Addressing Climate Change with Energy-Efficient and Resilient Housing (U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs)

Hearing	Addressing Climate Change with Energy-Efficient and Resilient Housing
Committee	U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Date	May 18, 2022

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Federal Efforts to Promote Energy Efficient Housing and Home Appliances: The hearing largely focused on federal policies to promote energy efficient homes and home appliances (with a particular emphasis on energy efficiency in affordable and rental housing).
  • Impact of Energy Bills and Costs on American Families: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses highlighted how rising energy bills were adversely impacting many families. They noted how these rising energy bills particularly impacted lower-income families given how they tended to have less energy efficient homes and home appliances and they were less able to afford energy price increases. Committee Democrats, Ms. Norton, and Ms. Egger contended that promoting energy efficient homes and home appliances could help to address these high utility bills. They expressed support for public policies (such as grants and tax refunds) to support the adoption of energy efficient technologies in order to help consumers afford the high upfront costs associated with the technologies. They stated that these energy efficient technologies would eventually generate savings in the form of lower energy bills. Full Committee Ranking Member Toomey and Ms. Tubb argued however that public policies to support the adoption of energy efficient technologies were often distortionary and could increase the cost of goods. They elaborated that most consumers would voluntarily use these technologies if they viewed the technologies as in their best interest. They further criticized government policies that discouraged or prohibited the use of natural gas in new homes. They stated that these policies were driving up energy costs for low-income Americans and causing these Americans to rely on imported natural gas in some instances.
  • Impact of Inefficient Homes and Appliances on Climate Change: Committee Democrats, Ms. Norton, and Ms. Egger highlighted how a significant portion of the U.S.’s greenhouse gas emissions (ranging between 17 percent and 20 percent) came from residential buildings. They contended that the U.S. must therefore make reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of homes and home appliances a key element of efforts to combat climate change. Ms. Tubb raised concerns however with how climate change and carbon dioxide mitigation were ill-defined in federal statutes. She commented that this dynamic made it difficult for the U.S. Department of Energy to account for these goals in their various programs.
• Government Efforts to Promote Resilient, Safe, and Affordable Housing: The hearing also focused on efforts to promote resilient, safe, and affordable housing. Full Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) discussed how most homes in the U.S. faced some risk due to climate change-induced disasters and noted how 35 million homes were considered to be at high risk for these types of disasters. Ms. Egger suggested that Congress set resilient building standards as the minimum quality standard for all new construction and substantial rehabilitation projects built with federal funds.
  • Government Weatherization Efforts: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in the U.S. Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), which supports weatherization improvements and upgrades for low-income households in the U.S. Committee Democrats expressed support for the WAP and stated that it played a beneficial role in terms of improving household energy efficiency. Ms. Tubb raised concerns however that the WAP was prone to waste, fraud, and abuse.
  • Government Flood Mitigation Efforts: Another key area of interest during the hearing was flood mitigation efforts and the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Committee Democrats and Ms. Egger stated that climate change increased the likelihood of flooding and contended that a focus on flood mitigation efforts would yield significant savings in terms of avoided flood damages. Full Committee Ranking Member Patrick Toomey (R-PA) and Ms. Tubb remarked however that the NFIP’s failure to charge flood insurance rates that were commensurate with a property’s risk of flooding often encouraged property development in areas with higher risks of flooding, which in turn increased the likelihood that the NFIP would pay out losses.
  • Government Lead Paint Remediation Efforts: Full Committee Chairman Brown and Ms. Norton discussed how lead paint adversely impacted children and expressed interest in government programs to support lead paint remediation efforts.
  • Government Efforts to Promote Transportation Accessible Housing: Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Ms. Egger highlighted the importance of building affordable housing that was mass transit accessible in order to both combat climate change and reduce expenses for residents.
• Benefits of Coordinating Federal Housing Repair Programs: Committee Democrats, Ms. Norton, and Ms. Egger raised concerns with the fragmented delivery of federal housing repair programs. They stated that federal housing repair program monies ought to be flexible and used in a coordinated fashion in order to address the various problems afflicting affordable housing (including energy inefficiency, poor weatherization, flood risk, and lead paint). They contended that the coordinated use of these monies would both benefit residents and save the federal government money through realized efficiencies.
  • Impact of Poor Housing on Resident Health: Committee Democrats, Ms. Norton, and Ms. Egger discussed how inefficient and outdated homes and home appliances often threatened the health of their residents and led residents to keep their homes at unsafe temperatures. They specifically highlighted how these residents often faced cardiac and respiratory health challenges. They stated that improving these homes would thus lead to better health outcomes for residents.
  • Impact of Housing Upgrades on Low-Income and Minority Communities: Committee Democrats and Ms. Norton discussed how federal programs to promote energy efficient and resilient housing would particularly impact low-income and minority communities. They noted how these communities were more likely to live in rental properties (which tend to be older buildings) and would therefore disproportionately benefit from energy retrofits and appliance upgrades. They also highlighted how the provision of safer and cheaper housing was associated with improvements in school and work attendance, as well as housing stability. Moreover, Ms. Norton remarked that these programs would support the creation of good-paying community-based jobs. She further stated that the home improvements stemming from these programs would increase the market value of homes, which supported intergenerational real estate wealth transfers for low-income and minority families.
• General Concerns Related to the Current State of Housing in the U.S.: Committee Members further expressed interest in the current state of the housing sector and how the COVID-19 pandemic had increased demand for housing (which had led housing price growth to accelerate). Full Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) argued that renters were paying too much in rent as a percentage of income and expressed concerns that most renters could not obtain federal housing assistance due to a lack of available funding.
  • Lack of Housing Inventory: One key area of concern during the hearing was the U.S.’s current lack of housing inventory. Full Committee Chairman Brown expressed concerns with how Wall Street firms and outside investors had entered local rental housing markets, which he commented was reducing the U.S.’s stock of affordable housing. Full Committee Ranking Member Patrick Toomey (R-PA) contended that the Bident administration ought to lift tariffs on lumber, steel, and aluminum in order to facilitate the construction of more housing.
  • Criticism of the Biden Administration’s Housing Policies: Full Committee Ranking Member Toomey criticized the Biden administration’s support for increased federal funding for housing vouchers and public housing. He commented this new spending would increase demand without a commensurate increase in supply, which would further exert upward pressure on housing prices. He also raised concerns with how the Biden administration was considering policies that would push the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) into riskier activities. He indicated that these activities included purchasing mobile home loans and financing apartment developments before and during the construction phases.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Ruth Ann Norton, President and CEO, Green & Healthy Homes Initiative
2. Katie Tubb, Research Fellow, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, The Heritage Foundation
3. Krista Egger, Vice President, Building Resilient Futures, Enterprise Community Partners

Member Opening Statements:

Full Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH):

• He remarked that properly addressing the issue of housing affordability within the U.S. would result in lower energy costs and reduced risks from climate change.
• He stated that outdated heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and appliances and poor insulation systems in homes were driving up energy bills and were contributing to climate change.
  • He indicated that 20 percent of the U.S.’s greenhouse gas emissions came from residential buildings.
• He also discussed how most homes in the U.S. faced some climate change-induced disaster risk and noted how 35 million homes were considered to be at high risk for damage from climate change.
• He remarked that the U.S. needed more housing and commented that the U.S. had long failed to build enough housing to satisfy demands for housing.
  • He also stated that barriers to new housing at the local level impede development, deny families access to opportunity, and keep housing prices artificially high.
• He discussed how a multitude of policy decisions, including historically racist policies, redlining, and more recent regulations, had created a housing crisis that made housing unaffordable.
  • He noted how one-quarter of all renters had spent more than half of their incomes on housing expenses prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
• He stated that federal housing assistance only reached one quarter of the renters that needed it due to a lack of available funding and added that wages were failing to keep pace with rising housing prices.
  • He further noted how many affordable homes were aging and in need of repair.
• He remarked that the pandemic was only exacerbating the U.S.’s current housing challenges.
  • He mentioned how rents had risen more than 11 percent on average between 2021 and 2022 and how home prices had risen more than 18 percent during this same period.
• He discussed how Wall Street firms and outside investors were entering local rental housing markets and stated that these firms and investors were reducing the availability of affordable housing.
• He further highlighted how rising utility bills were adversely impacting many families and stated that the challenges associated with these bills were acute during summer and winter months.
  • He commented that these high bills often led families to keep their homes at unsafe temperatures and noted how people of color were more likely to face these challenges.
• He remarked that new building materials, technologies, and appliances could help to address the problem of high utility bills.

Full Committee Ranking Member Patrick Toomey (R-PA):

• He discussed how Americans were “needlessly” facing high housing costs and noted how home prices had steadily appreciated since the 2008 Financial Crisis.
  • He commented that the COVID-19 pandemic had significantly accelerated this appreciation.
• He noted that while this situation benefited homeowners, he stated that this situation was adversely impacting first-time homebuyers and renters.
• He mentioned how the Biden administration had just unveiled its Housing Supply Action Plan and asserted that the Biden administration was pursuing failed housing policies.
• He specifically highlighted how the Biden administration was supportive of the U.S. House of Representatives-passed Build Back Better Act, which would spend $75 billion in housing vouchers and $80 billion in public housing on top of the existing federal expenditures for these programs.
  • He commented this new spending would increase demand without a commensurate increase in supply, which would further exert upward pressure on housing prices.
• He also stated that the Biden administration was now considering policies that would push Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into riskier activities.
  • He indicated that these activities included purchasing mobile home loans and financing apartment developments before and during the construction phases.
• He contended that the Biden administration should instead remove “misguided” trade barriers, which he commented were driving up the cost of building new homes.
  • He elaborated that the Biden administration could lift tariffs on lumber, steel, and aluminum and noted how these materials were common in-home construction.
• He then expressed opposition to proposals that would mandate that homes be made more energy efficient and stated that these mandates would make housing significantly more expensive.
  • He referenced a New York Times report that found that adding solar panels and a battery to a new home can increase the home’s cost by $20,000 or more.
• He asserted that manufacturers already possessed sufficient market incentives to produce energy efficient products and commented that consumers tended to prefer more efficient appliances and construction materials that paid for themselves through lower energy costs.
• He also criticized subsidies for energy efficient products and called the subsidies a form of “corporate welfare” that propped up uncompetitive segments of the market.
  • He asserted that these subsidies masked the costs associated with the Biden administration’s other energy policies, including restrictions on pipeline construction.
• He remarked that the U.S. should not be considering Green New Deal policies given how inflation was currently outpacing wage growth.
• He also stated that the U.S. should not prohibit new homes from having natural gas hookups or mandate more energy efficient appliances and devices with much higher upfront costs.
  • He commented that these types of regulations disproportionately harmed lower income households.

Witness Opening Statements:

Ms. Ruth Ann Norton (Green & Healthy Homes Initiative):

• She remarked that historic disinvestments in low-income communities had adversely impacted housing conditions throughout the U.S. and had endangered the health, safety, and financial security of children, families, and seniors.
  • She noted how over 30 million U.S. families currently lived in unhealthy and poorly weatherized homes that were increasingly susceptible to climate change-related events.
• She contended that optimizing energy efficiency and resiliency investments through flexible home repair would enable the U.S. to address these complex health and housing issues.
• She discussed how her organization, the Green & Healthy Homes Initiative, had found significant health, economic, and social benefits through using a housing upgrade model that aligned health and safety measures with energy resilience and climate change-related investments.
  • She noted how contractors involved in this model would make starting salaries between $4,000 and $8,000 greater than their peers.
• She also mentioned how this model had led to reductions in lead poisoning, hospitalizations, emergency room (ER) visits, carbon emissions, energy costs, and trip and fall injuries for seniors.
  • She further mentioned how this model had led to improvements in school attendance, work attendance, and housing stability, as well as Medicaid savings.
• She remarked that her organization’s work had demonstrated the effectiveness of flexible home repair money in terms of increasing housing stability, school attendance, and work attendance.
• She called on the Committee to reaffirm its support for $33 billion in flexible home repair dollars.
  • She indicated that this $33 billion amount would include $5 billion for the Lead and Healthy Home Repair Fund, $25 billion in HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds, and $3 billion in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funds.
• She stated that the aforementioned funding would improve health and economic outcomes for families while simultaneously increasing private sector investments, reducing health care costs, and decreasing energy consumption.
  • She also commented that this funding would reduce the barriers to weatherization enrollment and client deferral rates.
• She further asserted that this funding would advance racial justice goals through enabling low-income residents to equitably access energy efficient technologies and new community-based and well-paying jobs.
  • She elaborated that this funding would create reliable demand for home repairs, which would in turn support job creation.

Ms. Katie Tubb (The Heritage Foundation):

• She stated that while weatherization and energy efficiency investments could pay off, she asserted that federal subsidies and mandates for these investments tended to be problematic.
• She remarked that federal weatherization programs have a history of waste, fraud, and abuse and mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Inspector General (OIG) had published an April 2022 report that detailed fraud in the WAP at all levels.
  • She indicated that this fraud included substandard work, billing errors, erroneous or missing verification of applicant eligibility, insufficient training and oversight, and slow or non-existent consequences for bad actors.
• She also stated that federal weatherization subsidies and efficiency mandates had delivered “underwhelming” results and had failed to account for the diverse preferences of Americans.
  • She lamented how many of these programs failed to assess real-world use and consumer experiences and asserted that these failures had led to wasted resources.
• She further noted that climate change and carbon dioxide emissions mitigation were not stated goals, considerations, or metrics in statute that the U.S. Department of Energy was supposed to consider when implementing the WAP or energy efficiency standards program.
• She contended that house weatherization and efficiency regulations were costly and ineffective ways to reduce emissions.
• She then mentioned how the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) includes an additional $3.5 billion over the next five years for the WAP.
  • She noted that Congress had last authorized this much spending for the WAP under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and commented that this law served as the context for the aforementioned U.S. Department of Energy OIG report.
• She also discussed how the U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) was initiating scores of energy efficiency standards for common household appliances and commercial appliances.
• She contended that Congressional oversight of the new WAP funding and EERE standards was essential.
  • She further called on Congress and the Biden administration to address the policies that were driving up energy prices, housing prices, and inflation.

Ms. Krista Egger (Enterprise Community Partners):

• She testified that her organization, Enterprise Community Partners, had collaborated with local housing providers to build and preserve 873,000 affordable homes and to invest $54 billion across all 50 states.
  • She also mentioned how the organization maintained programs that taught property owners and developers how to reduce the carbon emissions of properties and prepare for hazards, including extreme heat, flooding, wildfires, and excessive wind speeds.
• She discussed the importance of limiting emissions from homes, including from the burning of fossil fuels for gas utilities and appliances.
• She stated that increasing gas emissions have escalated the frequency and intensity of natural disasters with multibillion dollar consequences.
  • She noted how one-third of Americans had faced an extreme weather event within the past two years.
• She highlighted how residential energy use accounted for 17 percent of the U.S.’s greenhouse gas emissions and asserted that the U.S. would need to “dramatically” reduce emissions from housing in order to meet its carbon emissions reduction goals.
• She remarked that prioritizing decarbonization in the affordable housing sector (particularly for communities of color) was “critical” given historic patterns of housing disinvestment in neighborhoods nationwide.
  • She asserted that the failure to explicitly focus on a just transition away from fossil fuels in the housing sector would lead to the exacerbation of health and wealth disparities.
• She also stated that the electrification of homes would enable the U.S. to address sources of pollution that directly impact respiratory health.
  • She highlighted how children growing up in homes with gas stoves had a 37 percent greater chance of developing asthma.
• She recommended that Congress make investments in “climate-ready” affordable homes and stated this housing had been proven to be successful at scale.
  • She commented that these types of homes provided benefits to both homeowners and residents in terms of energy and water cost savings.
• She also called on Congress to incentivize an equitable transition away from fossil fuels and stated that the U.S. government ought to help people to obtain heat pumps and electric stoves.
• She stated that Congress ought to set resilient building standards as the minimum quality standards for all new construction and substantial rehabilitation projects built with federal funds.

Congressional Question Period:

Full Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH):

• Chairman Brown discussed how lead paint still had “devastating” impacts on children and highlighted how these impacts were especially prevalent in his hometown of Cleveland. He commended Ms. Norton’s organization’s involvement with the Lead Safe Cleveland Coalition. He asked Ms. Norton to discuss how the Lead Safe Cleveland Coalition’s work helped to protect Cleveland’s children from lead and to make housing more efficient and more affordable for their families. He also asked Ms. Norton to identify resources that could help support the Lead Safe Cleveland Coalition’s work.
  • Ms. Norton first commended the Lead Safe Cleveland Coalition for its convening of stakeholders to address the impact of lead on children. She then noted how 1.1 million families had lead paint hazards in their homes and mentioned how it would cost an estimated $170 billion to address this lead paint. She stated that the U.S. must be able to address lead paint and broader housing challenges. She elaborated that lead paint remediation should be a component of other housing programs (such as weatherization programs) to ensure that all families would be able to remove lead paint from their residences. She then stated that the U.S. needed to support workforce capacity building efforts through linking the issues of health, safety, and energy efficiency. She commented that this linkage would promote a stronger housing market and a strong market for community-based jobs.
• Chairman Brown then noted how Ms. Egger’s written testimony discussed how climate change was exacerbating the U.S.’s housing shortage and how more energy efficient homes were providing significant annual savings to families. He asked Ms. Egger to discuss how these savings benefited low-income families.
  • Ms. Egger mentioned how her organization was delivering homes that were healthy, efficient, and environmentally responsible to low-income families. She commented that these low-income families were least able to afford high energy bills and other essential needs. She remarked that her organization had demonstrated the feasibility of delivering homes that were healthy, efficient, and environmentally responsible within the cost constraints of the affordable housing market. She also stated that the incremental cost of building environmentally responsible homes was minimal when compared to the standard building code. She indicated that it took five years to recoup the investments on these environmentally responsible homes and that each year after the five-year mark constituted a net gain.
• Chairman Brown then asked Ms. Norton to discuss what happens when homeowners want to use weatherization programs to reduce their home’s energy bills but their homes also have lead paint or poor roofs.
  • Ms. Norton remarked that the use of flexible funding could address a home’s various issues in an aligned manner, which would save the government money. She commented that this approach would enable governments to improve more households. She asserted that these home improvements led to improved outcomes for families in terms of health and housing stability. She also stated that the fragmented delivery of home improvement programs led to delays. She contended lead paint remediation work would be critical for enabling the U.S. to bolster energy efficiency and to address the risks of climate change to homes. She lastly discussed how poor home weatherization impacts cardiac and respiratory health.

Full Committee Ranking Member Patrick Toomey (R-PA):

• Ranking Member Toomey raised concerns that the imposition of new energy efficiency mandates would increase the costs of goods, which would in turn lead the U.S. to provide even more subsidies. He asked Ms. Tubb to indicate whether energy efficiency was attractive to consumers absent government mandates and subsidies.
  • Ms. Tubb answered affirmatively. She noted that while consumers might lack education about the benefits of energy efficiency, she asserted that the market could fill this need. She remarked that most Americans tended to prefer energy efficiency when it was in their best interest.
• Ranking Member Toomey discussed how energy efficiency was one of several factors that consumers consider when purchasing a given product. He asked Ms. Tubb to indicate whether the U.S. government ought to decide which factors would take priority in consumer purchasing decisions.
  • Ms. Tubb remarked that consumers ought to decide which factors would take priority in their purchasing decisions. She noted how consumers often weighed several factors when making purchasing decisions and asserted that federal bureaucrats were ill-suited at determining which factors would be in the best interest of consumers.
• Ranking Member Toomey then asked Ms. Tubb to discuss how much variability people tended to have in terms of their energy consumption.
  • Ms. Tubb remarked that energy consumption was particularly inelastic with regard to housing. She stated that the adverse impacts of high energy prices were especially acute during winter months and noted how high energy prices could put people at risk for death. She contended that discussions about reductions in fossil fuel use were problematic given the necessity of these fuels. She highlighted how 80 percent of the U.S.’s heat, power, and transportation came from coal, oil, and natural gas.
• Ranking Member Toomey remarked that the vast majority of energy consumption was involuntary in nature. He stated that policies that drove up energy costs led to declines in the standard of living. He then remarked that governments (especially state and local governments) had roles in developing building codes that promoted structures that were more resilient to natural disasters. He highlighted how the cost of the damage caused by extreme weather events had been declining as a percentage of the U.S.’s economy. He mentioned how the U.S. maintained the NFIP that insured homes against flood damage. He noted how the NFIP did not charge insurance rates that were commensurate with the risks faced by a given property and commented that this failure to charge sufficient insurance rates led Congress to routinely bailout the NFIP. He asked Ms. Tubb to address whether the NFIP’s policies actually encouraged mitigation and resilience efforts on the part of consumers.
  • Ms. Tubb mentioned how the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Heritage Foundation had identified problems with the NFIP. She asserted that the NFIP and similar programs often encouraged risky development in floodplains and discouraged adaptation measures.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI):

• Sen. Reed mentioned how he had introduced the bipartisan Green Retrofits Act, which would support energy efficiency upgrades for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) assisted multifamily homes. He asked Ms. Egger to indicate whether there existed a need for energy efficiency retrofitting in affordable multifamily homes.
  • Ms. Egger answered affirmatively. She stated that energy efficiency retrofits were particularly needed in HUD-assisted properties, which tended to have the greatest deferred maintenance needs and the greatest needs for upgrades. She remarked that energy efficiency retrofitting could help to reduce energy utility bills for residents, improve the health of residents, and combat climate change. She added that combating climate change would reduce the likelihood that homes would face future natural disasters.
• Sen. Reed commented that energy efficiency retrofitting generated long-term savings for tenants in terms of reduced energy bills. He asked Ms. Egger to indicate whether these long-term savings needed to be included in cost-benefit analyses.
  • Ms. Egger answered affirmatively and stated that narrowly focusing on upfront costs would fail to fully capture the benefits of energy efficiency retrofitting.
• Sen. Reed also noted how most low-income homes were rental homes, which meant that the tenants did not make the decisions about the home’s utilities and appliances. He asked Ms. Egger to indicate whether landlords often chose inefficient utilities and appliances for their homes because their tenants would be responsible for the energy bills of the homes.
  • Ms. Egger answered affirmatively. She commented that it was often more difficult to make energy efficiency improvements in the rental housing sector (as compared to the home ownership sector). She stated that proposals and funding opportunities that promote energy efficiency retrofits were particularly beneficial if they permit owners of housing to retrofit all of their portfolio properties at once.
• Sen. Reed then mentioned how he had introduced the Weatherization Assistance Program Improvements Act of 2022 that would provide $325 million for federal weatherization efforts. He stated that there were many benefits to home weatherization, including improved health, improved safety, and reduced home expenses. He asked Ms. Norton to elaborate on these benefits.
  • Ms. Norton recounted how her organization had previously focused exclusively on lead paint remediation efforts for homes. She stated that the failure to align lead paint remediation efforts with weatherization efforts had led families to experience increased housing costs, which reduced housing stability for the families. She remarked that the WAP played a key role in addressing asthma, reducing ER visits, improving housing stability, improving cardiac health, and supporting community-based jobs. She further discussed how weatherization efforts reduced energy costs for homes and improved the market value of homes, which supported intergenerational real estate wealth transfers for low-income families. She commented that these intergenerational real estate wealth transfer benefits were especially realized by minority communities.

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA):

• Sen. Ossoff mentioned how he had introduced the Clean Energy for all Homes Act, which would provide low- and middle-income households with a full tax refund for the installation of energy efficient appliances and renewable energy production technologies. He also mentioned how he had cosponsored the Zero-Emission Homes Act of 2021 and the HOPE for HOMES Act of 2021, which would provide rebates to homeowners who invest in energy efficiency. He asked Ms. Norton to comment on some of the main barriers to more widespread adoption of energy efficiency and energy generation technologies and products by low- and middle-income households and small businesses.
  • Ms. Norton first thanked Sen. Ossoff for introducing the Clean Energy for all Homes Act. She discussed how many families could not afford the upfront costs associated with energy efficiency investments and stated that tax credits could make these investments more affordable. She commented that such tax credits could accelerate the payback period for these investments. She also noted how these energy efficiency investments would have secondary benefits, including the elimination of gas stoves (which increased the incidence of asthma). She further remarked that more energy efficient homes would lead to improved housing stability.
• Sen. Ossoff also discussed how the WAP helped low-income households to increase the energy efficiency of their homes. He asked Ms. Norton to discuss how improved weatherization would help households to save people money on their energy bills. He also asked Ms. Norton to address how her organization worked with homeowners to make repairs to their homes. He lastly asked Ms. Norton to provide recommendations to Congress for improving the WAP.
  • Ms. Norton noted how low-income families living below the poverty level have an energy burden of 42 percent and commented that the WAP helped to dramatically lower energy bills for these families. She remarked that aligning weatherization programs with lead paint remediation programs would enable more efficient and effective spending. She commented that the savings realized from these efforts would enable these families to build wealth.
• Sen. Ossoff then mentioned how his state of Georgia’s coastal communities faced substantial and persistent flood risks. He noted how storm events in these communities were becoming more frequent and more severe. He expressed his interest in working to improve the resiliency of these coastal communities to flooding. He asked Ms. Egger to make recommendations for improving the resiliency of coastal communities to flooding, storm surges, and tropical storms.
  • Ms. Egger remarked that flooding risks were expected to increase and called climate change a “threat multiplier” in terms of its impact on people living in poverty. She recommended that Congress provide more funding to elevate homes in order to reduce their risk of flooding. She also suggested that Congress provide more funding to buy out people’s homes that were at very high risks of flooding. She lastly recommended that Congress authorize the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to slow the increase in flood insurance premiums for low- and moderate-income individuals.

Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN):

• Sen. Smith noted how residential energy use accounted for 20 percent of the U.S.’s emissions. She stated that improving residential energy efficiency would both combat climate change and reduce energy costs for consumers. She mentioned how nearly 27 percent of U.S. households had faced challenges in terms of affording their energy bills in 2020 and highlighted how these challenges were especially pronounced for households of color. She noted how electric and energy efficient technologies often had significant upfront costs that made them unaffordable to many lower-income households. She asked Ms. Egger to discuss the value of addressing the upfront costs of electric and energy efficient technologies so that lower-income families could afford said technologies. She commented that electric and energy efficient technologies provided both cost and health benefits to users.
  • Ms. Egger first commended Minnesota Housing for its work to promote investments in electric and energy efficient technologies. She then remarked that energy bills played a key role in making homes affordable and asserted that investments in energy efficiency helped to ensure long-term affordability. She commented that these investments were needed to ensure that vulnerable families did not fall further into poverty.
• Sen. Smith asked Ms. Egger to indicate whether the U.S.’s failure to address the high upfront costs associated with adopting electric and energy efficient technologies would exacerbate health and energy cost inequities.
  • Ms. Egger answered affirmatively. She remarked that the people that would benefit most from investments in electric and energy efficient technologies were those that were the least able to afford them. She stated that federal or state government assistance could help these people to afford said technologies.
• Sen. Smith asked Ms. Egger to indicate whether support for electric and energy efficient technology adoption would have a positive return on investment (ROI) over the long-term.
  • Ms. Egger answered affirmatively.
• Sen. Smith then discussed how renters comprised 36 percent of U.S. households and noted how renters were disproportionately minorities, young people, and low-income people. She also highlighted how almost 40 percent of U.S. renters were living in housing built before 1970. She remarked that renters were best positioned to benefit from energy retrofits and appliance upgrades. She noted how many rental units were owned by landlords with small property portfolios. She asked Ms. Egger to provide recommendations for making it easier for landlords with small property portfolios to participate in energy retrofit programs.
  • Ms. Egger remarked that the U.S. would need to take a multi-pronged approach to promote energy retrofitting. She stated that there would need to be support for manufacturers and distributors of energy efficient and electric equipment in order to ensure that the equipment would actually be affordable. She also stated that there would need to be capital and technical assistance to help smaller landlords pursue energy retrofitting solutions.
• Sen. Smith commented that the alignment of incentives across various federal housing programs would support energy retrofit programs.
  • Ms. Egger mentioned how her organization was working with Ms. Norton’s organization to coordinate funding for energy retrofit projects from various sources.

Full Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH):

• Chairman Brown noted how low-income families and communities were more vulnerable to climate change-related disasters. He asked Ms. Egger to provide recommendations for helping households to recover from climate change-related disasters.
  • Ms. Egger remarked that there must be investments both prior to the occurrence of disasters and after the disasters occur to support recovery efforts. She recommended that the U.S. require resilient building standards to ensure that homes would be better able to withstand floods and other types of climate change-related disasters. She also stated that the U.S. must ensure that assistance could more quickly reach vulnerable homes.
• Chairman Brown commented that the people most impacted by climate change-related disasters tend to be less able to bring attention to their situations.
  • Ms. Egger expressed agreement with Chairman Brown’s comment and stated that the aforementioned programs would support these vulnerable populations.
• Chairman Brown asked Ms. Egger to discuss how families could prevent climate change-related disaster damage before a disaster were to occur.
  • Ms. Egger remarked that there were different strategies that were relevant depending on the type of hazards that affected a given community. She noted how flooding could pose risks to homes directly or to critical infrastructure that served communities. She stated that policymakers ought to tailor their responses to community-specific features. She noted how policymakers could respond to flooding risks through elevating homes during the design stage or building homes above the base flood elevation (BFE). She also suggested that policymakers could ensure that roofs were not built with combustible materials, require double pane windows, and require buffer zones around homes without combustible materials in order to mitigate the damages associated with wildfires.

Full Committee Ranking Member Patrick Toomey (R-PA):

• Ranking Member Toomey noted how people that lived below the poverty line spent large portions of their incomes on energy-related expenses. He then discussed how Pennsylvania was the second largest natural gas producing state in the U.S. He indicated that Pennsylvania currently had a glut of natural gas, despite the recent spike in natural gas prices. He attributed this glut to the prohibitions on new natural gas pipeline construction projects. He asked Ms. Tubb to address whether the inability to build energy infrastructure was impacting the cost of energy for consumers.
  • Ms. Tubb mentioned how the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) had looked into the northeastern region’s energy reliability and affordability problems. She noted how the northeastern region had prevented both expansions to and additions to their energy pipeline infrastructure, which had led the region’s residents to pay more for energy and rely on more international imports.
• Ranking Member Toomey asked Ms. Tubb to discuss the differences between the U.S. environmental standards applied to natural gas extraction and the Russian environmental standards applied to natural gas extraction.
  • Ms. Tubb remarked that the U.S. maintained some of the best natural gas extraction standards in the world with regard to environmental and labor protections. She asserted that the imposition of excessive regulatory burdens on the U.S. natural gas sector was enabling other natural gas-producing countries with lower environmental and labor protections to fill U.S. market voids. She noted that energy resource demands were expected to remain constant for decades according to the EIA and commented that policymakers ought to be cognizant of this dynamic when developing energy policies. She contended that handicapping the U.S. energy industry would result in other countries gaining market share (rather than a reduction in energy consumption).

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ):

• Sen. Menendez remarked that the U.S.’s housing stock needed to be expanded and revitalized and asserted that the U.S. ought to leverage mass transit in order to combat climate change. He mentioned how he had introduced the Livable Communities Act of 2021, which created a federal grant program to incentivize and coordinate the development of new affordable housing and transit. He asserted that this legislation would spur economic development, address affordable housing needs, expand access to good jobs, and reduce carbon emissions. He applauded the Build Back Better Act for its inclusion of $4.5 billion to support this proposed federal grant program. He asked Ms. Egger to address whether the U.S. should be strengthening its housing stock in conjunction with transportation hubs in order to create jobs and incentivize more energy efficient mass transit options.
  • Ms. Egger noted how transportation often was the largest expense for families after housing and utilities costs and how transportation had a large impact on climate change due to its associated emissions. She mentioned how her organization required that all new construction properties not in rural or tribal locations be located within half a mile of a transit hub. She also highlighted how her organization’s Denver regional area initiative had invested $50 million in creating 2,100 homes that were transit-connected and affordable. She indicated that repayments of these home loans would go back into the initiative in order to support the development of more affordable, energy efficient, and transit-connected homes.
• Sen. Menendez then discussed how flooding was the most costly and frequent natural disaster that homeowners faced and commented that climate change would only make flooding worse. He noted how most federal assistance to make homes more resilient came after natural disasters. He stated that communities would be better served if the federal government were to make more tools available to reduce flood hazards in high-risk areas before the next storm were to occur. He indicated that every $1 invested in flood mitigation efforts resulted in a savings of $6 in disaster relief spending. He asked Ms. Egger to address whether the U.S. government should make more funding available for pre-disaster mitigation in order to make homes more resilient to flooding.
  • Ms. Egger answered affirmatively. She commented that pre-disaster mitigation was much cheaper than post-disaster response. She also highlighted how pre-disaster mitigation would reduce the claims offered against the NFIP.
• Sen. Menendez mentioned how his bipartisan NFIP Reauthorization and Reform Act would prioritize pre-disaster mitigation through increased cost of compliance coverage reforms. He also noted how the legislation would support elevations and improvements to the U.S.’s most flood-prone homes. He then asked Ms. Egger and Ms. Norton to discuss whether investments in existing federal programs (such as the Choice Neighborhoods program) could be leveraged to address climate change. He mentioned how Camden, New Jersey had recently received a $35 million Choice Neighborhoods program grant to develop 350 new energy efficient housing units.
  • Ms. Egger remarked that HUD programs (such as the Choice Neighborhoods program and the CDBG program) could pair resilient and energy efficient building practices with the creation of affordable housing.
  • Ms. Norton discussed how her organization’s work in Camden, New Jersey could help to train contractors in resilience work and flood mitigation work, as well as to map the climate change-related risks facing occupied housing units. She stated that flexible program dollars that could be aligned across programs would help to address the climate change-related risks facing occupied housing units. She asserted that the Choice Neighborhoods program served as a catalyst for enabling other programs to proactively address climate change-related risks.

Full Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH):

• Chairman Brown discussed how neighborhoods that had previously been subjected to redlining policies tended to be much hotter than neighborhoods that had not previously been subjected to these policies. He mentioned how he had introduced legislation to promote the deployment of tree canopies in order to reduce heat in historically redlined neighborhoods.