declare recess at any time. Before I deliver my
opening remarks, I wanted to note that today's--today the
Committee is meeting virtually. I want to announce a couple of
reminders to the Members about the conduct of this hearing.
First, Members should keep their video feed on as long as they
are present in the hearing. Members are responsible for their
own microphones. Please also keep your microphones muted,
unless you are speaking. Finally, if Members have documents
they wish to submit for the record, please e-mail them to the
Committee Clerk, whose e-mail address was circulated prior to
the hearing.
Thank you to all our witnesses joining us virtually today
to discuss the importance of energy justice for frontline and
marginalized communities. Equity cannot be pushed aside as we
transition to renewable energy and tackle the climate crisis.
Rather, it is essential that we consider equity in every stage
of innovation. For example, energy storage technology today is
primarily designed for single family households. This design
does not suit community solar projects that aim for collective
ownership to achieve an energy system that is of, by, and for
the people. Incorporating equity from the beginning of the
research process will help us avoid technological pathways that
only serve a select few. Without every American experiencing
the benefits of a good, healthy, zero carbon life, we will
never be able to meet our climate goals.
This goes to the heart of why we need to address climate
change, inequality, and systemic racism in an integrated
fashion. Reducing energy costs is especially important for
families struggling with electricity bills, which includes
almost 1/3 of households, according to the 2018 U.S. Energy
Information Administration Report. In some regions of the
country, half of Black households are energy insecure. Many
green technologies, such as the use of heat pumps for
electrification instead of relying on natural gas, can cost
upwards of $10,000. We need Federal research on how to reduce
costs and deploy these technologies faster. This is already
happening in marginalized communities in my district, New
York's 16th. In the city of Mount Vernon community organizers
and green energy experts are working together to help low-
income households switch to heat pumps. They just received a
major State grant to scale up that work.
This is why research and development (R&D) cannot be
forgotten as part of the equation of President Biden's Justice
40 Initiative, which says that 40 percent of overall benefits
of Federal dollars should flow to disadvantaged communities. We
must build an equitable future from the ground up, not tack it
on as an afterthought as technologies are ready to go out the
door. One way to ensure that frontline communities' needs are
being addressed is to include them in the conversation. Harvard
University received more Federal R&D financing than all
Historically Black Colleges and Universities combined in 2018.
This disparity in Federal funding is unacceptable. We can do
better, and we must do better. To achieve the best solutions,
we need a diverse array of experts seated at the table.
Through the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity, the
Department of Energy (DOE) has been working to expand the
participation of underrepresented groups in all of DOE
programs, and in the energy industry at large, through the
Equity in Energy Initiative. I was very pleased to see the
appointment and nomination of Shalanda Baker to lead this
office, and encourage her swift confirmation in the Senate. One
goal of this initiative is to strengthen the relationship
between our National Labs and Minority Serving Institutions. We
need people of all backgrounds to perform this research and
help lead us into a sustainable, just future. We need to
support innovators and creators of color so that they are
helping to shape the green energy transition. I am proud that
this Committee is working to make our research activities more
inclusive at every stage of development.
Additionally, diversity of expertise is important for
fostering equity and energy innovation, as we will hear from
many of our witnesses here today, including social scientists,
as well as STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics) professionals, is key. Social scientists can
develop metrics to measure climate equity. Technologies must
meet certain quantitative metrics before they are ready for
commercialization, and the same should be said for meeting
equity standards, so we really need a combination of science,
engineering, and social science experts to guide effective
green investments for all communities, and we need to be
studying the social and economic dimensions of renewable energy
deployment as well, including the benefits of public,
cooperative, and community ownership of green technologies. If
we do this right, we can build a safer, better society for all
Americans, and show the world how to do the same.
I want to thank again our excellent panel of witnesses
assembled today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Bowman follows:]
Thank you to all our witnesses joining us virtually today
to discuss the importance of energy justice for frontline and
marginalized communities. Equity cannot be pushed aside as we
transition to renewable energy and tackle the climate crisis.
Rather, it is essential that we consider equity in every stage
of innovation.
For example, energy storage technology today is primarily
designed for single family households. This design does not
suit community solar projects that aim for collective ownership
to achieve an energy system that is of, by, and for the people.
Incorporating equity from the beginning of the research process
will help us avoid technological pathways that only serve a
select few. Without every American experiencing the benefits of
a good, healthy, zero-carbon life, we will never be able to
meet our climate goals.
This goes to the heart of why we need to address climate
change, inequality, and systemic racism in an integrated
fashion. Reducing energy costs is especially important for
families struggling with electricity bills--almost one third of
households, according to a 2018 U.S. Energy Information
Administration report. In some regions of the country, half of
Black households are energy insecure. Many green technologies,
such as the use of heat pumps for electrification instead of
relying on natural gas, can cost upwards of $10,000. We need
federal research on how to how to reduce costs and deploy these
technologies faster. This is already happening in marginalized
communities in my district, New York's 16th: in the city of
Mount Vernon, community organizers and green energy experts are
working together, to help low-income households switch to heat
pumps. They just received a major state grant to scale up that
work.
This is why research and development cannot be forgotten as
part of the equation of President Biden's Justice 40
initiative, which says that 40 percent of overall benefits of
federal dollars should flow to disadvantaged communities. We
must build an equitable future from the ground up, not tack it
on as an afterthought as technologies are ready to go out the
door. One way to ensure that frontline community needs are
being addressed, is to include them in the conversation.
Harvard University received more federal R&D financing than all
Historically Black Colleges and Universities combined in 2018.
This disparity in federal funding is unacceptable. We can do
better. We must do better. To achieve the best solutions, we
need a diverse array of experts seated at the table.
Through the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity, the
Department of Energy has been working to expand the
participation of underrepresented groups in all DOE programs,
and in the energy industry at large, through the Equity in
Energy initiative. I was very pleased to see the appointment
and nomination of Shalanda Baker to lead this office, and
encourage her swift confirmation in the Senate. One goal of
this initiative is to strengthen the relationship between our
national labs and minority serving institutions. We need people
all backgrounds to perform this research and help lead us into
a sustainable, just future. We need to support innovators and
creators of color, so that they are helping to shape the green
energy transition. I am proud that this Committee is working to
make our research activities more inclusive at every stage of
development.
Additionally, diversity of expertise is important for
fostering equity in energy innovation. As we will hear from
many of our witnesses here today, including social scientists
as well as STEM professionals is key. Social scientists can
develop metrics to measure climate equity. Technologies must
meet certain quantitative metrics before they are ready for
commercialization, and the same should be said for meeting
equity standards. So we really need a combination of science,
engineering, and social science experts to guide effective
green investments for all communities. And we need to be
studying the social and economic dimensions of renewable energy
deployment as well--including the benefits of public,
cooperative, and community ownership of green technologies.
If we do this right, we can build a better, safer society
for all Americans, and show the world how to do the same.
I want to again thank our excellent panel of witnesses
assembled today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Bowman. With that, the Chair now recognizes Mr.
Weber for an opening Statement.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing, and I want to say thank you to our witnesses for
joining us this morning. Today's discussion is somewhat of a
timely one. On the Science Committee we have clear shared goals
in supporting clean--a clean, secure energy future that is
accessible to all Americans. We know that this future is near,
but that an equitable transition can mean many different things
to many different communities. But that's because, when it
comes to energy equity, the needs of at-risk communities across
this great country are as diverse as the very people that are
making up this melting pot we call America.
There's a very real possibility that what works in Bronx,
New York, which is my friend's Mr. Bowman's district, might not
work in Galveston, Texas, which is part of my district. And by
the way, we would encourage you to come visit Galveston, Mr.
Chairman, and while you're here, spend lots of money. There is
no one size fits all solution to a clean energy transition. If
we fail to account for everyone, we will see devastating
impacts on different American workers in different local
communities. For example, rural areas like those scattered
across Texas actually represent, believe it or not, 86 percent
of persistent poverty counties in the United States. And in
those rural counties, many families' entire livelihoods are
dependent on the current infrastructure and job security that
comes from traditional energy production.
Texas is just one of six States where fossil fuel jobs
account for a significant share of total rural employment.
Today those fossil fuel jobs outnumber clean energy jobs in 23
of 28 rural counties across Texas. Therefore, I think it should
be obvious that any plan to completely abandon our current
infrastructure and energy sources would obviously be a big
mistake. That's why a key component of a successful equitable
energy transition is an all of the above energy strategy, with
a focus on affordable and reliable energy technologies, while
keeping traditional energy sources on the table, and making
them cleaner and more efficient.
So what does that mean? That means carbon capture,
utilization, and sequestration that makes fossil fuels cleaner,
it means keeping our nuclear fleet up and running. It also
means incorporating at the same time solar, wind, and other
renewables into that grid as a part of that puzzle, instead of
mandating an instant and complete transition. On the Science
Committee we know that the best way to do is by investing in
clean energy innovation. I'm proud to say that this--that has
been a priority for this Committee for years. There's no
problem we cannot innovate our way around.
Last Congress we passed the Energy Act of 2020 to
modernize our Nation's energy policies by prioritizing the
research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) of next
generation technology, for example, like energy storage,
advanced nuclear, and carbon capture. As a result of this
legislation, we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the
energy and industrial sectors, while increasing U.S.
competitiveness in clean energy technologies. That's a win for
all Americans.
This Congress we set our sights on the Department of
Energy's Office of Science to continue down this innovation
pathway. The DOE Science for the Future Act provides
comprehensive policy guidance and funding authorization for
major research programs that will drive new discoveries in
energy technologies, and pave the way for the development of
sustainable, affordable, and scalable clean energy solutions.
On that note, I want to say congratulations to Chairman Bowman,
along with the Full Committee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member Frank Lucas, on successfully passing this bill
on the floor by a very large bipartisan margin. I look forward
to working with this group to get this bill over the finish
line and signed into law. Now, I mention all these successes
because I want my colleagues and our witnesses to know the
Science Committee is doing our part to turn words into actions.
Our focus always has been, as long as I've been here, and
will continue to be, policy that keeps energy affordable and
reliable for all Americans, especially for low-income,
minority, rural, and senior citizen communities. These are the
communities that suffer from a lack of access to those reliable
energy sources, and spend proportionately higher amounts of
their income on electricity costs. Eliminating energy poverty
is something we all want to achieve. But in doing so, we need
to be mindful of how policies will impact the very communities
we're trying to serve, especially those who play a key role in
energy productions. I want to thank our witnesses for sharing
their insights on this, and I look forward to this discussion.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]
Thank you, Chairman Bowman for holding this hearing and
thank you to our witness panel for joining us this morning.
Today's discussion is a timely one. On the Science
Committee we have clear shared goals in supporting a clean and
secure energy future that is accessible to all Americans. We
know that this future is near, but that an equitable transition
can mean many different things to many different communities.
That's because when it comes to energy equity, the needs of
at-risk communities across this great country are as diverse as
the very people who make up this melting pot. There's a very
real possibility that what works in the Bronx, New York--which
is my friend Mr. Bowman's district--might not in work
Galveston, Texas, part of my district.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to a clean energy
transition. If we fail to account for everyone, we will see
devastating impacts on American workers and local communities.
For example, rural areas like those scattered across Texas
actually represent 86 percent of persistent poverty counties in
the United States.
And in those rural counties, many families' entire
livelihoods are dependent on the current infrastructure and job
security that come from traditional energy production. Texas is
just one of six states where fossil fuel jobs account for a
significant share of total rural employment. Today, those
fossil fuel jobs outnumber clean energy jobs in 23 of 28 rural
counties across the state.
Therefore, I think it's obvious that any plan to completely
abandon our current infrastructure and energy sources would be
a big mistake. That's why a key component of a successful
equitable energy transition is an all-of-the-above energy
strategy, with a focus on affordable and reliable energy
technologies, and keeping traditional energy sources on the
table while making them cleaner and more efficient. That means
carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration that makes
fossil fuels clean. It means keeping our nuclear fleet up and
running. It also means incorporating solar, wind, and other
renewables into our grid as a piece of the puzzle, instead of
mandating an instant and complete transition.
On the Science Committee we know that the best way to do
this is by investing in clean energy innovation. I'm proud to
say this Committee has made this a priority for years.
There is no problem we cannot innovate our way around.
Last Congress, we passed the Energy Act of 2020 to
modernize our nation's energy policies by prioritizing
research, development, and demonstration of next-generation
technologies like energy storage, advanced nuclear, and carbon
capture. As a result of this legislation, we will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions across the energy and industrial
sectors while increasing U.S. competitiveness in clean energy
technologies. This is a win for all Americans.
This Congress, we set our sights on the Department of
Energy's Office of Science to continue down this innovation
pathway. The DOE Science for the Future Act provides
comprehensive policy guidance and funding authorization for
major research programs that will drive new discoveries in
energy technologies and pave the way for the development of
sustainable, affordable, and scalable clean energy solutions.
On that note, I want to congratulate Chairman Bowman, along
with the Full Committee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson and
Ranking Member Frank Lucas, on successfully passing this bill
on the Floor by a large bipartisan margin. I look forward to
working with this group to get this bill over the finish line
and signed into law.
I mention all these successes because I want my colleagues
and our witnesses to know the Science Committee is doing our
part to turn words into actions.
Our focus has always been, and will continue to be, policy
that keeps energy affordable and reliable, especially for low-
income, minority, rural, and senior citizen communities. These
are the communities that suffer from a lack of access to
reliable energy sources and spend proportionately higher
amounts of their income on electricity costs.
Eliminating energy poverty is something we all want to
achieve. But in doing so, we need to be mindful of how policies
will impact the very communities we are trying to serve. I want
to thank our witnesses for sharing their insights on this and I
look forward to this discussion.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you so much, Mr. Weber, and I will
take you up on that offer to visit your district for sure, only
if you promise to come to the Bronx, New York, as well. I visit
you, you visit me.
Mr. Weber. I'm coming in the summertime. I don't want to
be up there when it snows.
Chairman Bowman. OK, I--we could make that work, Mr.
Weber. We could make that work.
Mr. Weber. Thank you.
Chairman Bowman. If there are Members who wish to submit
additional opening statements, your statements will be added to
the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good morning and thank you Chairman Bowman and Ranking
Member Weber for convening this excellent panel of witnesses to
discuss the critical importance of developing equitable energy
solutions. As clean energy technologies become an ever-growing
component of our global energy economy, the social impacts of
these technologies and the policies that support them are
becoming increasingly salient. We must work to ensure that the
transition to a clean energy economy does not create
communities of winners and losers, because every community is
vital to our country's energy future.
This Committee understands that it is essential for us to
transition to low-carbon energy systems as quickly as possible
to mitigate the impacts of climate change. However, we must
also guarantee that these systems are fairer, inclusive, and
just. Instead of defining the global climate problem narrowly
as simply mitigating carbon emissions, the problem should be
expanded to embrace an equity approach to creating energy
solutions that will address the many systemic barriers to
energy security. We will not succeed in our commitment to a
clean and just energy future if we only prioritize
environmental and economic outcomes at the expense of social
sustainability.
Granted, this problem isn't new. Marginalized communities
have historically carried a disproportionate share of the
energy and environmental burden, while rarely receiving any of
the economic benefits. Researchers find these communities have
not been considered or included in past clean energy planning
and policymaking. Consequently, many of the same people who
would benefit most from such initiatives are overlooked when
policies are developed, implemented, and evaluated. And low-
income households, communities of color, older adults, and
renters all face disproportionately high energy burdens,
meaning they spend more of their income on energy bills
compared to their counterparts.
These disparities are concerning, and I believe as this
Committee continues to shape clean energy policy, we must
ensure that the technologies of the future do not overshadow
the energy priorities of frontline communities. One of the
first actions we can take is to support the early integration
of social sciences in energy research and development. This
will hopefully aid in eliminating bias and provide a better
understanding of non-economic barriers that may negatively
impact technology adoption.
It is also imperative that we meaningfully engage with
historically marginalized communities to create pathways for
community-driven energy solutions that incorporate social
issues. I sincerely believe that our success as a nation in
addressing our climate challenge will require diverse voices to
be heard as we strive for a green and just energy transition.
In closing, I want to thank our panel for joining us today and
I look forward to this discussion.
Chairman Bowman. At this time, I would like to introduce
our witnesses. First, Dr. Daniel Kammen holds the James and
Katherine Lau Distinguished Chair in Sustainability at the
University of California (UC), Berkeley. He also holds parallel
appointments in UC Berkeley's Energy and Resource Group, where
he serves as Chair, the Goldman School of Public Policy, where
he directs the Center for Environmental Policy in the
Department of Nuclear Engineering. He is a former science envoy
at the U.S. Department of State, and has founded over 10
companies. Thank you for being with us, Dr. Kammen.
Next is Dr. Myles Lennon. He is the Dean--excuse me, is
the Dean's Assistant Professor of Environment and Society and
Anthropology at Brown University, and a former sustainable
energy policy practitioner. His research explores how rooftop
solar, resiliency microgrids, and other climate mitigation
infrastructures reinforce, as well as upends, entrenched
structures of power across race and class divisions in New York
City. Thank you for being with us, Dr. Lennon.
Next is Dr. Shobita Parthasarathy--sorry about that--is a
Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Science,
Technology, and Public Policy Program at the University of
Michigan. She is interested in how to develop innovation and
innovation policy to better achieve public interest and social
justice goals. Much of her work has focused on the governance
of emerging science and technology, particularly those that
have uncertain environmental, social, ethical, political, and
health implications. Thank you so much for being with us.
Last, but not least, we have Mr. Bruno Grunau, is Regional
Director of NREL's (National Renewable Energy Laboratory's)
Cold Climate Housing Research Center, or CCHRC, in Fairbanks,
Alaska. Prior to joining NREL in 2020, CCHRC had a 20-year
history as an independent non-profit developing and advancing
sustainable, affordable, durable housing for Alaskans and
circumpolar people. Mr. Grunau oversees CCHRC's work in
building science, energy policy, and demonstration of healthy,
affordable, durable shelter and infrastructure in extreme
environments.
Thank you all so much for joining us today. As our
witnesses should know, you will each have 5 minutes for your
spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included in
the record for the hearing. When you all have completed your
spoken testimony, we will begin with questions. Each Member
will have 5 minutes to question the panel. We will start with
Dr. Kammen. Dr. Kammen, please begin.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DAN KAMMEN,
DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF ENERGY
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Dr. Kammen. I thank you, Chair Bowman, Representative
Weber, and all of the other Members of the Committee. I truly
appreciate the chance to be in front of you today. And I think
I'll summarize my comments overall with one line, and that is
that we now have the ability to both quantify the benefits of
innovation and diversity for all Americans, with a particular
note that diversity benefits everyone, not just the targeted
communities, to deal with past injustices. Next slide, please?
[Slide.]
My overarching point in terms of the quantification is
that we now have sufficient data to document quite clearly that
the energy transition produces a significant bonus in jobs.
This is something that I have been personally working on for
over 15 years. Many other studies corroborate these similar
numbers. And while jobs in all areas are critical for
diversity, we can see from the chart here, when we look at the
direct investment jobs, the indirect jobs, and those that are
induced by the transition, there is a significant benefit to
moving toward the smarter, greener section, essentially the
blue and the green parts of this graph here.
And I highlight that because I think that Representative
Weber made a very important point about the need to preserve
and to uphold jobs in all sectors as we make this transition.
The fact that 2035 is our goal date for a carbon neutral
economy gives an ample runway for the continuation of critical
jobs today in rural and other counties that are dependent on
them, but also an opportunity to ramp up into this not only
large sector for additional job growth in the United States,
but 90 percent of all energy installed around the world in 2019
and 2020, according to the International Energy Agency, was in
the renewable space, which means the more we transition our
workforce, the more American workers can capture those jobs at
home and abroad. Next slide, please?
[Slide.]
As we look at not only the benefits, but also the
challenges, the comments by Chairman Bowman are particularly
critical, and I illustrate that with a negative example of not
heeding all of those lessons to integrate STEM and social
science. In a large study that my laboratory conducted in
conjunction with Google's National Sunroof Data base, a data
base of over 60 million rooftops--next slide, please--what we
saw around the country is that if we look at who has solar on
their rooftops today--we did this by using GIS (Geographic
Information Systems) data, by using remote sensing, all these
tools, and by using census data on incomes, what we find is
that for census blocks with no ethnic majority, that's our
baseline. However, if we look at communities that do have an
ethnic majority--next slide, please--we see a dramatically
different pattern, where solar is 30 or more percent more
common in areas where there's a White majority than the
undifferentiated areas. And in Latino and African-American
communities, it's between 30 to 70 percent less likely across
an order of magnitude of incomes from below the poverty line
for a family of four, $26,300 per year, up to a quarter
million.
What that says is that past efforts to do outreach, both
STEM training, efforts to bring--workforce training grants to
help seed companies with minority business owners and employees
have not been anywhere near as successful as they would be. I
highlight this because as we think about these dramatic,
important new bills coming forward, such as House Bill 3593,
the Energy Science for the Future Act, building in diversity,
and oversight, and input from diverse communities will benefit
us all not only in terms of these direct jobs, but also in
terms of building the market for these high job creation areas.
It's a critical aspect, and it's one that even solar, something
many people think of as on that transition, need to have a much
more nuanced approach to building diversity into the pipeline.
It will benefit us all. Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
On the other side of the story, I want to highlight and
second something that Chairman Bowman said about the energy
insecurity for so many Americans, and in particular so many
minority Americans, many rural areas, and so I illustrate that
with a project funded by the California Energy Commission, for
which I have the honor to be the co-Director. This is called
the EcoBlock, and in this low-income section of Oakland,
California, with a mixture of single-family homes, rental
units, so-called mother-in-law units, and, as you can see in
this graph here on the far left, an apartment building as well,
in this design all of the rooftops generate solar, but it's
pooled. It all is stored in a central storage facility--you can
see the utility garage at the top center of the slide--and then
redistributed to all the homes and apartments. This more than
enough powers the homes, but it also provides the opportunity,
as you can see in the inset circle, to not only power
individuals who own or lease an electric vehicle, but also
those who charge on the block who don't own property. It is a
pro-equity opportunity.
In my written comments I highlight some dramatic and
impressive efforts, such as that of Lyft Company, which has
announced that by 2030 all of their vehicles, roughly two
million worldwide, will be electric, and they're working State
by State to make the lease or the ownership of those vehicles
available at or below cost for their drivers, a pro-equity
maneuver. You can see on the right-hand pictures some of the
town----
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kammen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. I'm sorry, Dr. Kammen, your 5 minutes are
up. Can we get to some of this during Q&A?
Dr. Kammen. Absolutely.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you so much. Sorry to cut you off,
Doctor.
Dr. Kammen. Not a problem.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you for that testimony. Dr. Lennon,
you are now recognized.
Dr. Lennon. Thank you. Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member
Weber, and the rest of the Energy Subcommittee, it's a real
privilege to testify before you today. Clean energy
technologies can dramatically reduce the--I'm sorry, I'm having
some trouble with my notes. I might have to--OK. This is--I
apologize, my--I have an iPad here with my notes, and it
appears to have frozen, so----
Chairman Bowman. Well, Dr. Lennon, maybe we can go to
another witness, and then come back to----
Dr. Lennon. I would appreciate that, and I will get this
fixed. Thank you very much.
Chairman Bowman. OK. No worries. As Dr. Lennon gets his
tech in order, we will go to Dr. Parthasarathy. I hope I said
that----
Dr. Parthasarathy. You did, beautiful. Perfect.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning.
TESTIMONY OF DR. SHOBITA PARTHASARATHY,
DIRECTOR, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY,
AND PUBLIC POLICY PROGRAM, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Dr. Parthasarathy. Good morning. Good morning, Chairman
Bowman, Ranking Member Weber, and Members of the Committee.
Thank you for the invitation to participate in today's hearing.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss how we can foster
equity in energy innovation.
In recent years it's become clear that low-income and
historically marginalized communities of color are often unable
to gain the benefits of energy innovation, yet may be
disproportionately subject to their harms. We tend to address
these issues, though, after the technology is developed and
deployed, but they can be addressed proactively, so long as we
view innovation as not just technical, but social,
organizational, and moral, and that potentially affected
communities and experts in the equity dimensions of innovation
are brought into every step of the research and development
process, even at the earliest stages, and so I really
appreciate, Chair Bowman, what you said in your opening
statement. In my testimony today I'll outline three ways that I
think the Department of Energy can bring equity considerations
into innovation. The first is by investing in community-based
innovation. The second is by consulting communities in the
development and citing of high-tech projects. And third, by
incorporating equity analyses into R&D funding decisions.
Community-based innovation is, essentially, from the
bottom up. Local priorities, knowledge, and context are central
to its development, and it often leads to small scale or
collective entrepreneurship and grassroots empowerment. The
most common form in the United States is small scale solar, in
which local organizations create economic opportunities while
also providing clean energy. Native Renewables, for example,
trains Navajo people in Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico to
install small-scale photovoltaic systems, and then provides
them to the thousands of families that are off the grid.
But community-based innovation can also be low tech. We
tend to think of innovation as technically complex, but we
forget that people, especially those facing adversity, are
always developing and tailoring inexpensive interventions that
may be useful for others. The Indian government's National
Innovation Foundation, or NIF, offers a useful model. Staff get
out into communities to scout innovation, then the NIF provides
innovators with funding to help develop and then disseminate
the work. This includes securing patents, and negotiating
licenses with manufacturing--with manufacturers, and what's
interesting is that the licenses often include provisions to
ensure that the benefits flow directly back to the community.
DOE could create a similar program. Key to this effort is
meeting communities where they are. Rather than focusing on
educating them, these efforts would be dedicated to learning
from them and amplifying their innovative work.
Second, DOE can engage low-income and marginalized
communities in the development of large-scale, technically
complex interventions. Deliberative, democratic methods can be
particularly useful in gathering nuanced information about how
citizens, and especially people who might be disproportionately
affected by a particular technology, might respond. Through
these methods, researchers have shown that local communities
have very different responses to wind energy, depending on
their relationships with local landscapes, and that some
communities worry about the sustainability of solar energy
across the life cycle, particular rare earth mining. The
objective is to move from a customary decide, announce, defend
model, in which technologists and policymakers coalesce around
a particular technology, and then convince communities to
accept it, toward a consult, consider, modify, proceed model.
That could also help minimize opposition when innovations are
deployed.
Finally, DOE can incorporate equity analyses into its
grantmaking processes. In deciding whether to support a
particular project, it could require prospective grantees to
provide an equity impact assessment that would gather
information about equity in design, equity in distributional
and citing processes, equity in procedure, and historical
legacy. DOE could look, for example, to the National Science
Foundation's (NSF's) evaluation of broader impacts, or even
environmental impact assessments under the National
Environmental Policy Act as analogues. DOE can also favor
interdisciplinary research proposals that explicitly aim to
simultaneously study the technical and equity dimensions of a
particular intervention. But to accomplish these objectives,
the Department must incorporate the expertise of social
scientists, who can evaluate the equity consequences of
emerging technologies, both on its peer review panels, and its
own program staff. These experts could both inform the agency
and potential grantees on how to explicitly consider equity in
R&D, and also help identify the most equitable paths for
innovation and innovation for demonstration.
In closing, to ensure that energy innovation can reduce
rather than exacerbate inequities, we need to incorporate the
expertise of both vulnerable communities and social scientists
in the R&D process from the outset. Thank you, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Parthasarathy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you so much for that testimony, Dr.
Parthasarathy. Brilliant, thank you so much. Dr. Lennon, how
are we doing? Good to go?
Dr. Lennon. I think we're good to go. My apologies.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MYLES LENNON,
PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY
AND ANTHROPOLOGY, BROWN UNIVERSITY
Dr. Lennon. So, Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member Weber, and
the rest of the Energy Subcommittee, it's a real privilege to
testify before you today. Clean energy technologies can
dramatically reduce the negative public health and
environmental impacts of fossil fuel energy on low-income
communities and communities of color, but more can be done to
improve these technologies, to truly realize an equitable,
sustainable energy transition. Toward this end, today I will
identify four research areas that DOE can pursue.
First, we need multidisciplinary research on the labor and
environmental practices of corporations that produce renewable
energy technologies. Currently there are companies up and down
renewable energy supply chains that exploit vulnerable workers,
that lack basic health and safety provisions, that dump toxic
chemicals in the vulnerable communities where they're located,
and that use so-called conflict minerals. At the same time,
there are companies that abide by high labor, and health, and
safety standards that abstain from using conflict minerals,
that use materials that don't harm workers, such as zinc
instead of cadmium in the production of solar panels, and that
minimize their local environmental impact. But we still need
much more comprehensive data on how the production of renewable
technologies impacts marginalized workers and communities.
Research on renewable supply chains conducted in close
consultation with these workers and communities can help us
determine how to incorporate good labor, health, and
environmental justice standards in the production of clean
energy technologies.
Second, we need R&D that will accelerate production
innovations that could eradicate the human rights violations
and environmental degradation affiliated with battery energy
storage systems. Battery energy storage systems are essential
to harnessing the power of solar and wind, but most are made
with lithium and cobalt, which are extracted in ways that
decimate the health and environment of poor communities in a
few poor countries, often, through human rights violations,
such as child labor, and the DRC's (Democratic Republic of
Congo's) cobalt mining industry. But we've made remarkable
progress in developing batteries that don't use lithium and
cobalt, including large-scale storage systems made with the
element vanadium, and rechargeable zinc-ion batteries.
These still-nascent technologies have tremendous potential
to curtail the labor and environmental burden of energy storage
production on vulnerable communities. For instance, the vast
majority of the vanadium redox battery's components can be
recycled, in stark contrast to lithium batteries, reducing the
e-waste of storage technologies, which disproportionately
burdens marginalized communities. There are also large unmined
deposits of vanadium all over the U.S., presenting an
opportunity for domestic jobs that would be protected by this
country's occupational safety and health laws, a promising
alternative to the human rights violations of cobalt mining in
the DRC. So our battery storage R&D agenda must prioritize
innovations that can address the labor exploitation of energy
storage supply chains.
Third, we need social science research that incorporates
the insights and innovations of low-income communities and
communities of color into community-based renewable energy
programs, such as community solar. These programs have a mixed
record of reducing the barriers that marginalized communities
face in adopting renewable technologies, and local groups have
important ideas for truly innovating these programs in ways
that best overcome such barriers. But too often their ideas are
sidelined, like in New York, where community groups put forward
a brilliant proposal to incorporate environmental justice into
the State's valuation of solar electricity. We need research
that systematically documents these innovations and
incorporates them into program design to empower communities to
lead their own energy transition.
Fourth, we need public health, engineering, and social
science research to document and improve the health, safety,
and efficacy of renewable energy technology recycling. By 2050
there could be 80 million metric tons of solar panels that no
longer work, which will demand that we ramp up recycling to
ensure that solar does not contribute to the e-waste crisis
plaguing poor communities. But solar recycling can cause health
and safety problems for vulnerable workers through, for
instance, lead exposure, and there's a dearth of data on the
health and safety challenges that solar recycling workers face.
We therefore need better exposure assessment tools and
qualitative research on the health impacts of solar recycling,
and more generally we need research on how to improve solar
recycling infrastructure.
These four research trajectories are not at all
exhaustive, but instead exemplary of the many multi-
disciplinary ways we can go about centering communities who
have been disproportionately burdened by fossil fuels in our
transition to cleaner energy. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lennon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Dr. Lennon, for that
insightful testimony. Mr. Grunau, you are now recognized.
TESTIMONY OF MR. BRUNO GRUNAU, REGIONAL DIRECTOR
OF NREL'S COLD CLIMATE HOUSING RESEARCH
CENTER (CCHRC) IN FAIRBANKS, ALASKA
Mr. Grunau. Well thank you, and good morning, Chairman
Bowman, Ranking Member Weber, and to this Committee. Thank you
so much for the opportunity to be here. It's really an honor to
testify before you and to be on this panel of distinguished
guests. Excuse me. So as Chairman Bowman said, I'm Bruno
Grunau, the Regional Director of the National Renewable Energy
Laboratories Cold Climate Housing Research Center, and while
NREL's two main campuses are in Colorado, our farthest north
campus is located here in Fairbanks, Alaska, which is where I'm
calling from this morning. And it's for 20 years we've been
working on developing sustainable, healthy shelter for people
in extreme climates, and incorporating local and indigenous
knowledge into our technology solutions. And we join NREL to
continue this work at a larger scale, and to be part of the
great work of creating a clean energy transition for all,
where, quite frankly, NREL has been doing this for 40 years.
But to look at how we foster equity in energy innovation,
I'd like to share a story from Unalakleet. It's an Inupiat
village on the Arctic Coast of Alaska. It's cold, it's remote,
there are no roads to the outside world, but for thousands of
years the local people and the culture, they made a home here,
and they thrived here. And in the late 1900's, this community,
they adopted modern homes and energy systems, but today this
village, and many of them like it, they face a housing crisis,
right? So the homes are too expensive to build, they're too
expensive to heat, they're moldy, and they're making people
sick. And because people were not included in the development
process, the technology does not reflect Inupiat needs, the
climate, or the culture. And the tribal leadership were worried
because the elders and the young family were--young families
were leaving the village, and they were depleting the community
of its traditional and generational knowledge, of its identity.
Last year NREL worked with tribal council to realize their
vision of building affordable energy efficient and resilient
homes, and maximizing the local labor from the community. So
together we co-developed--we designed a semi-modular home that
was built partly in the lab and partly in the community. What
we did is we took the most complicated and expensive parts of
the homes, the kitchen, bath, and the mechanical room, and we
built them in a shipping container here in our Fairbanks lab.
And at the end of the summer this piece gets shipped out to
Unalakleet, and the rest of the home is built around it onsite
by a local crew, and--keeping 3/4 of new jobs in that
community. And we're on track to cut the construction costs by
40 percent, when compared to the cost of typical housing in the
area.
But this new home, it will be durable, safe, healthy. It
will use half the energy of the average home in Unalakleet, and
it will be designed to have solar panels to generate some
electricity--and it's equitable technology in action. And it's
a story about the success of community engagement, which is
about really listening to the community, and showing respect
for that community, and their needs and their values. And in
this case, the tribal council continued to be involved every
step of the way to ensure that this house is appropriate for
the climate and the culture, and the technology was not
developed for the community, it was developed by the community.
And this is just one village here in Alaska, in the
Arctic, so you ask, you know, how can this approach be scaled
across the country, to all communities that are facing similar
energy and economic challenges to your communities? So, for
instance, in Kingston, New York, NREL tackled inequitable
housing burdens by listening to the community, and helping city
leaders create a plan for 100 percent renewable energy by 2050
through energy efficiency and renewable energy in a way that
creates local jobs, stimulates innovation, and provides energy
relief for low-income residents first. And this same approach
is applied to our Nation's largest cities. In Los Angeles NREL
city leaders map out a plan. The L.A. 100 study found that L.A.
can achieve a reliable 100 percent renewable power as early as
2035, with all communities sharing in the benefits of the clean
energy transition. It's especially important for nearly half of
L.A.'s population who lives in disadvantaged communities, where
people pay a disproportionate amount of their income on energy.
But work resulting from the study will address this, and these
people will also benefit from clean and affordable mobility,
and improved air quality.
And we're all excited right now about deploying these
technologies, particularly to our underserved and front-line
communities, but deployment's just the tip of the very iceberg,
and we can't just create the technology and assume it will go
out to everyone just like it's a matter of checking a box,
because beneath the surface of the iceberg is the research,
development, and demonstration of these technologies, and we
have to center equity every step of the way, from research,
to--research and development and demonstration to deployment.
Just like the people of Unalakleet were engaged from the very
beginning, including other disadvantages in the R&D process
will ensure a more equitable technology. So I thank you, and I
really look forward to our discussion. I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grunau follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much, Mr. Grunau, for your
testimony. At this point we will begin our first round of
questions. The Chairman recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
My first question goes to Dr. Parthasarathy. Thank you so
much for your testimony. I wanted to ask you to elaborate a bit
on how DOE can support grassroots innovation, drawing on the
example of the NIF in India. I'm intrigued by the potential for
building networks of local innovation labs facilitated by the
Federal Government in a way that would harness the brilliance
and creativity of marginalized communities, and empower them to
develop new technologies that directly serve their needs. Can
you say more about how a new office at DOE might coordinate
this process, and the role that educational and other community
institutions could play?
Dr. Parthasarathy. Sure. So--and thank you very much. I
really think there's a lot of potential, perhaps at DOE even
more than some of the other Federal agencies, where I think
that this kind of work could be useful, because DOE already has
a network of National Labs, right? So DOE is already invested
in and part of communities. I think it's a matter of really
engaging with community organization, civil society
organizations, in a real way, and, as I said in my oral
testimony, to take people's innovative capacity, and the
innovation that's already happening, seriously.
We tend not to--we tend to assume, I think, too much that
in order to innovate you have to have large labs, you have to
have lots of technical expertise, you have to have lots of
infrastructure. But I think what is interesting about the NIF
case in India is that they actually are not--these--we're not
talking about large infrastructure. We're often talking about
people who have less than a high school education who are
engaged in these processes. And the process of that engagement,
the process of bringing people into the innovation system, and
saying, you are a grassroots innovator, and we are going to
uplift you, has an incredible impact on not just that
individual, perhaps individually economically, but for those
communities, right?
So it's empowering the communities, it's providing a sense
that we can be part of these energy solutions. And, in some of
these cases too, they become more excited about becoming part
of the STEM enterprise and STEM workforce, right? So it's--so
it has all of these enormous potential gains, but I think in
order to do that we need to do two things, and the first is to,
I think broaden our conception of innovation, and of who an
innovator is, and then also, I think, invest more in
community--real community partnerships, perhaps with
organizations that the DOE hasn't necessarily worked with
before.
Chairman Bowman. Awesome. Thank you so much. Dr. Kammen, I
appreciated your discussion of the eco pilot, and how it points
the way toward co-creating renewable energy and social justice.
In the same vein, I'm wondering what you think about the
potential for district heating, or other approaches to
utilizing waste for energy, that might work at the block or
neighborhood level. In the city of Mount Vernon in my district,
as in many red line communities across the country, we have an
urgent sewage crisis where, because of aging infrastructure,
people are regularly experiencing sewage backups in their
homes. If we need to urgently repair these systems, shouldn't
we be replacing them with next generation infrastructures, so
that these communities are the first to benefit? Do you see
ways we can address sewage crises in places like Mount Vernon
and advance green energy at the same time?
Dr. Kammen. Chair Bowman, thank you so much for the
question, because I think that's a perfect case of meeting
people where they are, and tailoring innovation to meet
multiple needs. It's an energy question, it's also a health
question. It ties things together in exactly the same way that
Dr. Lennon said as well. In terms of the opportunities in
colder climates, where heating is a priority, the opportunities
here are quite vast. We have extensive experience in
Scandinavia, in some pilot projects in Michigan and in New York
State, that have looked exactly at the question you highlight.
And so getting rid of waste with advanced--whether they
are solar incineration technologies, or some of the
gasification technologies that we in California use to dispose
of, but to make use of, wood from the over 100 million dead
trees we saw from the latest round of bulk disease and drought,
these are examples of projects that are not technologically
that difficult, but if you don't build in the kind of
perspective you said--this is a local problem--or, to look at
water questions in Flint, Michigan, the upstream design of who
will be engaged in that research is a critical example, and I
would just highlight two areas where I'm particularly hopeful.
One is that we have a tremendous experience with
Department of Energy's ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects
Agency--Energy) Program, the Advanced Research Program for
Energy, which not only has generated a huge wave of innovation,
but has built technological readiness levels to decide how
close technologies are to market. We have a similar discussion
right now about an ARPA-Terra program in agriculture, which
addresses many of the rural needs. The feature I would
recommend adding to those efforts is essentially what we heard
from Shobita a second ago, and that is the need to build in
wider sets of input into what are the questions that should be
researched? Your question about waste management fits exactly
into an area that may not be targeted by some of these so-
called advanced research programs, unless there's initial input
and oversight into these are the questions that most affect all
Americans, but particularly those that are underserved. And so
I think it really highlights the design of the research
program, as well as the implementation of the technical
components that are critically needed to meet those issues. So
thank you for that question.
Chairman Bowman. Of course. Thank you for that response. I
now recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. Mr.
Grunau, as--can you all hear me all right?
Mr. Grunau. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. I had to finally find my Air Pods. As I stated
in my opening remarks, I'm for an all of the above energy
approach, with a focus on keeping diverse energy sources at the
mix--and I'm going to try to move to a little quieter area
here. We've got--back to--I told people--I told the staff to
tell you all I was having my nails done, the reason I had to
get off. Give me just a minute here. Thank you for your
indulgence. Anyway, as I said, I'm for an all of the above
energy sources mix. However, as I said, from the Texas
standpoint, where we have 254 counties, a lot of them are
rural, I worry about rural communities where grid
infrastructure can be outdated, and their ability to accept
diverse and decentralized sources of energy that is actually
more of a burden in that particular district than it might be
in other communities. So is there merit to that concern? How do
we address it? Could you elaborate on any potential solutions
that are economically efficient? Then I want to know if any
studies have been done in that regard. I give it to you, Mr.
Grunau for the question--for the answer.
Mr. Grunau. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman.
You know, we actually did some work that speaks to what you're
talking about, and we worked with Navajo Nation in Arizona, who
had the largest coal fired plant in the Western U.S., and it
was a source of economy for that area. And we worked with the
community because we saw the closing of the plant was coming,
and so by working with the community we were able to co-develop
solutions to figure out what a path forward to a more
integrated clean energy system looks like.
You know, what--and in this case, you know, we--some of
the co-developed solutions were, like, agricultural water
production and storage using wind and solar power, but what we
were able to do was bring tools to the table that we have, so
some of the tools we have were able to look at, you know,
energy burdens, and renewable energy resources. We have these
tools we can bring to the table, and sit down with the
communities and parse out, like, what solutions do we have
here? In this case we came up with a plan and a path forward
for a more integrated, high penetration renewable energy
system.
So we have the tools they can lean on, we have, you know,
the--I'll give you--if you want some specific tools, one is
called State and Local Planning for Energy, or SLOPE. That
gives us county level renewable energy generation potential.
There's another one that Low-Income Energy Portability Data,
which is census track level on energy burden. And then we have
tools like ARIES, which is called Advanced Research Integrated
Energy Systems. And what that is is it's the--it provides the
capability for planning for what the grid would look like in
the future if we have new generation systems, you know, new
wind systems, new solar systems. We can plan out scenarios for
extreme weather events, like what happened in Texas. We can
plan out for what--and look at or emulate--and we can emulate
and we can simulate what can happen if we have bad actor
events, right? So we have these tools, and I think it's just a
matter of bringing the right people to the table, which is the
community, and then the local planners, and then the tools. And
that's--I think that's the blueprint.
Mr. Weber. Did you have that in a study format? And I
guess my follow-up question is, when you look at rural
counties, Texas is big. As I said, we have 254 of them--or 254
counties, many of them rural. I know you looked at that one
place, was it New Mexico or Arizona?
Mr. Grunau. Arizona.
Mr. Weber. Did you look across the United States? What is
the percentage of rural counties to more, you know, cities and
suburbans, for example?
Mr. Grunau. Well, I have a tool--I don't have the answer
of that in front of me, but would like to get the--get back--
get the answer back to you for the record. We have the tools
and the ability to answer that.
Mr. Weber. OK. I'd appreciate it. And, Mr. Chairman, I
cannot see a clock on my little iPad. Do I have time left?
Chairman Bowman. 30 seconds.
Mr. Weber. All right. Dr. Lennon, I'm glad you mentioned
critical minerals in your testimony. As you right--rightly
pointed out, the counties--countries that are mining battery
minerals are doing so in unethical ways, violating human
rights. Any idea, sense of percentage, of energy storage and
battery materials that actually originate from those? Would you
say it's 20 percent of what we buy, 50 percent of what we buy
from those countries who violate human rights, quickly?
Dr. Lennon. A wide--I don't know the exact figure, but a
high percentage, a very, very high percentage of battery energy
storage systems are made with materials that are specifically
mined from the Lithium Triangle in Bolivia, Chile, and
Argentina, and cobalt from DRC, where there are human rights
violations that is common, yes.
Mr. Weber. OK. Thank you for the quick answer. I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Staff. Ms. Bonamici is recognized.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much. Thank you to Chair
Bowman, and Ranking Member Weber, but really thank you to our
witnesses for your excellent testimony today. We know the
effects of the climate crisis are already here, and we know
they're disproportionately affecting communities who already
face discrimination, racism. Extreme heat events like the
unprecedented temperatures we had here in Oregon that killed
116 Oregonians last month are expected to increase in frequency
and intensity because of the climate crisis, and, as a result,
historically underserved communities will continue to face the
health risks of increasing temperatures and inequitable access
to green spaces, and more.
So last year I joined my colleagues on the Select
Committee on the Climate Crisis in releasing a bold,
comprehensive, science-based climate action plan to reach net
zero emissions no later than mid-century, and net negative
thereafter, and building a resilient clean energy economy using
our climate action plan will help boost our economic recovery
as well. It will also allow us to begin to repair the legacy of
the environmental racism and pollution that's burdened low-
income communities and communities of color for decades. We've
woven environmental justice throughout the plan.
So I want to ask--first, Mr. Grunau, I appreciated the
iceberg RDD&D metaphor in your testimony to demonstrate the
importance of incorporating equity-centered provisions at the
core of our policies to transition to a clean energy economy,
and the examples you provided of community partnerships
underscores an essential piece of advancing a just tradition.
So what are some of the best practices that NREL developed in
forming the community partnerships, and how can these practices
be replicated to help make DOE funding and research
opportunities more inclusive to underserved communities?
Mr. Grunau. Well, thank you for the question,
Congresswoman. You know, we like the iceberg approach, it's
very visual. And one of the things that's really important is
that our researchers are connected to every step in that path
of research, development, demonstration, and deployment, and
when we--what we really want is a--to take these lessons
learned from the community engagement--what happens--which
happens at later stage, you know, higher TRL (technology
readiness level), you know, development of technology, and
bringing those lessons, and people who have been involved in
that, back to the very beginning, to the table.
And at the very beginning table, when we're looking at
creating new technologies, who do we have at the table? We want
people at the table who--one, who have been involved with the
problems, who we're trying to solve these problems for. Two is
we just want to have a good, representative, diverse team that
is--that's diverse racially, gender, not--but also just
background, cultural background, experiences, historical
background, right? Having people from minority serving
institutions at the table, having some social scientists at the
table with technical PIs, (principal investigators) right?
And then--and now we're starting--we create, and--create
these new technologies, now we're keeping the needle, you know,
guided toward this equity-centered approach as we--now, as we
go to the next stage, to development, and to deployment--I'm
sorry, to demonstration, when we get to the deployment, we're
no longer checking a box. And so--yeah, so----
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Yeah, I do want to try to get
another question in, but thank you, it's really helpful. So,
Dr. Parthasarathy, in your testimony you highlighted how our
transition to a clean energy economy will require some
sacrifices, especially from low-income communities and fossil
fuel communities. And, Mr. Weber, I also represent some rural
communities, and I understand we need to involve everyone here.
We know that historically RDD&D programs have failed to
recognize those sacrifices, and the disparity.
So, as a leader on the Education and Labor Committee, and
the granddaughter of a coal miner, I know that our transition
to a clean energy economy must support workers, and I'm working
on a bill to establish a National Economic Transition Office to
coordinate, scale up, and target Federal economic and workforce
development assistance to communities and workers, beginning
with the coal communities. So what steps should Congress take
to first recognize the challenges of a transition to a clean
energy economy for front-line communities, and how can our
RDD&D investments today help better prepare for a clean energy
future that does not leave front-line communities behind?
Dr. Parthasarathy. Great. Thank you very much,
Representative Bonamici. I--so I guess I would say a few
things. The first is I think too often we are not engaging with
these communities to actually ask them what they think, what
they want, how they see the issues, and how they might solve
them. And I think too often we see these communities as a
problem in a clean energy transition, and I'd like to flip that
around a little bit and say, OK, well, they have knowledge,
they have strategies, and they have a real understanding of
their context, and they're also not, you know, sort of easily
moved around on a chess board. And I think often communities
feel that way. And so I think actually engaging people, with
the understanding that we want to bring your knowledge and
expertise into these processes is a key approach, and in order
to do that, I think you both obviously need to engage these
communities, but I think when we think about the DOE's approach
in particular, we need to bring in expertise from social
science.
I know a number of other witnesses have said this, but we
actually have--the social sciences, I think, have not been
tapped enough when we think about the clean energy transition.
Mr. Lennon talked about, you know, sort of qualitative work in
particular. I think DOE tends, understandably, to focus on
quantitative and technical metrics, and those are useful, but I
think sometimes even just unraveling what, you know, what we
mean by equity, what we mean by public interest and public
good, those are the kinds of things that I think qualitative
social scientists, and folks who are experts in equity, really
can bring to this conversation, and help to provide real nuance
and sophistication that I think hasn't been incorporated
before.
And here I would actually look to some of the work that
the National Science Foundation has done first, in terms of
real partnerships on things like artificial intelligence, where
the more technical parts of the NSF have partnered with some of
the more social science parts of the NSF to really develop some
interesting areas, and then I've also--I know we're out of
time, but I--but one of the things that I think is also really,
really important is to bring in equity impact assessments. We
have a history of bringing environmental impact assessments
into our decisionmaking, and those have had, I think, real
benefits for the environment. And I think, at this moment, when
we see that there are these differential impacts, that we can
bring that into this conversation as well.
Ms. Bonamici. That's very helpful. Thank you for your
indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Staff. Representative Baird is recognized.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Chairman Bowman and Ranking Member
Weber, and I always learn something from the expertise of the
witnesses that we bring before these Committees, so I really
appreciate all of you being here. I guess my question goes to
Mr. Grunau. In your testimony you provide an interesting case--
several interesting case studies of the NREL overcoming unique
local challenges, and end up providing these communities in
need with reliable and affordable energy. So in these examples
you emphasize how NREL ensured their efforts supported the
creation of local jobs. Could you elaborate a little more on
how the NREL sourced and trained the local labor force? And
then a continuation of that question is how permanent were
these jobs, or were they temporary? Or just elaborate on that
issue, if you would. So please----
Mr. Grunau. Thank you for the----
Mr. Baird [continuing]. Go ahead.
Mr. Grunau. Yeah. Thank you for the question--I think
related to that question--if I may just slip in a response to
Representative Weber, you know, 97 percent of the counties in
the U.S. are considered rural, and 54 percent of the population
is rural, and the number's skewed a bit based on how the
counties are structured. I think that's related to what you're
asking, sir. Think I can best answer that with the example I
gave with Unalakleet, because we have--I'm just going to talk
about what's happening in our backyard, because I can tell you
lots about it, right? We worked in communities like this--a
good example's, Klunahak, right, where we came in and we did
the workforce development, we trained teams how to do this some
more. And when they left, it wasn't just a one-time show. It
wasn't just where, you know, we helped, we train them, and we
walk away. No, they continued building things, and the success
continues.
You know, in this case we worked with housing authorities
who see these models as examples of what works, and so they'll
take these models, and they'll work--and in this case--called
the North Slope Borough, and they'll work up there and train
their teams, and then we're seeing some of these, you know,
designs, and, you know, technologies being replicated. So it's
not a one-time solution, and we know and recognize that a one-
shot deal is not a solution. We're looking for a future that's
sustainable, right? And that means economically sustainable,
and you need jobs and building the economies. Does that answer
your question, sir?
Mr. Baird. Yes. Thank you very much.
Mr. Grunau. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. I guess my follow-up question would simply be--
and any of the other witnesses may respond to this, but it has
to do with STEM training. Would any of you care to comment on
how to increase the geographic diversity of STEM training,
particularly in the area of energy innovation?
Dr. Kammen. I would--be happy to offer a comment, and that
is I think it's a key question. The more we diversity the types
of people who get involved in the chain, we bring not only new
expertise, but critically we bring individuals who see other
problems, and I'm going to illustrate this with another
international example.
In Morocco they committed, a decade ago, to become a
leader in clean energy, and, in fact, Morocco is now one of
only two countries that are on pace to meet their Paris climate
goals. What they did was to change their engineering
curriculums to emphasize much more work on sustainable supply
chains for batteries, such as Professor Lennon highlighted, to
make wind and heat pump training, and solar training part of
their engineering curriculum. They spun off new energy
engineering majors, something that we've now also done at UC
Berkeley, and partnered specifically with tribal colleges. So
we have a partnership with the Navajo Nation, with the Pomo
Nation, that bring people specifically to school so that they
can then take this new expertise and go back.
And I think that when you talk about rural communities,
I'm from upstate New York, one of the topics that's of great
excitement is the new announcement by the--by Ford for the F-
150 electric truck that already has 100,000 preorders. And the
truck itself is quite dramatic, but it can also be used not
only to power homes during outages, but it can also be used on
the work site, and so a great number of construction workers
have said, this is the ideal vehicle, because it allows me to
do rural construction without backup generators, without a fuel
supply chain. It's an opportunity for an area that, I would
argue, rural America actually pushed and benefits from. So I
think this diversity of training really also couples with
recognizing a diversity of needs in the emerging clean energy
spaces.
Mr. Baird. So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for
that comment, and I appreciate it. I see that I'm out of time,
so I yield back.
Staff. Mr. McNerney is recognized.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairman, and I thank the
witnesses for your informative and constructive testimony. You
all emphasize the need for including social science in helping
the transition to a low carbon economy. There's a lot of meat
there, so I really appreciate that.
Professor Kammen, your graphs and slides are very useful
in understanding the job benefits of renewable energy over
fossil fuels, and the importance of equity in moving forward
with clean energy. In our home State of California, worsening
fire--fires are making power shutoffs increasingly common,
which disproportionately impacts low-income communities. In
your testimony you described the disparity of rooftop solar
deployment linked to race and ethnicity. To your knowledge, has
research identified a similar disparity in the adoption of
microgrids, or other technologies that could provide grid
resilience?
Dr. Kammen. Yeah, Congressman. I want to thank you for
asking that, because actually the idea of mini-grids,
autonomous power units, whether they're rural or urban, meet
many of the needs that people brought up, and certainly one
cannot succeed in this area without bringing social science
equally to bear.
In fact, the EcoBlock project that I highlighted, low-
income section of Oakland, our technical team is actually
smaller than our social science, and legal, and local
representation team, because one of the areas where utilities
across the country have been worried and resistant against the
deployment of mini-grids is actually how do we deal with the
so-called over the fence transactions? If a mini-grid has
excess power to sell, do they need to incorporate as a full-
blown utility to be able to interact with utility, or can there
be so-called net metering arrangements, as they're being
pioneered by Southern California Edison, a little more slowly
in our part of the State, in the North, sadly, so that
communities with excess power, and in particular excess power
that's available in a regular way, such as not only having a
solar-powered mini-grid, but solar plus storage, meeting many
of the criteria that Professor Lennon highlighted.
That's an area where we critically need not just the
technical side, but interaction with public utility
commissions, and indeed I would argue an effort that links the
Department of Energy, the EPA (Environmental Protection
Agency), workforce efforts, and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, because we are truly challenged on the regulatory
side to permit these projects. So it is an area where I do
believe we will see big benefits. We don't have enough data yet
to answer your question what fraction of mini-grids are in
these different communities, but it is a topic where we're very
concerned about the lack of advancement of mini-grids overall,
because they meet so many needs. So certainly a bipartisan
effort, and one that links across agencies, would be a critical
way to chart how many of these mini-grids are facing regulatory
hurdles to get them into operation.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Thanks for that answer.
Dr. Kammen. Thank you.
Mr. McNerney. Dr. Parthasarathy, I appreciate your
observation that engaging impacted communities early will yield
significant benefits later. Very important, especially in areas
like nuclear waste, and other areas where energy policy can
have a large impact. You also discussed how traditional RD&D
programs have failed to address inequities. What changes in
protocols and staffing would you suggest that the National Labs
make to incorporate equity earlier into the R&D process?
Dr. Parthasarathy. Thank you so much for that question. So
I think that the first wonderful step that we have now is that
we have people at the higher levels of DOE who are thinking
about these issues, so obviously we--you know, hopefully we
have Shalanda Baker who is spearheading some of this at the top
level, Wahleah Johns, who is at the Office of Indian Energy
now, who was sort of--spearheaded the Native Renewables
Project. So we have this kind of leadership, so I think that's
the first important thing.
But I think the next step, then, is to integrate this kind
of expertise and equity at the level of the National Labs, and
at the level of science program offices, and I'll say a couple
of things about that. The first is that, in fact, DOE has this
legacy. My late colleague, Steve Rayner, was at Oak Ridge for
many years, and then at the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory for many years, and he was a major figure in
thinking about--as a social scientist, and thinking about
energy systems as sociotechnical systems. And so I think that
there is an opportunity and a legacy to expand that kind of
work, but I think it's key to bring that expertise into the
bureaucracy, into the program offices.
And then, as I said before, to have those kinds of experts
both spearhead community partnerships, and really engage
communities, because they have that kind of expertise of sort
of how to do that kind of work often, but also to think about
what metrics might look like. And I've talked a little bit
about equity impact assessments, but I think often in these
contexts we sort of know, or we think we know, what the metrics
of a good project look like, right? We think about advancing
scientific knowledge, publications, patents, entrepreneurial
potential, but we haven't had much of a legacy of thinking
about how do we measure equity? How do we know if something is
equitable? And that's the kind of thing----
Mr. McNerney. I hate to cut you off, but I've run out of
time. And I didn't----
Dr. Parthasarathy. Yes.
Mr. McNerney [continuing]. Get to--I didn't even get to
ask the other two witnesses questions. I hope you aren't
offended. And, with that, I'll yield back.
Staff. Ms. Ross is recognized.
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for having this very important and timely discussion.
Last week--I'm from North Carolina, from the Research Triangle
area. Last week I had a roundtable discussion about energy
issues with our community college, our land grant, our
utilities, and several of our non-profits, including the
Research Triangle Institute (RTI), which is doing work on this
equity issue. So I got some great questions from one of my RTI
people, and I'm going to start with Dr. Lennon, because it
relates to what he has to do, but also because I love that he's
at Brown, and I'm a Brown grad, so you get this first question
for both of those reasons.
As we know, home ownership is an important factor in
improving energy efficiency and adopting distributed renewable
energy. But people who don't own their own home cannot make
major improvements to their energy infrastructure, and people
of color are significantly less likely to own their own home.
Incentives designed to spur residential energy efficiency
improvements, and renewable energy adoption, are targeted at
homeowners, which means that economic benefits of these
programs are unlikely to be equitably distributed across
minority and non-minority households. And property owners may
be less likely to adopt energy efficiency if energy costs are
borne by their tenants. So I'd like you to talk about how we
can design residential energy efficiency and renewable energy
policy to address this inequity, and what incentives we might
provide to our utilities to play a role in bridging this
divide.
Dr. Lennon. That's a great question, Representative Ross,
I really appreciate it. You know, on the solar side--just
putting aside the question of energy efficiency, on the solar
side, there is a very clear model that we have in place to
ensure that communities where there's low home ownership rates,
and where people don't have even the means to invest in solar
can be a part of the transition to solar, and that is through
community solar projects, and community solar programs, that
allow tenants, or anyone who lives in a given community, to
invest in a shared solar array in which they become a co-owner,
or a leaser, of a few panels on that solar array, and then reap
the economic benefits in the form of a tax--or, sorry, not a
tax, in the form of a credit on their utility bill for the
energy that is produced by those panels that they are the
nominal owners of, or the leasers of.
And community solar programs work. There are, though,
still a number of barriers to ramping up community solar in
marginalized community. So I'll just talk close to home, I'm
from New York, we're researcher--do research in New York. In
New York a real challenge that we've had with ramping up
community solar in low-income communities has to do with the
way that the State values solar electricity. They use a very--
they--New York State has pioneered a really innovative and
interesting approach to valuing solar electricity that has
got--they've gotten rid of traditional net metering, and
instead they use an algorithmic approach called Value of
Distributed Energy Resources, or VDER. And the beauty of VDER
is it's supposed to maximize--it's supposed to really use the
market to incentive prices where--basically solar that is
giving greater value to the central grid----
Ms. Ross. Um-hum.
Dr. Lennon [continuing]. Is valued higher.
Ms. Ross. Right.
Dr. Lennon. And the idea is that they want to incentivize
solar projects where there's the greatest need for the grid.
The problem is that--is two-fold. First, that doesn't often
align with where there's the greatest need for communities of
color and low-income communities, and second of all, the
volatility that comes with a pricing structure where there's
not a----
Ms. Ross. Right.
Dr. Lennon [continuing]. Set price, but where price can--
prices will----
Ms. Ross. I'm going to have to reclaim my time for just a
second, because I only have 45 seconds.
Dr. Lennon. No, I went over. OK.
Ms. Ross. I'm Miss Energy Efficiency on this Committee,
and energy efficiency saves consumers money, and it contributes
to a better environment because we produce less energy, but
poor people can't get weatherization, and things like that, and
so I'm hoping that Chair Bowman will let somebody have a few
extra seconds to share how we can promote energy efficiency in
a way that saves the environment, and saves low-income people
money.
Dr. Lennon. Can I just take that for 1 second? This is a
really basic idea. We just need to invest in weatherization,
low-income energy efficiency programs, period. It pays--the
investments pay for themselves. We know that there's--that
benefits come when we invest in energy efficiency. We need to
just write a check and enable low-income communities to
weatherize their homes, period.
Ms. Ross. OK. Thank you, Chair Bowman. I don't know if
you'll let anybody else answer, but thank you very much.
Chairman Bowman. Sure. If someone else wants to jump in
and give a quick response, that's totally fine, yes.
Dr. Kammen. I have just a 2 second addition to that. I
agree exactly with what Professor Lennon said. We have other
programs such as PACE, Property Assessed Clean Energy, that can
be applied even for renters by doing it collectively, where
both the property owner and the renters share in the benefit.
And one of the features of PACE which is so attractive is that
it's implemented for energy efficiency first, and then solar
second, and so you make the buildings better, everyone
benefits, and then add solar.
Staff. Mr. Tonko is recognized.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chairman Bowman, Dr. Bowman, for
holding this important hearing, and allowing me to wave on. We
know to achieve ambitious climate targets innovations are
needed in technology, in policy, and finance to accelerate the
transition from high emission energy systems to clean energy
solutions. However, we must look seriously at the way in which
innovation can reinforce structural inequalities that
disproportionately burden some communities, while benefiting
others.
So, Mr. Grunau, your testimony mentioned an NREL case
study involving Kingston, New York, ironically a community just
a bit south of my district. Like many communities in my
district, low-income households face a high--a very high energy
burden, spending a significant percentage of their incomes on
heating and electricity bills. So could you share with us what
were some of the big takeaways from that Kingston study?
Staff. Mr. Grunau is having some technical issues, Mr.
Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Well, let me go to Dr. Kammen. You said in
your testimony that a critical element of a diverse green and
vibrant energy economy is expanding STEM, and other energy,
water, and resource-focused training programs to all Americans.
What is the social and economic potential of making social
justice a core component of these programs that, as you stated,
have often been technology-based?
Dr. Kammen. Representative Tonko, thanks for the question,
and I appreciate it from a fellow New Yorker. I think that
we've actually seen some really important advances here. One is
that in these new energy engineering programs around the
country, such as those here at UC Berkeley, we require a
significant amount of training in the social sciences. It is
not a traditional energy-only approach. We have history of
science components, we have sociology, we have economics, and
in particular one mechanism that I would just champion here,
which has been--President Biden has announced in January an
Executive order that calls for the use of a social cost of
carbon in Federal analyses.
This, in my opinion, is a major advance because a social
cost of carbon allows us to look at not only the impact on
ecology, but also the impact on human communities. And while I
do want to second what Professor Parthasarathy said, that this
is not only about quantitative metrics, but building as much as
we can that recognizes the impacts on diverse communities. So,
for example, minority communities in the United States have far
higher rates of shutoff of their electricity and other utility
services in other communities. That's something we can
quantify, and the more we look at not only the energy, but also
the health and the educational cost to communities, we can
begin to build out the kind of metrics that you're describing.
Those are all components of this broader, more inclusive STEM
approach, which I actually think will bring the benefits to all
communities.
So one last tiny example is that we now have excellent
data that for rural communities across the country, integrating
wind programs, integrating transparent or semi-transparent
solar that provides shading, are benefits to rural workers. We
see the wind revenues for rural communities being on top of
their existing agricultural or livestock revenues, and so this
is an area where we're able to quantify the co-benefits of the
green transition. So thank you for the question.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. You're most welcome. Chairman
Bowman, are--do we have Mr. Grunau back? Is the tech now--it's
working?
Chairman Bowman. Yes. He's back, yes.
Mr. Tonko. OK, great. Welcome, Mr. Grunau, and good to see
you again. What were some of the big takeaways from your
Kingston, New York study?
Mr. Grunau. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman.
So, remember, the baseline of this is that there is a higher
energy burden among the low-income, owner-occupied households,
and that that number meant that 43 percent of the households
pay more than 9 percent of their annual income on utility
bills. So what we were able to do were identify the highest
savings potential in the--in residential, commercial, and city
buildings, and part of that meant replacing boilers, and
furnaces, and AC with heat pumps, energy efficient heat pumps,
that were able to reduce energy consumption by about 50 percent
on average. That was a big one. And then there was a community
center that acted as an emergency shelter, where we were able
to optimize the--optimize photovoltaic and storage. We found
that that was cost-effective. So these were some of the
outcomes and the results of that work. Does that answer your
question, sir?
Mr. Tonko. It does, sir. And, Chairman Bowman, I'm out of
time, but I again want to thank you for allowing me to wave on.
And--very interesting hearing, and we need to get things done,
and great to hear the impact that we need to place on social
sciences too. With that I yield back, sir.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you. Thank you very much. So we
have finished our first round of questions. If there are
Members who want to ask additional questions, we do have some
time to do so. I am going to begin by asking an additional
question, and if other Members have follow-up questions, we can
do that. Is that OK? OK, sounds good. Just give me 1 second
here.
So this is an open question to the panel. I have question
about supporting more energy entrepreneurs of color across the
country. Where is this happening, where is it very robust, what
more can we do in Congress to support energy entrepreneurs of
color? I'll start with Dr. Lennon, and, you know, if we can
give, like, maybe a 1 minute each I think we can get to all the
panelists. So how do we do more to support energy entrepreneurs
of color?
Dr. Lennon. Right. I think in the solar industry an
opportunity to support entrepreneurs of color is to invest in
the workers, the workforce of the solar industry, which is
predominantly, or disproportionately, people of color on the
residential side. And these installers, if you talk to them,
they have aspirations of starting their own businesses. They
are very business savvy, but they don't have the formal
education, they don't have the assets, they don't have the
experience dealing with business. And I think that if there
were training resources given to existing solar installers, and
specifically people of color working on solar projects, to
teach them how to start their own business, and to teach them
the ins and outs of running a company, that that would spur a
lot of new minority-owned solar businesses.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you. Dr. Parthasarathy?
Dr. Parthasarathy. Sure, thanks. Just to follow up on what
Professor Lennon said, I think that part of the challenge here
is that often entrepreneurs don't necessarily know about the
resources that are--that might be available, or they find that
they are a really steep--it's a really steep learning curve to,
for example, know about the DOE resources, to get over the
valley of death, for example, right, to actually get to
development.
And so there are two potential ways to address that. One
is to actually create, as I've been--as I've mentioned before,
right, you know, staffing within DOE to actually create those
partnerships, but I think the second thing is to rethink what
are the requirements? Are there particular ways in which we can
actually support innovation where it--where it's actually
taking place? Things like, you know, in the innovation space in
particular, there are really interesting things happening at
the grassroots, like maker spaces, hacker spaces, things like
that, and sometimes those aren't necessarily always as clearly
available to entrepreneurs of color, but I think those
opportunities could be opened up, and then those could become
sort of spaces that DOE staff might connect with to help
develop that kind of innovation further.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you. Mr. Grunau?
Mr. Grunau. Well, thank you for the question. You know, we
actually do a lot of strategic energy planning, and really many
of the communities they include, you know, workforce is really
a part of that. I really think that, you know, Dr. Lennon and
Dr.--sorry, Parthasarathy really hit it on the head with, you
know, just the workforce development, that people are inspired,
they are capable. The technologists--the technology's advancing
very quickly, so it's just a matter of trying to keep up with
that. I really like the maker spaces. That really cultivates
innovation.
We--you know, one of the things we have up here in Alaska,
there's a gentleman up here in interior Alaska that, you know,
they've done a lot of, you know, energy efficiency surveys,
they were involved in that, and because of it, the--in light
bulb replacements for DOE, Indian Energy's START (Strategic
Technical Assistance Response Team) Program, you know, and as a
result--being involved in these types of projects, some of them
have taken this--taken it to the next level to learn on their
own, to look at the resources, and part of that is figuring
out--identifying those resources, making them available to
people like this gentleman up in interior Alaska, who can--who
did go ahead and start his own business, start his own solar
company.
Chairman Bowman. OK. Dr. Kammen?
Dr. Kammen. Yeah, I think that there are some really
important examples to look at, so I'll call out one in
particular called Grid Alternatives. It's an Oakland,
California-based group that works across much of the Western
United States, as well as in Nicaragua, and Nepal, et cetera.
And Grid Alternatives in the United States installs energy
efficiency and solar in low-income communities. What they've
done, though, is in particular to target high school dropouts
and people leaving the penal system as early employees, and
finding them training grants and the opportunity to become team
leaders, and then ultimately spin off their own companies.
At the university level, we've been very successful with
these technology competitions, but one thing where we could
partner with the Council of Economic Advisors, my friend and
colleague Professor Cecilia Rouse is now the Chair, she's done
extensive work on how do we push some of these innovative
programs to community colleges? And so I would suggest that one
key area is to push many of these efforts to the much more
available and affordable college system, where we want to build
those skills.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you so much for those responses.
Mr. Weber, do you have another round of questions?
Mr. Weber. Not at this time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Bowman. Thank you. Ms. Ross, I believe you would
be next up.
Ms. Ross. Thank you. Well, I do have--I have a couple more
questions from my friend at the Research Triangle Institute,
and I'll put this one out to anybody who wants to answer it.
And it's something, I think, that, Mr. Chairman, it relates to
your district in particular, that minority populations in urban
areas are more likely to be exposed to extreme heat and higher
levels of air pollution. Heat and pollution exposure can lead
to significant increases in health problems, such as heat
stroke and respiratory diseases. The energy transition may
reduce pollution levels through vehicle and building
electrification, but those reductions are likely to be unevenly
distributed across minority and non-minority communities. What
improvements are most needed in our transportation and building
infrastructure to reduce urban heat islands? And that's for any
of the panelists. Any----
Dr. Kammen. Well, I'll jump in--just a quick piece, and--
that I would--I think that what you said, Representative Ross,
is really critical. Jigar Shah, who run--who now runs the DOE
Loan Guarantee Program, has put together a major campaign
around heat pumps, and making them available for low-income
communities, for renters, by the sorts of programs that
Professor Lennon highlighted.
Community solar can also be thought of as community energy
efficiency, so-called virtual power plants where you can invest
for an area, and heat pumps are a hugely cost-effective--a much
more efficient solution than air conditioners, but making them
available to low-income communities of color is a critical area
where the kind of social science engineering that we've talked
about here really does need some specific tailored legislation.
I'd be happy to follow up, but I do think this is an area where
we have massive untapped potential, and it's an immediate,
literally shovel-ready opportunity to install existing
technology in communities that suffer the worst of those heat
and cold episodes.
Ms. Ross. Great.
Mr. Grunau. Representative Ross, I'd like to that. And,
first off, I'd like to say I grew up in Clayton, not too far
away from you there, so----
Ms. Ross. Great. Yeah. Just south.
Mr. Grunau. Thank you. And I think what you just did was
you really--you pretty much defined what environmental justice
is about, right? So you really just defined--there. And I
really--like what Dr. Kammen just said, one of the things that
helps a lot with these heat islands is something very simple
that we--are all around us, is trees. It's shading, right? And
when we miss--when that's missing--like, not only is it about
health, and clean air, and just mental well-being, you know,
these--you--the lack of them in these heat islands, it--the
disparities increase because, you know, if you're using, you
know, heat pumps or air conditioning, it can be four degrees
hotter in these heat centers, which means your air conditioning
and your heat pumps are that much less efficient, you know,
that much more it's got to cool, which means now you're
compounding the disparities of, well, the costs, basically, to
these very people who need it the most. So I'm just going to
give a quick answer, we need to plant trees.
Ms. Ross. Well, thank you very much, and hopefully, if
there are some ways that Congress can be helpful, in a follow-
up you can share those with the Chairman and myself. I'm very
interested in, you know, proposing real solutions that will
help people. And, you know, sometimes it's just the simplest
thing. We don't have to do something that's new and
sophisticated. We can just deploy existing technologies in a
fairer way. So thank you both, and thank you for holding this
hearing, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Staff. Mr. McNerney is recognized.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chairman for having a second
round. You're holding me to my comments about the other
witnesses, so I'm going to proceed. Mr. Grunau, in your
testimony you discussed market tendency to favor early adopters
of technologies, instead of ensuring that those with the
highest needs are the first to benefit. What changes at the
National Labs could make a difference in ensuring that the
benefits from federally funded R&D will be felt more equitably?
Mr. Grunau. Well, the--part of the role of the National
Labs is to develop technology, do the research, deployment, and
demonstration in the public sphere, right, rather than doing
the early stage R&D, and then having private businesses do
that. So when we're doing it in the public sphere, it's for the
public good. It's--and so I think that that's really the way
we--you know, by centering our efforts along the lines of the
conversation we're talking about today, with the iceberg, and
bringing the right people to the table, I think that that's the
solution.
Mr. McNerney. Thank----
Mr. Grunau. Did I get at the heart of your question?
Mr. McNerney. Yes, yes, definitely. And in your testimony
you mentioned that--or you discussed the DOE's Energy
Transition Initiative Partnership Project, which is helping 11
communities co-develop resilient solutions alongside with the
National Labs. How will the lessons learned from these case
studies be shared with communities across the country facing
these similar problems?
Mr. Grunau. Thank you so much for the question. So this--
that Energy Transitions Initiative Partnership Program, we call
it ETIPP, is for remote island and island communities. So, you
know, take these front-line communities that are up against,
you know, permafrost degradation, severe erosions, flooding--so
it's about--a lot of these communities are sort of
geographically isolated, they're the most vulnerable, so this
is focusing on resilience.
And so what we're doing--what that program does is it's a
multi--it's funded by multiple--spans multiple program areas
across EERE (Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy),
and it allows any lab to participate to support these areas,
and what we could do is the communities can apply, and we can
focus on transforming their energy systems, both supply and
demand, and, by working with them we reduce their economic risk
to these new technologies, we ramp up their resilience. But the
thing is, like, they have agency in the process. We're just
providing the tools, and the community leads the decisions. And
I really, really think that, yeah, programs like ETIPP, they
get at community engagement. It's something that I would
encourage that we replicate. It's a very powerful tool. And
lessons learned in this place gets transferred to other
communities. Thank you for the question.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Dr. Lennon, you identified
vanadium as an alternative to cobalt and lithium, and that
vanadium is plentiful in the United States, but mining is often
associated with environmental damage.
Dr. Lennon. Um-hum.
Mr. McNerney. Would you be able to address that issue?
Dr. Lennon. Sure, yeah, of course. Vanadium is by no means
a panacea. There is no perfect technology. We know that any--
evaluating any technology involves--or entails measuring the
cost of benefits and hoping for a net gain. And my point, more
than anything, was that--first of all, any renewable energy
technology relies on some level of mining minerals, elements,
and there's always some level of toxicity and degradation
involved with any kind of extractive work. Not all extraction
is the same. There is a difference between mining for cobalt
and mining for silicon. They both have negative impacts, but
some areas are more dangerous to workers, and the environment,
and communities than others. Some industries are more regulated
than others.
And so the idea is that we need to be diversifying our
technologies, and developing and innovating cleaner sources of
battery energy storage systems, and cleaner resources that go
into those battery energy storage systems. And we know that
there are regulations, there are industries, there are places
where the materials extracted lead to a net gain, and so my
hope is that we are prioritizing research, and that allows us
to put forward new technologies that use less dirty, less
hazardous materials, where there are worker and safety
provisions, and environmental protections in place.
Mr. McNerney. And I'd like to follow up by saying that,
you know, good regulations are going to make--are going to spur
innovation in developing this technology, and in developing
these materials. So there's a real--a place for a good
regulation, isn't that right, Mr. Weber? Well, I'm going to
yield back.
Staff. Mr. Lamb is recognized.
Mr. Lamb. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
all our panelists for being here today. I wanted to ask very
specifically about jobs. I think that what happens sometimes
when we do new energy projects, or new construction projects of
any kind, there are--sometimes, depending on where it's
happening, there are efforts to achieve greater equity in the
workforce of who is building that project, but a lot of times
it's a little harder on the ground to recruit, and train, and
find the workers who allow you to achieve that greater equity
stake that you're looking for.
I often hear from people in construction that we--really
the problem starts upstream, and we need to be doing a better
job, particularly at the high school level, in motivating kids
to want to work in construction, want to work in these advanced
trades in the energy sector. And so I'd be curious from any of
the panelists at all if you had feedback on what more we could
be doing specifically with respect to energy jobs, you know,
building the next generation of power plants, and that kind of
thing, what we could do with kids now to try to make them want
to take those jobs. And then, secondly, we do have a problem in
government contracting where very often we have percentage set-
asides for minority, disadvantaged businesses, but we don't
necessarily make sure that those go to prime contractors, the
people that are running entire projects, which would then allow
them to accumulate the capital over the years to really be big
and important players.
And so I don't know, for our panelists, what expertise you
have in those two sides of the jobs issue, but that's really
where my concern is, and if you have any feedback or
suggestions of things that we could strengthen, or new programs
we could create to try to make an impact here, I really
appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Grunau. Congressman, I would like to speak to that a
little bit. You know, I'm always going to encourage, you know,
diversity in STEM and the education piece because I think
that's key, especially the RD&D side. Sounds to me like you're
asking more about, you know, where it comes out on the jobs,
and in the trades. One experience that we have had is that when
we do these demonstration projects in these areas, what we do
is we partner with trade schools, we partner with universities,
we partner with the community. And I can tell you firsthand
that we have people here who are on these teams who said, my
gosh, I saw the impact of this, just through spread of--through
word of mouth, right? They tell others, who come--become a part
of this, right? And some of them are on our team today.
Anyway--so I would just say that, you know, being a part
and having people in the trades industry who are part of these
really advanced energy efficient and renewable energy type
systems, it's exciting. You want people to be there, want to
encourage that, and figuring out a way to get them to be part
of these demonstration--and that's where the onus is on us as
researchers, to make sure that we pull these people into the
equation, because that feedback--the feedback isn't just about
the community, it's about who's working on these projects, and
then we could take these lessons learned too to figure out, you
know, who in the workforce does this technology--is it most--
who is it tailored to the most?
Dr. Parthasarathy. I would just add to that, I think that
the workforce issue is also really tied to diversifying STEM
education, and in particular diversifying STEM education at the
earliest stages, and in particular who is understood as an
innovator. So, you know, we have these old stories about
Benjamin Franklin and George Washington Carver. Today we're
talking about Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, but I don't know
if you all remember a few years ago, there was a young woman by
the name of Gitanjali Rao, who was Time's Kid of the Year, I
think, last year, and she came up with a way to measure lead in
water.
And I think we don't--we're not doing enough of sort of
spotlighting the contributions today, people of color, rural
innovators, people who are coming from these communities
themselves, because they're in the best position to inspire
others who are coming from those communities. And I think
integrating that both into our STEM education, but also into
our particular sort of trade schools and training will get us
to, I think, where, Congressman, you were talking about, which
is these contractors becoming prime contractors, right,
becoming the ones who are driving this train, is to kind of
feel like they're already part of this, they're already
engaging in this kind of innovative work. And I think we--we're
not quite there yet, but I think that there's a real role for
DOE in that.
Mr. Lamb. Thank you. I think I may be out of time, so I
just want to thank the panelists for those ideas and
suggestions. They're very, very helpful, and, Mr. Chair, I
yield back.
Staff. Mr. Tonko is recognized.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Go back to Mr. Grunau.
So, as we place equity front and center, has NREL found it
possible to support a clean energy transition and local energy
efficiency jobs while reducing low-income households' energy
burden?
Mr. Grunau. Absolutely. You know, part of--it's exciting,
you know, when we're talking about--hey, this plan to--this
road map to clean energy transition, like, it's exciting to
talk about the renewables, but the energy efficiency piece is
huge. Energy----
Mr. Tonko. Um-hum.
Mr. Grunau. We don't want to lower the amount of energy
we're using. We don't want to just create more, you know, more
and more wind turbines and solar, we want to reduce the amount
that we need. So it starts, in my mind--the low hanging fruit
is energy efficiency, and so those energy efficiency jobs,
they're inherently local. They're inherently--you know, this is
the part that's the weatherization, this is the retrofits, and
so the--absolutely I think that that's the key, starting there,
and that's--again, that's something you can train people to do.
It's not necessarily highly--you know, you don't have to have
an advanced degree in education to do this. This is something
that we're able to do, and so--does that answer your question,
sir?
Mr. Tonko. Yeah. Yeah, it does, definitely, and I like the
emphasis on energy efficiency. In your testimony you also
talked about NREL's first of their kind tools that give local
stakeholders access to detailed, jurisdictionally resolved data
to support and inform their decisionmaking. How can we
encourage State and local governments to utilize these tools
for clean energy education and planning?
Mr. Grunau. Well, this is a great start, and sharing it
with others, you know, just setting up what works, and sharing
it with others, I think that those things speak for themselves.
So when we talk about, you know, the L.A. 100 study, for
instance, or the example of Kingston, New York, right, where
we--we're able to use these tools, like the State and Local
Energy--Planning for Energy, or the low-income energy
affordability data, these are examples of the kinds of tools we
brought to the table to address these solutions. So I think
just telling a story. Stories are powerful.
Mr. Tonko. Yeah. The anecdotal evidence is a good
exchange. Dr. Kammen, back to you. As you consider
opportunities for clean energy jobs, such as home retrofits and
solar installations, how can workforce development and training
programs ensure that these employment benefits and
opportunities are reaching people in front-line and underserved
communities?
Dr. Kammen. That's a great question. I think we've heard,
actually, bits of what I would recommend as the answer. We've
already heard groups like Native Renewables, the group that,
since you launched now--DOE Native Energy leader Wahleah Johns
to her DOE role, and groups like Native Renewables, we have
other Native American associations that have been clamoring in
the past for the kind of training programs for their inclusion,
whether it's through BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs), or through
EPA, or DOE programs.
But we also have something that actually relates back also
to the question that we just received from Representative Conor
Lamb, and that is there are efforts to assist the high school
to college or high school to community college efforts. Here at
Berkeley we have an effort called Berkeley NERDS. It is New
Experiences for Diverse Research Students, and it's a program
that is very much focused on the communities from which these
students came. And so in California we have a significant
Native American, but also a first generation Latinx component
of that training, looking at questions that affect those
communities, often water quality, and that relates back to the
Student of the Year--the Youth of the Year that we just heard
about from Time magazine.
So working with these existing groups that have built up
extensive networks is one of the ways to do so, and I would add
something which is not as frequently talked about here, and
that is the international opportunity is very extreme. So, for
example, Carnegie Mellon University has an extensive campus in
Kigali, Rwanda, and they have partnered with local schools, and
one of the opportunities where the clean energy transition
builds these professional trade and other opportunities is to
work with our international partners, so working with U.S.
embassies, working with USAID, as opportunities to make this a
global transition. It's also one that, of course, favors those
countries that are ramping up the kind of workforce you're
describing. And so, the more the U.S. pushes toward clean
energy goals, the more it can be an effective partner, but also
a good job producer for the U.S. companies that are
transitioning, and all of these are areas that can feed into
what you're asking about.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much. Well, my time has run down,
and again, thank you, Chairman Bowman, for the opportunity to
wave on a great hearing, and I think we're learning--learned
good approaches here for the--equity's sake, and let's go
forward and get it done. I yield back.
Chairman Bowman. Absolutely. Thank you so much, Mr. Tonko,
and thank you so much to our witnesses. Before we bring this
hearing to a close, I want to thank our witnesses for
testifying before the Committee today. The record will remain
open for 2 weeks for additional statements from the Members,
and for any additional questions the Committee may ask of the
witnesses. The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now
adjourned. Enjoy your weekend, everyone. Thank you so much.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was
adjourned.]
Appendix
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Myles Lennon
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117hhrg45195_chrg-117hhrg45195.htm
- Size
- 123,321 bytes
- SHA-256
- d194cfdd6944dbf8d8d90388c3946da7832e96de470b7874cab95d8f3031b4f9
- Original
- No public link identified.