Exposing the Environmental, Human Rights, and National Security Risks of the Biden Administration’s Rush to Green Policies (U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials)

Hearing	Exposing the Environmental, Human Rights, and National Security Risks of the Biden Administration’s Rush to Green Policies
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials
Date	April 26, 2023

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Federal Clean Energy Policies: The hearing largely focused on recent government actions meant to promote domestic clean energy production and deployment. Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Mills, Dr. Nunes, and Mr. Simmons asserted the Biden administration’s clean energy policies and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will increase energy costs, undermine consumer choice, and strengthen the U.S.’s adversaries (including Russia and China). They also questioned whether these policies will actually benefit the environment and combat climate change (especially considering China’s increasing energy consumption). Subcommittee Democrats and Mr. Higgins contended however that the Biden administration’s clean energy policies and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 are critical to reducing the U.S.’s greenhouse gas emissions before the impacts of climate change become irreversible. They also asserted that these policies will support the creation of well-paying jobs, bolster economic activity, and increase the U.S.’s global competitiveness. They expressed opposition to proposals from Congressional Republicans to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 as part of legislation to raise the U.S.’s debt ceiling.
  • Domestic Clean Energy Technology Construction and Deployments: Subcommittee Democrats and Mr. Higgins praised the Biden administration, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 for supporting the domestic construction and deployment of clean energy technologies. These clean energy technologies include wind energy technologies, solar energy technologies, and battery storage technologies. They asserted that these policies (which include investments, tax credits, and adoption incentives) will help to bring down the costs of these technologies and reduce emissions. They also emphasized that these policies are technology-neutral, which will incentivize companies to identify the best ways for reducing the U.S.’s emissions levels. Subcommittee Republicans and Mr. Mills argued however that the increased construction and deployment of the aforementioned clean energy technologies will result in greater environmental damage. They noted that these technologies require large amounts of cement, steel, and plastics to produce and often entail significant land use, toxic chemical emissions, air pollution, and water pollution. They also warned that efforts to reduce the U.S.’s production and refining of hydrocarbon energy sources will drive this activity offshore, where the activity is less efficient and where countries maintain worse environmental standards. They further stated that these technologies will increase energy costs and reduce the U.S.’s energy reliability through moving the U.S. toward intermittent energy sources.
  • Efforts to Promote the Adoption and Deployment of Electric Vehicles (EVs): Another key area of debate at the hearing involved government efforts to promote the adoption and deployment of EVs. These efforts include EV incentives included within the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed emissions standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles, and California’s proposed phase-out of internal combustion engine-powered vehicles. Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Mills, Dr. Nunez, and Mr. Simmons argued that the energy and environmental impacts of the mining, refining, and transportation of the materials needed to produce EVs will likely not offset the potential reduction in emissions from EVs. They also raised concerns that EVs have limited driving ranges, limited interior space, and high production and retail costs, as well as make significant demands on the U.S.’s electricity grid. Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Dr. Nunez suggested that hybrid-electric vehicles could be preferable to EVs in that they require less critical minerals, cost less, and will reduce emissions (albeit less than the emissions reduced by EVs). Subcommittee Democrats and Mr. Higgins argued however that increased EV adoption is key to meeting the U.S.’s emissions reduction goals and ensuring the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry. They stated that EV adoption is being driven by consumer demands and that federal policies can make EVs both cheaper and more environmentally friendly.
  • U.S. Global Competitiveness Concerns: Subcommittee Republicans and Mr. Mills raised concerns that the increased adoption of clean energy technologies would benefit China because the U.S. heavily depends on China for many clean energy technologies and the critical mineral inputs for these technologies. They also expressed concerns that these technologies will weaken the U.S.’s energy security and stability, which will in turn impact the U.S.’s economy. Subcommittee Democrats and Mr. Higgins argued however that recent federal policies (including the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022), will enable the U.S. to better compete with China on clean energy technologies through supporting domestic supply chains and manufacturing for these technologies.
  • Clean Energy Technology Waste and Recyclability: Subcommittee Republicans and Mr. Mills expressed concerns that many of the clean energy technologies under discussion at the hearing (including windmill turbines, solar panels, and EV batteries) will result in significant waste that either cannot be recycled or will be very expensive to recycle. They also raised doubts as to whether the U.S. will possess sufficient landfill capacity to store this waste. Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) noted however that the IIJA had directed the EPA to develop best practices for battery recycling and had allocated $6 billion for battery processing, manufacturing, and recycling.
  • Impact on Workforce: Subcommittee Democrats and Mr. Higgins remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will create 1.3 million jobs by 2030 and noted how the law had already created about 140,000 new clean energy jobs. They stated that the law provides special incentives to create jobs in disadvantaged communities and that the law’s clean electricity tax credits are only available for project developers that pay prevailing wages and employ people in apprenticeship programs. Mr. Mills stated however that much of these newly created jobs are not located in the U.S. and that the U.S. currently lacks the labor capacity to fill many of these newly created jobs. 
  • Impact on Public Health: Subcommittee Democrats and Mr. Higgins stated that government clean energy policies will reduce the public health impacts of climate change and pollution. These impacts include increased incidences of asthma, Lyme disease, and emergency room (ER) visits for children. They highlighted how these impacts are disproportionately concentrated in low-income communities and communities of color. Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) questioned the claims that climate change is causing asthma and noted how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stated that the causes of asthma remain unknown. 
  • Impact on Developing Countries: Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Mr. Higgins further stated that government clean energy policies will heavily benefit developing countries as these countries are more exposed to the negative impacts of climate change.
  • Ethanol: Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) also argued that the U.S. should promote ethanol production given its low-carbon nature and its ability to be produced domestically. She warned that the U.S.’s failure to produce corn domestically will lead other countries (such as Brazil) to produce corn and commented that these other countries will cut down rainforest land to produce the corn.
  • U.S. Department of Energy’s Proposed Efficiency Standards for Distribution Transformers: Subcommittee Vice Chair John Joyce (R-PA) criticized the U.S. Department of Energy’s proposed efficiency standards for distribution transformers. He stated that this proposal would leave the U.S. reliant on foreign imports, create a more acute supply crisis for critical energy grid components, and sacrifice “family sustaining” jobs for his constituents.
• Federal Critical Mineral and Material Policies: The hearing also focused on the U.S.’s policies regarding critical minerals and materials. Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses highlighted how the U.S. will need to possess an adequate supply of these minerals and materials if it seeks to pursue clean energy technologies.
  • Domestic and Allied Critical Mineral Production: Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Mills, and Mr. Simmons expressed concerns that the U.S. currently lacks mining and production capabilities to domestically supply the critical minerals and materials needed for clean energy technologies. They criticized the Biden administration for failing to provide permits for domestic mining projects and closing down certain domestic mines. They contended that the U.S. possesses ample critical minerals and that the U.S. could mine these minerals in an environmentally responsible fashion. Subcommittee Democrats and Mr. Higgins stated however that the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 are supporting the production, processing, and recycling of critical minerals through grants, loans, and tax credits. Mr. Higgins also noted how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provides additional funding to federal agencies, which will support them in conducting environmental reviews for prospective mining projects.
  • Energy Consumption Associated with Mining: Mr. Mills highlighted how mining is very energy intensive and indicated that global mining currently accounts for about 40 percent of worldwide industrial energy use. He cautioned that the energy consumed to mine critical minerals for clean energy technologies might offset any energy savings from the technologies.
  • Chinese and Foreign Dominance of Critical Minerals Production: Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Mills, Dr. Nunes, and Mr. Simmons expressed concerns over how China controls between 50 percent and 70 percent of the world’s lithium and cobalt refining, as well as 90 percent of global refining capacity for rare earth elements. They warned that increasing U.S. reliance on renewable energy technologies and EVs will only benefit China given China’s dominance in critical mineral extraction and refining. They also expressed concerns over the national security implications of this dependence given how many defense technologies require critical minerals. Mr. Mills further raised concerns over Chile’s recent call to nationalize its lithium industry and form a lithium cartel in South America.
  • Prevalence of Forced Labor and Poor Environmental Practices in Critical Minerals Supply Chains: Subcommittee Republicans and Mr. Mills expressed concerns that the supply chain of the critical minerals needed for clean energy technology is tainted with forced labor, slavery, and child abuse. They highlighted how China is perpetrating these labor offenses both within China and in their foreign mining operations. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Mr. Higgins stated however that efforts to promote the critical mineral supply chains in the U.S. and in allied countries could mitigate these forced labor concerns. Mr. Simmons further raised concerns over how China and other countries engage in environmentally harmful mineral production practices. 

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Mr. Mark Mills, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute
2. Dr. Ashley Nunes, Director of Federal Policy, Climate, and Energy, Breakthrough Institute
3. Mr. Daniel Simmons, Vice President for Policy, Institute for Energy Research
4. Mr. Trevor Higgins, Senior Vice President, Energy and Environment, Center for American Progress

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Bill Johnson (R-OH):

• He criticized the Biden administration’s “whole-of-government” climate change agenda and stated that this approach increases energy costs, undermines consumer choice, and strengthens the U.S.’s adversaries (including China and Russia).
  • He also asserted that this agenda may be counterproductive and commented that green energy technologies can create significant environmental problems.
• He expressed concerns over the recent announcement from the EPA on proposed standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles.
• He asserted that the EPA’s proposed standards would force the electrification of two-thirds of the U.S. domestic car market.
  • He commented that while he was not opposed to EVs, he contended that Americans should be able to choose affordable cars that meet their needs and not face higher vehicle costs so that they can comply with a government mandate.
• He remarked that Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration do not wish to examine the true costs of their proposed policy choices to the environment, human rights, and national security.
  • He commented that the hearing would take a more holistic and transparent approach to U.S. energy policy.
• He stated that the Subcommittee must consider how the deployment of renewable energy technologies can require the clearing of a “significant” amount of land.
  • He mentioned how the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates that solar panels need five acres of land to generate one megawatt of electricity and that wind turbines need 35 acres of land to generate one megawatt of electricity.
  • He noted that it would take 30 times the amount of land covered in solar panels to equal the energy generation capacity of one natural gas-fired power plant.
• He also discussed how rural communities across the U.S. are voicing concerns over the emergence of solar and wind energy facilities near their neighborhoods.
  • He mentioned how more than ten Ohio counties have banned utility scale solar and wind energy facilities last year.
• He remarked that achieving the Biden administration’s renewable energy goals would ignore the concerns raised by many Americans (including many of his constituents).
• He then contended that renewable energy technologies pose risks to Americans when the technologies are at the end-of-life stage.
  • He mentioned how the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) projects that global solar panel waste could reach 78 million tons by 2050.
  • He added that the U.S. may need to dispose of between 7.5 million and 10 million tons of solar panel waste.
• He stated that the sheer amount of waste produced from renewable energy technologies is “deeply troubling” and questioned whether the U.S. possesses sufficient landfill capacity to address this waste.
  • He added that the EPA considers some of this waste to be hazardous.
• He then remarked that the supply chain of the critical materials needed for solar energy, wind energy, and EV batteries is “tainted” with forced labor, slavery, and child abuse.
  • He noted how both the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Labor (DoL) have acknowledged labor violations in these supply chains and highlighted how over 40,000 children have engaged in artisanal and small-scaling critical materials mining.
  • He also mentioned how thousands of Chinese Uyghurs are being forced into labor.
• He contended that the U.S. must ensure that its energy supply chains do not rely upon slavery or child labor.
• He also remarked that the U.S. should prioritize its national security and not provide federal subsidies and taxpayer funds to Chinese companies.
  • He noted how China controls between 50 percent and 70 percent of the world’s lithium and cobalt refining, as well as 90 percent of global refining capacity for rare earth elements.
• He warned that increasing U.S. reliance on renewable energy and EVs will only benefit China given China’s dominance in critical mineral extraction and refining.
• He remarked that while solar, wind, and other sources of renewable energy should be included in the U.S.’s energy mix, he stated that the U.S. should not solely rely upon these energy sources.
  • He asserted that the U.S. should not force a rapid energy transition to entirely intermittent, non-dispatchable, and unreliable sources of energy.

Note: There were video feed issues with the first part of Chairman Johnson’s opening statement. The first part of this summary is based on Chairman Johnson’s available written opening statement.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Paul Tonko (D-NY):

• He remarked that the U.S. and the world are pursuing a transition to clean energy sources because the combustion of fossil fuels is significantly contributing to climate change.
• He warned that unmitigated climate change will harm the environment, public health, the economy, and national security.
  • He mentioned how the EPA had just released a report that found that climate change is expected to increase incidences of asthma, Lyme disease, and ER visits for children.
• He also questioned whether Subcommittee Republicans support having the U.S. pursue any transition to clean energy technologies.
  • He contended that the U.S. must urgently transition to clean energy technologies and stated that his support for this approach is based on the recommendations of the scientific community.
• He acknowledged however that challenges will arise from the pursuit of clean energy technologies and expressed interest in working to address these challenges.
  • He asserted that the U.S. must build clean energy infrastructure faster and must ethically and sustainably address its critical mineral needs.
• He lamented that the hearing will focus on complaints regarding clean energy technologies and commented that the hearing does not seek to provide solutions to the issue.
  • He accused Subcommittee Republicans of not wanting to address China’s current leadership in clean energy technology industries.
• He remarked that Congressional Democrats are supporting policies that will enable the U.S. business community to become the global leader in clean energy technologies.
• He mentioned how many of these policies had been enacted as part of the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and are already influencing the private sector’s behavior.
  • He commented that these laws have enabled companies to pursue domestic manufacturing projects related to solar energy, wind energy, EVs, semiconductors, and batteries.
  • He added that these laws have supported the production, processing, and recycling of critical minerals.
• He also stated that clean energy technology investments will support millions of new well-paying U.S. jobs.
• He lastly criticized Congressional Republicans for their planned vote to repeal key provisions from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• She remarked that the U.S. has been a global leader in reducing carbon dioxide emissions and has maintained the world’s highest environmental and labor standards.
• She contended that the Biden administration’s “rushed” clean energy agenda poses serious environmental risks because it empowers China.
  • She also stated that this agenda makes the U.S. dependent on supply chains that employ slave and child labor, increases poverty, and threatens national security.
• She asserted the Biden administration has “waged a war” on the affordability and availability of American manufacturing and energy.
  • She referenced the Biden administration’s cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline, greenlighting of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and moratorium on energy production on federal lands.
• She stated that the Biden administration’s policies have strengthened the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and have undermined U.S. energy security.
  • She also commented that these policies have increased the U.S.’s reliance on adversaries (including China and Russia) for its critical energy needs.
• She remarked that President Biden has ordered federal agencies to “slow walk” natural gas infrastructure permits and stated that these permits would expand U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG) exports.
  • She commented that these actions are occurring at a time of record high energy prices in the U.S. and “dangerous” energy supply shortages in Europe.
• She stated that the Biden administration’s ultimate goal is to achieve energy from 100 percent wind and solar sources and to have all of the vehicles in the U.S. be EVs.
  • She called the Biden administration’s agenda “radical” and “aggressive” and asserted that it would reward environmental special interest groups at the expense of reliable, affordable, and clean energy for the American people.
  • She also discussed how California is currently pursuing a transition to full vehicle electrification and noted how California Governor Gavin Newsome is now calling on the state’s residents to not charge their EVs in order to prevent energy blackouts.
• She called the Biden administration’s energy policies “divorced from reality” and stated that the administration is downplaying important questions regarding the environmental, human rights, and national security risks behind the mass deployment of wind, solar, and battery energy.
• She also raised concerns that the Biden administration’s energy policies are empowering the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
  • She noted how China controls more than 90 percent of the critical minerals that are used to make wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries for EVs and grid storage.
• She stated that China is the world’s greatest polluter and has one of the world’s worst environmental and human rights records (which permeates throughout its supply chains).
  • She mentioned how China is engaged in genocide and is forcing millions of ethnic minorities into slave labor.
  • She also mentioned how China controls mining operations in foreign countries that employ child labor.
• She asserted that the Biden administration’s policies enable China to undermine U.S. energy security and expressed her desire to advance and build upon the policies put forward in the Lower Energy Costs Act.

Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

• He remarked that Congressional Republicans are prioritizing the interests of polluters over the interests of the American people.
  • He accused Congressional Republicans of taking advantage of the current debt ceiling situation to advance their political goals.
• He discussed how a key part of the debt ceiling proposal from Congressional Republicans is the Lower Energy Costs Act, which would repeal large portions of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
  • He noted how this legislation would repeal the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, Methane Emissions Reduction Program, the Home Electrification Rebate Program, and tax credits for critical minerals for batteries, domestic battery manufacturing, and solar and wind production.
• He mentioned how about $28 billion in new domestic manufacturing investments focused on EVs, batteries, and solar energy have been announced since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
  • He also noted how companies have announced $242 billion in new clean power capital investments.
• He also discussed how many of the states leading the U.S. in clean energy investments as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 are states that Committee Republicans represent.
  • He noted how Georgia, Tennessee, Michigan, South Carolina, Texas, and Ohio have received $15 billion, $10.9 billion, $7.2 billion, $6.2 billion, $5.1 billion, and $4.8 billion, respectively.
  • He also noted how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s investments have created more than 142,000 clean energy jobs across the U.S.
• He remarked that the new investments and new jobs stemming from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 are impressive given how the law is still very nascent.
• He further criticized Congressional Republicans for seeking to eliminate the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s tax credit for nuclear energy.
  • He mentioned how this tax credit had received universal support from the witnesses at a recent Subcommittee hearing.
• He then remarked that Subcommittee Republicans are not seeking to offer meaningful solutions to climate change and to ensure the U.S.’s global competitiveness in transitioning to clean energy technologies.
• He discussed how the IIJA had directed the EPA to develop best practices for battery recycling and volunteer battery labeling guidelines.
  • He commented that these policies are needed to strengthen the U.S.’s critical mineral supply chains for clean energy development.
• He also mentioned how the IIJA had allocated $6 billion for battery processing, manufacturing, and recycling.
  • He further noted how the IIJA had expanded the U.S. Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program to include projects that increase the supply of domestically produced critical minerals.
• He lastly highlighted how no Committee Republicans had voted for either the IIJA or the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Witness Opening Statements:

Mr. Mark Mills (Manhattan Institute):

• He discussed how economic growth is the main driver of energy demand and stated that inadequate, expensive, or unreliable energy supplies can stifle future economic growth.
• He also remarked that energy supplies are more dependent on the building of machines than on the finding of resources.
  • He commented that this dynamic holds true across all resources, including solar, wind, water, oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium.
• He noted how there exists a strong understanding of the impacts associated with machines using hydrocarbon energy sources because these technologies have been used at scale for a very long time.
  • He indicated that these machines currently supply 85 percent of the world’s energy.
• He stated however that there exists a weaker understanding of the impacts associated with machines using wind, solar, and battery technologies because they are relatively new.
  • He indicated that these machines currently supply only a few percentage points of the world’s energy.
• He mentioned how the Biden administration has expressed its desire to have the U.S. transition to using 100 percent renewable energy sources.
• He remarked that there will be greater use of wind energy, solar energy, and EVs in the future because of the sheer scale of energy demands.
  • He also commented that developed countries (like the U.S.) can afford higher energy costs, which will make the aforementioned technologies feasible.
• He contended however that there exist many misconceptions regarding the realities of renewable energy sources at scale, especially if the goal is to replace (rather than supplement) hydrocarbons.
• He remarked that renewable energy technologies are not necessarily more environmentally friendly, cheaper, or more geopolitically secure.
• He discussed how wind and solar resources have very low energy densities, which necessitates the construction of machines that occupy approximately ten times more of the earth’s surface than hydrocarbon facilities to deliver the same amount of energy.
  • He commented that the reduction in the use of the earth’s surface for energy production is one of the key achievements of hydrocarbon energy sources.
• He remarked that the increased use of wind and solar energy sources will result in a “radical” increase in global mining and processing to supply all of the critical materials necessary to construct renewable energy machinery.
  • He noted how the IEA estimates that renewable energy plans (both proposed and currently underway) will require between a 400 percent and 8,000 percent increase in the mining of dozens of minerals.
• He stated that current regulatory realities in the U.S. indicate that new mines and processing plants to satisfy this increased demand will not be located domestically and will instead be located in emerging economies.
  • He commented that most of these mines and processing plants will be located on or near the lands of indigenous peoples in areas considered culturally and ecologically valuable and fragile.
• He also noted how the increase in mining required to support renewable energy technologies will result in significant energy consumption.
  • He commented that this energy consumption will offset much (and sometimes all) of the carbon dioxide emissions that are saved from replacing the use of hydrocarbons in power plants and cars.
• He mentioned how global mining currently accounts for about 40 percent of worldwide industrial energy use and stated that this figure would increase if renewable energy machines are further deployed.
  • He added that renewable energy machines will wear out over time and indicated that the recycling of these machines can be difficult, expensive, or impossible in some cases.
• He then discussed how every jurisdiction that has increased their usage of wind and solar energy sources has experienced rising electricity costs.
  • He noted that increased use of EVs also drives higher electricity costs because EVs must use underlying energy resources for power.
• He further disputed the claim that renewable energy sources are geopolitically superior and mentioned how China enjoys a market share that ranges between 40 percent and 90 percent for the production and refining of many critical materials for renewable energy technologies.
  • He highlighted how this market share is over double OPEC’s market share in global oil production.
• He noted that renewable energy sources do create more jobs and attributed this job creation to the excess land, material, and machinery needed to deliver the same amount of energy needed from hydrocarbon energy sources.
• He stated however that much of these newly created jobs are not located in the U.S. and that the U.S. currently lacks the labor capacity to fill many of these newly created jobs.

Dr. Ashley Nunes (Breakthrough Institute):

• He discussed how transportation-related emissions have steadily increased since the late 1990s, despite significant government spending on programs that promote emissions reductions.
  • He asserted that this “mismatch” between intent and outcome highlights the need for Congressional scrutiny.
• He remarked that many technologies (such EVs) will not necessarily lower emissions, despite having the capability to lower emissions.
  • He testified that the Breakthrough Institute’s analysis finds that EV adoption may not meaningfully reduce emissions in the transportation sector absent a “significant” change in the U.S. government’s subsidy policy.
• He also stated that EV adoption faces significant cost barriers, even with government subsidies.
  • He noted how EVs are more expensive than gasoline-powered vehicles and that EV price growth is outpacing inflation and the prices growth for internal combustion engine-powered vehicles.
• He warned that implicitly mandating EV adoption could undermine emissions reduction efforts and worsen existing inequities in new vehicle ownership across the U.S.
• He remarked that the path toward clean energy will require minerals from numerous countries and noted that the U.S. has varying relationships with these countries.
  • He acknowledged that while the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 supports the U.S.’s mineral production and processing capabilities, he asserted that this law’s benefits may take years to fully materialize.
• He stated that local mineral production limits and limited alternatives in lithium-ion battery chemistry suggest that EV costs will remain high for American consumers for the foreseeable future.
• He remarked however that it remains possible for the U.S. to reduce transportation emissions and asserted that the U.S. could build better, cleaner, and less mineral intensive cars that are both desirable and affordable for consumers.
  • He commented that the U.S. government can and should play a role in supporting this effort given the seriousness of climate change.

Mr. Trevor Higgins (Center for American Progress):

• He remarked that the IIJA, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act represent the largest investments in climate action in U.S. history.
  • He commented that these laws make it possible for the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to half of peak levels by 2030.
• He stated that these laws are supporting the U.S. economy and middle class through connecting good-paying jobs and apprenticeship programs to clean energy incentives, building domestic supply chains and manufacturing capabilities, addressing air pollution concentrated in low-income communities, and reducing household energy costs.
• He discussed how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s investments will create 1.3 million jobs by 2030.
  • He indicated that this law has already resulted in 140,000 new clean energy jobs.
• He highlighted how the full value of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s revised clean electricity tax credits are only available for project developers that pay prevailing wages and employ people in apprenticeship programs.
  • He commented that these requirements ensure that the clean energy sector will provide quality jobs.
• He remarked that the Biden administration’s policies are onshoring manufacturing and building resilient supply chains.
  • He highlighted how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s clean electricity incentives depend on increasing proportions of domestic content.
  • He also mentioned how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 includes new programs for manufacturing investments in energy communities, advanced industrial facilities, and automobile retooling.
  • He further commented that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s advanced manufacturing tax incentives provide a long-term investment signal for critical mineral processing and battery production.
  • He lastly highlighted how the structure of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s tax credits for EVs depend on domestic assembly of domestic batteries.
• He noted how companies have announced $240 billion in new capital investments for at least 190 new clean energy projects in 41 states since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
  • He highlighted how these investments include battery manufacturing sites in Arizona, New York, and South Carolina, EV manufacturing facilities in Alabama and Georgia, and wind and solar manufacturing plants in Florida, Kansas, and Texas.
• He remarked that repealing the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 would jeopardize these investments and called these investment key for enabling the U.S. to compete with China.
• He then stated that the pollution reductions resulting from the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy investments are projected to prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and nearly 120,000 asthma attacks annually by the end of the decade.
  • He indicated that these pollution-related deaths will decline by an even greater percentage in low-income communities and communities of color because they are disproportionately harmed by environmental harm and pollution.
• He further remarked that repealing the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will raise household energy costs.
  • He noted how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 offers households up to $28,500 in rebates and incentives if they choose to install clean appliances in their homes or purchase zero-emissions vehicles.
  • He added that these rebates can cover 100 percent of project costs for low-income houses.
• He discussed how electricity is generally more affordable and less volatile than fossil fuels, which means that home electrification can save the average household up to $1,800 per year and that EVs can save the average driver up to $2,600 per year.
• He further stated that the families that do not take advantage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s energy programs will still save money on their energy bills because the law’s energy investments and resulting reductions in fuel demand will lower the price of natural gas.
  • He emphasized that these savings will be realized in every region of the U.S.
• He lastly highlighted how more than half of announced projects and jobs created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 are in Congressional Districts represented by Republicans.
  • He noted how Republican-leaning states are estimated to receive an average of $4,200 in Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 investments per capita while Democratic-leaning states are estimated to receive an average of $2,400 per capita.

Mr. Daniel Simmons (Institute for Energy Research):

• He remarked that the Biden administration’s desired net-zero energy economy will require “massive” amounts of minerals and materials.
  • He commented that this economy will require “far more” minerals and materials than the U.S.’s current energy economy (which is powered mostly by coal, oil, and natural gas).
• He highlighted how an EV requires six times the mineral input of a conventional vehicle and an offshore wind facility requires nine times as much material inputs as a natural gas power plant of the same capacity.
  • He mentioned how the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Sustainable Development Scenario calls for a 42-fold increase in lithium demand, a 25-fold increase in graphite demand, a 21-fold increase in cobalt demand, a 19-fold increase in nickel demand, and a seven-fold increase in rare earth minerals by 2040.
• He noted how mining and material processing is far more concentrated globally than oil production has been in at least 50 years.
• He highlighted how China is the largest processor of copper, nickel, cobalt, lithium, and rare earth minerals and indicated that China processes between 35 percent and 85 percent of these minerals.
  • He noted how OPEC’s 13 members together only produce about 40 percent of the world’s oil.
• He stated that China has a “terrible” human rights record and mentioned how the Biden administration and other countries have sanctioned China for the country’s abuses against the Uyghur people.
• He also noted how the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has more cobalt resources than the rest of the world combined and commented that the DRC lacks a “clean” cobalt supply chain.
  • He explained that much of the DRC’s cobalt comes from artisanal miners (which include children) and are paid very little to engage in dangerous work.
• He further discussed how China and other countries engage in environmentally harmful mineral production practices.
  • He mentioned how battery production has led to radioactive earth dumps, poisoned groundwater, and indigenous population displacement in places like China, the DRC and Rwanda.
• He remarked that the solution to the aforementioned problems is increased U.S. domestic mineral production and suggested that the U.S. look at its recent increase in domestic oil and gas production as a model for increasing its domestic mineral production.
  • He noted how the U.S.’s pursuit of domestic oil and gas production has resulted in the U.S. becoming the world’s leading oil producer over the past decade.
• He stated that the U.S.’s decision to pursue domestic oil and gas productions has led to greater energy stability and energy security for both the U.S. and the world.
  • He commented that the absence of this production would have caused Russia’s decrease in oil exports to have more harmful effects on global energy markets.
• He highlighted how the U.S.’s air quality has continued to improve during this period of increased domestic oil and gas production.
• He stated that one critical overlooked aspect of the U.S.’s recent “shale revolution” is the value of non-federal lands.
  • He commented that this “revolution” has mainly occurred on state and private lands because people could more easily access oil and gas on these lands.
• He noted however that the federal government plays a key role in permitting all new mines and asserted that the Biden administration has stifled almost all new mining development.
  • He commented that the Biden administration has stymied the development of the Twin Metals and PolyMet mines in Minnesota, the Resolution Copper and Rosemont mines in Arizona, and Pebble Mine in Alaska.
  • He also mentioned how the Biden administration has reduced access to the Ambler Mining District in Alaska.
• He stated that while the Biden administration has been more disposed toward lithium mines (such as Rhyolite Ridge and Thacker Pass), he indicated that actual construction has only begun on Thacker Pass.
• He remarked that if the Biden administration truly seeks to achieve its net-zero energy goals, then the U.S. will need to pursue “massive” amounts of new mineral production.
• He contended that the Biden administration should therefore work to “dramatically” increase domestic mining because such an increase will avoid foreign human rights and environmental abuses.
  • He asserted that this increased mining will improve both U.S. national security and global security.

Congressional Question Period:

Subcommittee Chairman Bill Johnson (R-OH):

• Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Simmons to indicate whether the U.S. currently possesses the critical mineral extraction and refining capacity needed to meet the Biden administration’s climate change goals.
  • Mr. Simmons stated that while the U.S. has enough minerals to meet the Biden administration’s climate change goals, he asserted that the Biden administration’s mining policies make it impossible for the U.S. to access these minerals.
• Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Simmons to indicate whether the Biden administration’s climate change agenda will cause the U.S. to increasingly rely upon artisanal mining in the DRC and China. He emphasized that child and forced labor are common artisanal mining sectors in the DRC and China.
  • Mr. Simmons answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Johnson then noted how Mr. Mills’s testimony had highlighted how wind and solar energy sources have very low energy densities and require ten times more space to deliver the same amount of energy. He also noted how wind and solar energy sources are intermittent and non-dispatchable and cannot provide baseload power on a 24/7 basis. He stated that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s wind and solar energy expenditures constitute “irresponsible spending.” He asserted that these expenditures will neither improve the reliability and resilience of the U.S. energy grid nor improve the quality of life for Americans. He asked Mr. Mills to project the impact that a drastic expansion of wind and solar energy projects will have on his constituents.
  • Mr. Mills mentioned how several U.S. states and European countries have increased the use of wind and solar energy on their energy grids. He stated that these states and countries have experienced greater residential electricity costs and highlighted how these costs have tripled in Germany, Denmark, and Sweden. He further noted how several service territories in the U.S. have also experienced 300 percent increases in residential electricity costs following a greater adoption of wind and solar energy sources. He then emphasized how the wind and solar energy machinery being deployed is subsidized by taxpayers, which means that the full costs of this machinery is not being borne by ratepayers. He attributed these higher wind and solar energy costs to their higher operational costs due to their intermittent nature.
• Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Mills to indicate whether the U.S. should replace millions of acres of farmlands and forests with solar and wind farms. He asked Mr. Mills to indicate whether such replacement would have an adverse impact on the environment.
  • Mr. Mills remarked that the U.S. should not seek to increase the amount of land used to deliver the same amount of energy and commented that such an approach would not benefit the environment. He asserted that the U.S. should work to minimize the amount of land used for energy production purposes.
• Chairman Johnson then discussed how global solar panel waste is projected to reach 78 million tons by 2050 with between 7.5 million tons and 10 million tons generated in the U.S. alone. He commented that the U.S. already faces strong political opposition regarding efforts to dispose of roughly 40,000 tons of hazardous dirt. He added that this hazardous dirt is properly permitted. He questioned whether those that oppose the disposal of this hazardous dirt will accept the disposal of 10 million tons of hazardous broken retired solar panels. He asked Mr. Mills to indicate whether the U.S. currently possesses the requisite landfill capacity to properly dispose of these retired solar panels.
  • Mr. Mills stated that the U.S. has enough land to dispose of solar panel waste and that the main question is whether the U.S. will accept the disposal of large amounts of solar panel waste. He asserted that there exists a naivety about the quantity of land needed for production, use, and disposal of solar panels. He noted how solar panel proponents often argue that solar panel waste can largely be recycled. He stated however that the recycling of solar panels is “extraordinarily” expensive and that none of the models for future wind, solar, and battery technologies account for the “real world” costs of recycling.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Paul Tonko (D-NY):

• Ranking Member Tonko asked Mr. Higgins to indicate whether there exists a federal policy that mandates that any percentage of the U.S. energy mix comes from wind and solar resources.
  • Mr. Higgins stated that there is no federal policy that mandates that any percentage of the U.S. energy mix comes from wind and solar resources.
• Ranking Member Tonko asked Mr. Higgins to indicate whether state policies and voluntary decisions from businesses and consumers have driven the U.S.’s recent increase in the use of renewable energy sources.
  • Mr. Higgins answered affirmatively. He stated that many of these voluntary decisions have been in response to energy cost changes and commented that wind and solar energy sources have become cheaper.
• Ranking Member Tonko asked Mr. Higgins to indicate whether policies that seek to limit pollution from light-duty vehicles are technologically neutral and do not mandate EVs.
  • Mr. Higgins answered affirmatively.
• Ranking Member Tonko asked Mr. Higgins to explain why automobile manufacturers are investing in domestic facilities to manufacture new EVs and batteries if EVs are not being mandated. He asked Mr. Higgins to indicate whether these investments are in response to market and consumer trends.
  • Mr. Higgins remarked that EVs are popular and noted how surveys from Consumer Reports have found a 350 percent increase in consumer demand for EVs over the previous two years. He also mentioned how 70 percent of U.S. adults would consider buying or leasing an EV today, which means that there are approximately 45 EV-ready buyers for every EV being manufactured. He stated that this growing demand for EVs is not confined to the U.S. and that automobile manufacturers are investing in EVs so that they can be globally competitive. He mentioned how automobile manufacturers in China and many allied countries are currently making investments in EVs.
• Rep. Tonko mentioned how many of his constituents have told him that they are currently on waiting lists for EVs. He then noted how Mr. Higgins’s testimony had discussed how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s policies are driving workforce development and prevailing wage jobs in clean energy. He asked Mr. Higgins to discuss how the law’s voluntary incentives for EVs are intended to send a market signal to promote the domestic production of the entire EV supply chain.
  • Mr. Higgins stated that the investments included in the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 seek to support the entire EV and battery supply chains. He noted how these laws include grants, loans, and tax credits for investments in industrial capacity, mineral extraction, mineral refining, battery cell construction, battery pack assembly, automobile facility retooling, automobile facility construction, and battery recycling. He also highlighted how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 contains investments that support production related to the aforementioned activities. He stated that these investments make U.S. battery manufacturing competitive with China and will help EVs and gasoline-powered cars achieve price parity within the next three years. He further noted how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will cover 30 percent of the costs of grid scale battery deployment and provide an additional $3,750 for each EV built predominantly with domestic batteries and critical minerals. He remarked that consumers across the world want EVs and stated that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is ensuring that the U.S. can support all stages of the EV supply chain.
• Rep. Tonko remarked that many private businesses are anticipating future consumer demands and are working to take full advantage of the available federal incentives through investing in domestic manufacturing supply chains. He stated that there are currently “major” investments underway to reduce the U.S.’s dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets, reduce costs for U.S. consumers, create millions of good paying jobs, and reduce pollution. He commented that the private sector is leading these investments. He asserted that the U.S. should work to address current clean energy challenges and not repeal incentives that are supporting domestic jobs and investments.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• Chairman McMorris Rodgers asked Mr. Mills to compare environmentally friendly wind, solar, and battery energy resources to the traditional energy resources that power the U.S. economy. She also asked Mr. Mills to answer whether China abides by the same environmental standards as the U.S.
  • Mr. Mills remarked that China does not abide by the same environmental standards as the U.S. He also mentioned how the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has forecasted that the U.S. will reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 1 gigaton if all of the money from the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is spent as planned and expected. He noted however that China is expected to increase its carbon dioxide emissions by 1 gigaton every two years for the next decade. He then discussed how the “green” label for energy technologies is meant to only refer to a given item’s impact on carbon dioxide emissions. He stated however that the “green” label used to be more expansive and encompass land use, toxic chemical emissions, air pollution, and water pollution. He stated that renewable energy machines (including wind, solar, and battery energy machines) have a worse environmental impact than hydrocarbon energy machines when using the more expansive definition of the term “green.”
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers then mentioned how she had recently visited Europe and had observed first-hand how overly aggressive clean energy policies have harmed European countries. She noted how these European countries had shut down their coal and nuclear facilities and had become dependent on Russia for their oil and natural gas. She expressed concerns that the Biden administration’s current energy policy agenda will strengthen China and weaken the U.S.’s energy security. She noted how Mr. Simmons has first-hand experience working on the deployment of renewable energy sources and batteries for EVs and the electric grid. She asked Mr. Simmons to identify his greatest concerns regarding the Biden administration’s energy targets and timelines for electrifying and decarbonizing the U.S. economy. She asked Mr. Simmons to indicate whether the Biden administration possesses an adequate framework for balancing the environmental, human rights, and national security risks associated with climate change-related policies.
  • Mr. Simmons remarked that the Biden administration does not appear to have a framework that balances the environmental, human rights, and national security risks associated with climate change-related policies. He acknowledged that while the Biden administration does not technically mandate the use of clean energy technologies, he stated that the Biden administration’s policies should be viewed as de facto EV mandates. He asserted that the use of EVs constitutes the only viable pathway for meeting the EPA’s upcoming greenhouse gas emissions regulations for vehicles. He stated that the raw materials (including lithium, cobalt, and nickel) needed for EVs are dependent on Chinese supply chains and that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 could not change this situation in the near term.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers then noted how some automobile companies have stated that the number of raw materials in a large EV battery could be used to produce “dozens” of hybrid-electric vehicles. She asked Dr. Nunes to indicate whether hybrid-electric vehicles could reduce the risks associated with battery supply chains.
  • Dr. Nunes stated that the total amount of minerals used in an EV’s battery pack is “orders of magnitude” above the volume of minerals needed in a hybrid-electric vehicle’s battery pack. He commented that hybrid-electric vehicles could therefore reduce the risks associated with battery supply chains.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers asked Dr. Nunes to indicate whether the deployment of hybrid-electric vehicles costs less and reduces a greater amount of emissions relative to the deployment of EVs.
  • Dr. Nunes noted that a hybrid-electric vehicle typically costs about 12 percent more than an internal combustion engine and emits about 25 percent less carbon dioxide than an internal combustion engine. He noted that an EV by comparison typically costs between 40 percent and 50 percent more than an internal combustion engine and emits about 40 percent less carbon dioxide than an internal combustion engine. He stated that hybrid-electric vehicles would therefore provide the most economically efficient means for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
• Chairman McMorris Roders asked Dr. Nunes to indicate why the Biden administration is not encouraging the development of hybrid-electric vehicles.
  • Dr. Nunes stated that he could not speak on behalf of the Biden administration’s policy rationale.

Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

• Ranking Member Pallone discussed how the U.S. House of Representatives will soon vote on a debt ceiling proposal from Congressional Republicans that will repeal several “significant” clean energy investments enacted under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. He stated that this proposal seeks to repeal programs designed to lower energy costs for U.S. consumers, stall domestic energy job growth, and block “critical” investments in domestic manufacturing designed to onshore clean energy production. He asserted that these “misguided” policies would advantage China. He asked Mr. Higgins to address whether repealing the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s energy programs (such as rebates for home efficiency upgrades and incentives for solar, wind, and zero-emission transportation technologies) will lower energy costs for U.S. families.
  • Mr. Higgins remarked that repealing the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s energy programs will raise energy costs for U.S. families.
• Ranking Member Pallone asked Mr. Higgins to discuss how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will strengthen domestic manufacturing of clean energy technologies.
  • Mr. Higgins mentioned how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 makes investments throughout the U.S.’s battery supply chain. He also highlighted how the law contains incentives and requirements for companies that make use of the law’s clean electricity tax credits to have an increasing proportion of their content be produced domestically, including their steel and wind turbine components. He further noted how the law is investing in new manufacturing capacity, the retooling of existing capacity, and energy communities in need of jobs.
• Ranking Member Pallone remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s energy investments benefit both Americans and support the U.S.’s global competitiveness. He highlighted how China and other countries are pursuing clean energy technology innovations. He then discussed how there have occurred “historic” announcements in the U.S. clean energy sector since the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s enactment, including more than 142,000 clean energy jobs. He added that the law is projected to create a total of 9 million clean energy jobs. He mentioned how many of the jobs created under the law come from incentives to onshore and reshore domestic manufacturing in the energy space. He asked Mr. Higgins to discuss the benefits of onshoring this domestic manufacturing and to address how these benefits will result in more jobs and energy access (particularly in energy communities).
  • Mr. Higgins highlighted how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 contains a 10 percent bonus tax credit for investments that occur within energy communities. He noted that the definition of energy communities includes communities with brownfield sites, coal communities with high unemployment, and/or communicates with a disproportionate amount of their employment coming from fossil fuels. He stated that these communities are prone to cyclicality in their employment levels. He asserted that the law’s targeting of investments in new clean energy construction and manufacturing in energy communities will provide the communities with long-term economic support. He remarked that these investments will support the U.S.’s global competitiveness in clean energy technologies. He stated that China has long understood the importance of clean energy technologies and commented that the U.S. is now working to catch up with China’s clean energy investments.
• Ranking Member Pallone remarked that Congress should reject efforts to rollback provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL):

• Rep. Palmer first remarked that China is not seeking to solve climate change and is instead seeking to become the world’s sole superpower. He then asked Mr. Mills to indicate whether clean energy is environmentally friendly.
  • Mr. Mills answered no. He commented that clean energy “at best” is no more environmentally friendly than any other form of energy.
• Rep. Palmer remarked that clean energy can be an “environmental disaster” given its mining requirements and refining requirements. He also lamented that the U.S. does not engage in domestic mining and refining and instead relies upon China for these activities. He expressed doubts as to whether there exists a smelter for rare earth elements within the western hemisphere.
  • Mr. Mills noted how 90 percent of the world’s rare earth refining is located in China and highlighted how rare earth elements mined in the U.S. are sent to China for refining. He then discussed how the environmental impacts of energy are universal by nature. He noted that while China has deliberately worked to dominate the global mining and refining markets, he stated that China does not dominate the world’s most popular energy resources. He highlighted how 84 percent of the world’s current energy is hydrocarbon-based. He noted how the world has spent between $5 trillion and $10 trillion on efforts to avoid hydrocarbons over the previous two decades. He indicated that the world only generates about 3 percent of its energy using wind and solar resources, despite the aforementioned investments.
• Rep. Palmer then discussed how it takes an “enormous” amount of cement, steel, and plastics to build wind turbines and solar panels. He noted how 50 percent of the world’s steel comes from China, over 60 percent of the world’s cement comes from China, and over 30 percent of the world’s plastics come from China. He emphasized that natural gas is key to producing these materials.
  • Mr. Mills remarked that natural gas, coal, and oil are needed to produce cement, steel, and plastics.
• Rep. Palmer interjected to ask Mr. Mills to indicate whether it is technically impossible and unwise to eliminate the energy sector’s use of hydrocarbons (and particularly natural gas).
  • Mr. Mills noted how the IEA has stated that it would be impossible to eliminate the use of oil, coal, and natural gas in minerals production and processing within the scales and timelines being proposed.
• Rep. Palmer interjected to note that the IEA has also stated that the world will not achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 under any scenario.
  • Mr. Mills further mentioned how Bill Gates has stated that achieving net zero carbon dioxide emissions would have no meaningful impact on climate change modeling scenarios.
• Rep. Palmer remarked that he is not opposed to renewable energy sources. He asserted however that the U.S. cannot have a sustainable economy and support emerging economies through relying solely on renewable energy sources. He also stated that the U.S. should pursue next generation nuclear energy technologies. He then discussed how the lifecycle of a wind turbine is only about 25 years and how wind turbine blades cannot be recycled. He noted that the inability to recycle wind turbine blades forces the U.S. to bury large amounts of these blades in landfills. He asked Mr. Mills to indicate whether the burying of wind turbine blades constitutes an environmental problem.
  • Mr. Mills remarked that massive waste production that cannot be recycled is by definition an environmental problem. He stated that while a method may eventually be developed to recycle wind turbine blades, he commented that any such method currently remains in the experimental phase.
• Rep. Palmer added that wind turbines are currently very expensive. He then disputed the assertion that Subcommittee Republicans are prioritizing pollution over people and stated that Subcommittee Republicans are committed to ensuring that the U.S. maintains a safe environment. He also questioned the claims that climate change is causing asthma and noted how the CDC has stated that the causes of asthma remain unknown. He speculated however that economic conditions have an impact on asthma rates and stated that addressing the U.S.’s economic issues can thus help to combat asthma.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO):

• Rep. DeGette first stated that people that live downwind from refineries in economically depressed areas are at greater risk for asthma. She then remarked that the U.S. is attempting to make progress on addressing climate change after decades of inaction and denial. She stated that all of the experts that she was aware of have called for the U.S. to reduce its emissions and to transition to clean energy sources as soon as possible. She asked Mr. Higgins to indicate whether the U.S.’s failure to take action to address climate change will lead to further degradation of the environment.
  • Mr. Higgins answered affirmatively. He stated that the climate investments from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the IIJA are “essential” for providing the U.S. with an opportunity to stabilize climate change.
• Rep. DeGette asked Mr. Higgins to indicate whether experts believe that aggressive action on climate change from the U.S. will help to address extreme weather events and declined economic productivity.
  • Mr. Higgins remarked that the science is “very clear” that every increment of emissions reduction will reduce peak warming and the date at which the world can achieve stable global temperatures.
• Rep. DeGette also asked Mr. Higgins to indicate whether making progress on addressing climate change will impact developing countries.
  • Mr. Higgins remarked that the developing world and poorer parts of the developed world are more exposed to the impacts of climate change. He asserted that these regions would therefore be the primary beneficiaries of emissions reduction technologies that slow the pace of climate change and provide more time for climate change adaptation.
• Rep. DeGette asked Mr. Higgins to indicate whether he agreed with the assertions that the U.S. cannot meaningfully impact climate change by 2050 and therefore should not pursue policies to combat climate change.
  • Mr. Higgins expressed disagreement with these assertions. He mentioned how the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just released a synthesis report that builds upon decades of science. He noted that the IPCC had found that fossil fuel combustion is primarily responsible for climate change and that human action could resolve climate change.
• Rep. DeGette asked Mr. Higgins to indicate whether the U.S. currently possesses the technology needed to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
  • Mr. Higgins remarked that the U.S. currently possesses the technology needed to “substantially” reduce and achieve net zero greenhouse gasses by 2050. He also emphasized that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s investments are not confined to any single technology. He noted how the law makes investments in nuclear technology, biofuels, and carbon capture and sequestration technology (as well as wind and solar energy technologies).
• Rep. DeGette asked Mr. Higgins to confirm that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 does not mandate that the U.S. achieve net zero emissions through the exclusive use of wind and solar energy sources.
  • Mr. Higgins confirmed that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 does not mandate that the U.S. achieve net zero emissions through the exclusive use of wind and solar energy sources.
• Rep. DeGette asserted that the U.S. will need to pursue a technology-neutral approach to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
  • Mr. Higgins expressed agreement with Rep. DeGette’s assertion. He stated that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s tax credits change the paradigm for federal energy subsidies so that they are not technology specific. He noted how the U.S. tax code will reward any technology that can be zero emissions by 2025.
• Rep. DeGette asked Mr. Higgins to indicate whether scientists believe that achieving net zero emissions by 2050 will impact climate change.
  • Mr. Higgins answered affirmatively. He remarked that achieving net zero emissions by 2050 would likely put the U.S. in range to constrain global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius with limited overshoot. He stated that if the U.S. cannot achieve net zero emissions by 2050, then the U.S. is unlikely to contain the pace of climate change this century.
• Rep. DeGette then asked Mr. Higgins to provide recommendations for making the U.S. no longer reliant on critical minerals production from countries with poor human rights records.
  • Mr. Higgins noted how China currently refines the majority of the world’s critical minerals and commented that China is driving many of the labor abuses at critical minerals mines throughout the world. He mentioned how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provides investments to develop a domestic U.S. supply chain and processing capacity that will maintain higher human rights standards. He also stated that this U.S. domestic supply chain and processing capacity will complement the supply chains and processing capacities of allied countries.
• Rep. DeGette interjected to comment that Australia is an allied country who can work with the U.S. on these efforts.

Subcommittee Vice Chair John Joyce (R-PA):

• Vice Chair Joyce remarked that there exist “significant drawbacks” associated with the adoption of wind energy sources, solar energy sources, EVs, and electric stoves. He noted how the U.S. has been a global leader in reducing emissions and attributed this leadership to the U.S.’s harnessing of its natural gas resources. He highlighted how his commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a major producer of natural gas resources and noted how the EPA has found that natural gas has reduced U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent between 2005 and 2021. He remarked that Congress could not allow misguided government policies to undermine this progress and commented that these policies will harm Americans. He specifically discussed the U.S. Department of Energy’s proposed efficiency standards for distribution transformers and stated that his Congressional District’s utilities and electric cooperatives are experiencing a “critical” shortage of energy grid components. He asserted that the U.S. Department of Energy’s proposed rule will “fully upend” a domestic supply chain for the main steel component in distribution transformers to achieve an efficiency increase of just 0.29 percent. He stated that the U.S. Department of Energy’s proposed rule would leave the U.S. reliant on foreign imports, create a more acute supply crisis for critical energy grid components, and sacrifice “family sustaining” jobs in Pennsylvania. He then criticized the Biden administration’s efforts to promote EV adoption and stated that EVs cannot fulfill the needs of his constituents. He elaborated that EVs have limited towing capacities, cannot maintain charges at extreme temperatures, and cannot recharge fast enough. He mentioned how he had introduced the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, which would prevent the EPA from granting a waiver that would allow for California to ban internal combustion sales by 2035. He noted that while California’s regulation would apply only to California, he asserted that this regulation will impact the entire U.S. and disrupt the U.S. automobile market. He stated that President Biden wants to force Americans to purchase EVs and commented that this policy will harm working class and middle class families through making cars more expensive and less capable. He contended that the U.S. must pursue free market policies to achieve efficient and affordable transportation. He then discussed how the IEA projects that EV adoption will reach 15 percent by 2030. He stated however that President Biden is seeking to mandate that 67 percent of the U.S.’s vehicles be EVs by 2032. He asked Dr. Nunes to indicate whether it is realistic for there to occur a 53 percent increase in the U.S.’s adoption of EVs between 2030 and 2032.
  • Dr. Nunes commented that it would be “challenging” for the U.S. to significantly increase its adoption of EVs during this period. He also stated that policymakers should distinguish between EV sales and the U.S. national vehicle fleet’s propulsion profile. He noted how EV proponents often cite Norway as an example of a country that sells many EVs. He stated that Norway’s increase in EV sales coincides with an increase in the total number of vehicles in Norway. He commented that this trend should not be considered beneficial and that this trend suggests that people are purchasing EVs as second or third vehicles.
• Vice Chair Joyce asked Dr. Nunes to indicate whether it is economically plausible for middle class and working class Americans to purchase second or third vehicles.
  • Dr. Nunes stated that high income earners tend to disproportionately own EVs.
• Vice Chair Joyce called this dynamic “very concerning” and noted how many of his constituents are working class. He asked Dr. Nunes to indicate whether American families are willing to replace their primary internal combustion vehicles with EVs.
  • Dr. Nunes remarked that if EVs are to become the de facto choice for middle- and low-income Americans, then EVs will need to have significantly larger ranges and more interior space.
• Vice Chair Joyce interjected to comment that EVs currently do not have large ranges and ample interior space. He also noted how EVs cost between 40 percent and 50 percent more than traditional internal combustion vehicles. He commented that his constituents cannot afford these additional costs. He then noted how automobile sales have fluctuated since 2005. He asked Dr. Nunes to indicate whether the U.S.’s current regulatory environment will support the production of sufficient EV supplies.
  • Dr. Nunes stated that while there exists “considerable reason for optimism” regarding the U.S.’s vehicle production capabilities, he asserted that there will be significant challenges associated with meeting the EPA’s de facto emissions standards.
• Vice Chair Joyce remarked that the Subcommittee recognizes the challenges associated with meeting the EPA’s emissions standards.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL):

• Rep. Schakowsky discussed how the U.S. House of Representatives will soon vote on the debt ceiling proposal from Congressional Republicans and stated that this proposal includes policies that will result in more pollution. She commented that this increased pollution will especially impact low-income communities. She noted how this debt ceiling proposal would repeal the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and highlighted how this law contains the High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Act (HEEHRA) Program. She asked Mr. Higgins to discuss the consequences of eliminating the HEEHRA Program to private sector investors and consumers.
  • Mr. Higgins called the HEEHRA Program an “excellent” program. He explained that this Program rebates low-income households up to 100 percent of the costs associated with replacing household appliances powered by fossil fuels with high-efficient electric alternatives. He commented that this Program ensures that all households can access energy efficient appliances. He also noted how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 contains tax credits for heat pumps for higher income households, training for contractors, and manufacturing support for companies to produce the heat pumps. He stated that these policies will improve indoor air quality and reduce fossil fuel demand for the housing sector through addressing all of the elements of the supply chain and the consumer experience.
• Rep. Schakowsky also discussed how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 includes tax credits to encourage workforce development and apprenticeship programs. She noted how the U.S. currently has 650,000 unfilled jobs. She asked Mr. Higgins to provide recommendations for the Subcommittee on ways to expand the U.S. workforce.
  • Mr. Higgins remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is driving gains in job growth in clean energy industries and improving job quality through tying incentives across eight different tax credits to prevailing wage requirements and apprenticeship requirements. He stated that these provisions will support the development of high-quality jobs and job training efforts. He also mentioned how the law contains a new advisory board that is meant to identify areas where there exist skill gaps. He suggested that Congress focus on these areas to ensure that the U.S. possesses the skilled workforce needed to build its clean energy economy.
• Rep. Schakowsky asked Mr. Higgins to discuss the U.S.’s workforce training programs for the clean energy sector.
  • Mr. Higgins noted how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 includes funding for disadvantaged communities to ensure that these communities can make use of the law’s investments. He indicated that this funding includes the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant Program and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. He stated that Congress could build upon these workforce development programs and mentioned how the Build Back Better Act (which did not become law) had included additional workforce development programs. He commented that these workforce development programs and investments will ensure that the U.S. possesses a sufficient workforce to remain globally competitive.

Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA):

• Rep. Allen expressed interest in identifying the cost to meet the Biden administration’s climate change goals. He stated that the U.S. is already the global leader in reducing carbon dioxide emissions and raised concerns that increased spending on these efforts could undermine the U.S.’s fiscal sustainability. He then discussed how many renewable energy technologies require critical materials that come from foreign sources and noted how China is a major supplier of these materials. He asserted that the U.S. should not be dependent on its adversaries for critical materials. He stated that the U.S. should work to domestically source critical materials if it seeks to increase the deployment of renewable energy technologies and EVs. He lamented how permitting challenges limit the U.S.’s ability to pursue domestic mining projects. He noted how the U.S. is 100 percent reliant on the imports for 17 critical minerals and heavily dependent on other countries for 28 of the 50 critical minerals identified by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). He highlighted how China is the top producer for most of these critical materials. He asked Mr. Mills to discuss the national security risks associated with relying almost entirely on critical mineral inputs from other countries (such as China).
  • Mr. Mills remarked that the U.S.’s dependence on foreign countries for critical materials creates geopolitical risks. He noted how Congress has been working to address the U.S.’s critical mineral dependencies for 70 years. He contended that the only way for the U.S. to address these dependencies would be to modify its regulations to encourage the domestic mining and refining of critical minerals and commented that the U.S. has never taken this approach. He stated that the U.S. has instead increased its dependencies on other countries for critical minerals. He noted how the U.S. gets 100 percent of 17 critical minerals through imports and how the U.S. imports between 50 percent and 80 percent of an additional 20 critical minerals. He remarked that the U.S. will increase these critical mineral needs “by orders of magnitude” through building new renewable energy technology assembly plants in the U.S.
• Rep. Allen asked Mr. Simmons to provide recommendations for ensuring that the U.S. is not reliant on China for critical mineral inputs.
  • Mr. Simmons remarked that the U.S. will need to massively increase the number of domestic mines and commented that this will entail greater permitting of mines. He highlighted the new Thacker Pass lithium mine in Nevada and thanked the Biden administration for moving forward on this mine. He stated however that the U.S. needs many more mines and that the world needs 42 times more lithium than is currently being produced. He commented that this lithium will need to come from multiple different locations.
• Rep. Allen asked Mr. Simmons to address whether there are significant fluctuations in critical mineral prices that can impact the adoption of clean energy technologies.
  • Mr. Simmons stated that there has been a great deal of energy price inflation in recent years. He commented that this price inflation would only worsen unless there is more critical mineral production.
• Rep. Allen stated that the Biden administration’s “war on fossil fuel” has increased input costs for all businesses, which is hampering economic growth.

Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA):

• Rep. Ruiz discussed how his Congressional District produces the most renewable energy on federal land in the U.S. He stated that climate change and pollution are real and are disproportionately impacting underserved, marginalized, and under-resourced communities. He remarked that these challenges provide the U.S. with opportunities to expand the positive impacts of clean energy. He discussed how lithium batteries are a “critical” component of EVs and stated that these batteries can support the U.S.’s grid reliability. He commented that the safe and responsible deployment of lithium batteries can benefit the U.S.’s national security, economy, and energy independence. He mentioned how his Congressional District contains a large supply of raw materials that can support clean energy technologies. He highlighted how his Congressional District contains the world’s fifth largest deposit of lithium and commented that this deposit can supply the lithium needed for EVs and electric grid batteries. He remarked that investing in responsible methods for lithium extraction will be critical to the well-being of local communities. He asked Mr. Higgins to discuss the importance of maintaining high environmental standards for domestic mining and mineral extraction to ensure the safety of communities. He also asked Mr. Higgins to address how these high environmental standards will strengthen supply chains in the long-term.
  • Mr. Higgins remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 makes the progress of finding mining opportunities that can garner the support of their local communities easier through supporting 10 percent of the costs of extracting lithium and through providing $1 billion in staffing support to federal agencies so that they can conduct environmental reviews. He stated that lithium extraction from the Salton Sea in Rep. Ruiz’s Congressional District could solve multiple problems, including addressing toxic dust. He remarked that pursuing domestic mining and mineral extraction projects in a manner that garners the support of local communities and considers environmental impacts will ensure that the U.S. maintains globally superior environmental and labor practices for these projects.
• Rep. Ruiz then called the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 a “critical first step” for the U.S.’s transition to clean energy and stated that the law’s investments are already beginning to produce jobs and health benefits. He mentioned how his Congressional District contains the Crimson Energy Storage project, which is currently the second largest energy storage project in the world. He noted how this project had been constructed using union labor. He then asked Mr. Higgins to elaborate on the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s health benefits (specifically for low-income communities and communities of color).
  • Mr. Higgins discussed how harmful air pollution is disproportionately concentrated in communities of color. He noted how over 9 million of the 13 million people of color that live in U.S. areas with failing grades for ozone and particulate pollution are Hispanic. He added that more than 1.8 million Latinos live within half a mile of high-emitting industrial facilities and oil refineries. He commented that the burdens associated with fossil fuels are not equitably distributed across the U.S. population.
• Rep. Ruiz noted how the medical literature and recent research shows that individuals living in and near high-polluted cities and areas live ten years less on average relative to individuals living in and near non-polluted cities. He remarked that Congress must address the “climate crisis” to improve the well-being of Americans.

Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH):

• Rep. Balderson remarked that the sheer size of U.S. oil and natural gas production combined with the U.S.’s excellent environmental standards means that U.S. oil and natural gas production disproportionately reduces the harms of oil and natural gas production on a global scale. He stated that the Biden administration has taken multiple actions to curtail the U.S.’s domestic oil and natural gas production. He also noted that the Biden administration has also worked to expand renewable energy projects, including solar and wind energy projects. He asked Mr. Simmons to project the impact on global emissions if the U.S. were to transition entirely to renewable energy sources.
  • Mr. Simmons remarked that the U.S. has a “very good” environmental record. He noted how the U.S. has “dramatically” increased its oil and natural gas production while continuing to improve the environment. He highlighted how the U.S. has lowered its overall air pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions. He stated that moving oil and natural gas production abroad results in greater overall pollution.
• Rep. Balderson noted how EVs currently account for just 1 percent of the U.S.’s 250 million vehicles, sports utility vehicles (SUVs), and light-duty trucks. He also stated that the increased adoption of EVs will impose additional strains on the U.S. electrical grid, which could pose national security risks. He mentioned how a recent PJM Interconnection report of their service area (which includes his Congressional District) warns that the pace of retirement and closure of generation resources could “well outpace” the replacement of that generation with new renewable energy sources. He noted that this report indicates that this trend could force PJM Interconnection’s service area to fall below the level of reserves needed to maintain reliability by 2030. He asked Mr. Simmons to indicate whether he has concerns regarding the potential increased demands on the U.S.’s electrical grid if the EPA were to finalize its vehicle emissions standards proposal. He explained that this proposal would require that EVs account for 67 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales by 2032.
  • Mr. Simmons answered affirmatively. He mentioned how he had discussed the impacts of increasing the U.S.’s adoption of EVs on the U.S.’s electric grid with U.S. Department of Energy staff during his tenure at the Department. He noted that the U.S. Department of Energy staff had told him that the U.S. could expand the U.S.’s electric grid. He stated however that the U.S. now maintains significantly more regulations than it had maintained when its electric grid had been initially constructed. He asserted that the U.S.’s current regulatory environment therefore makes it much more difficult for the U.S. to expand its electric grid. He mentioned how the Biden administration had just approved the TransWest Express Transmission Line Project and noted how the approval process for this project had taken 15 years to complete. He criticized the lengthy nature of this approval process and asserted that it is impractical to significantly expand the U.S.’s electric grid at the current time.
• Rep. Balderson also asked Mr. Simmons to comment on the natural security risks associated with losing the U.S. electric grid’s reliability.
  • Mr. Simmons remarked that the U.S.’s national security is dependent on a strong energy economy and reliable energy. He stated that the failure of the U.S.’s electric grid would therefore harm the U.S.’s national security.
• Rep. Balderson then yielded the remainder of his question period time to Subcommittee Chairman Bill Johnson (R-OH).

Subcommittee Chairman Bill Johnson (R-OH):

• Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Mills to explain how renewable energy sources with low energy densities and the electrification of the economy could increase the material in U.S. landfills.
  • Mr. Mills discussed how the low density associated with wind and solar energy machines translates to a roughly tenfold increase in land use and a threefold increase in machine use.
• Chairman Johnson interjected to comment that the U.S. will need to deploy a significant number of wind and solar energy machines to meet its energy needs.
  • Mr. Mills noted that while wind and solar energy machines are eventually recyclable, he stated that the increased buildout of new wind and solar machines will not produce materials available for recycling within the near-term. He remarked that there will need to occur a “massive” expansion in global mining to support the construction of new wind and solar machines. He stated that this mining would not occur domestically because the U.S.’s environmental standards are not conducive to new domestic mining projects. He contended that the increased construction of wind and solar energy machines will effectively export the U.S.’s pollution to foreign countries. He commented that the people in these foreign countries are less able to defend themselves from predatory mining practices. He also highlighted how Chinese-run firms largely run the mines in these countries.
• Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Mills to indicate whether it will become easier or quicker for the U.S. to permit new landfill capacity for renewable technology waste.
  • Mr. Mills noted that Congress and states have not pursued environmental regulatory reforms. He stated that environmental regulations will dictate manufacturing, refining, permitting, and waste disposal practices.

Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD):

• Rep. Sarbanes expressed confusion regarding the opposition to having the U.S. swiftly adopt clean energy technologies. He stated that there is strong public support for adopting clean energy technologies and that Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration are working to respond to this demand. He commented that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was meant to respond to this public demand. He remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the IIJA, and President Biden’s climate change-related executive orders (EOs) will support the U.S.’s efforts to respond to the threats posed by climate change. He asserted that these policies will create new jobs, strengthen domestic energy production, and combat climate change. He asked Mr. Higgins to elaborate on how the aforementioned policies will address climate change.
  • Mr. Higgins noted that the climate investments from the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the IIJA are projected to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by up to 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. He commented that while these greenhouse gas emissions reductions are beneficial, he called these emissions reductions alone insufficient. He stated however that these investments are enabling further action through changing the economics of clean energy, addressing the affordability of clean energy for U.S. households, and supporting state environmental planning efforts. He remarked that these investments along with federal and state regulatory actions will make it possible for the U.S. to achieve its goal of reducing emissions by 50 percent. He also stated that these investments change the economics and politics of global diplomacy on clean energy. He commented that these investments will make it possible for other countries to address climate change, which will be key to meeting overall greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals and stabilizing global temperatures at 1.5 degrees Celsius.
• Rep. Sarbanes remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 empowers the U.S. to meaningfully address climate change. He expressed hope that the U.S. will address climate change before its impacts become fully irreversible. He commended Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration for working to build upon previous climate change-related policies. He noted however that there have been calls for the U.S. to scale back or reverse these efforts and commented that this approach would benefit the oil and natural gas industries at the expense of the public. He asked Mr. Higgins to explain how the U.S.’s recent actions to combat climate change can address the “pressing” environmental and economic concerns of Americans. He also asked Mr. Higgins to address how the proposed rollbacks of the Inflation Reduction Act’s provisions (such as those rollbacks included in the debt ceiling proposal from Congressional Republicans) would result in reduced environmental and economic benefits.
  • Mr. Higgins remarked that the U.S.’s recent climate change-related investments to make clean energy more available and affordable will provide tangible benefits to ordinary Americans. He indicated that these benefits include saving 4,500 lives by 2030 through reduced air pollution, reducing household energy costs, and creating more than 140,000 jobs. He further commented that these benefits will increase the public’s recognition of the need to address climate change.

Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA):

• Rep. Miller-Meeks noted how there exist renewable energy sources beyond wind and solar energy, including geothermal energy, hydropower, ethanol, and biodiesel. She discussed how more than 98 percent of the U.S.’s gasoline contains some ethanol and commented that ethanol is an option for low-carbon liquid fuels. She mentioned how ethanol had supported more than 57,000 Iowa jobs, generated $3.5 billion of income for Iowans, and accounted for nearly $7.2 billion of Iowa’s economy in 2022. She warned that the U.S.’s failure to produce corn domestically will lead other countries (such as Brazil) to produce corn and commented that these other countries will cut down rainforest land to produce the corn. She raised concerns over the Biden administration’s policies regarding liquid fuels. She discussed how the U.S. has over 300 million passenger vehicles and indicated that this figure does not account for logistical transport. She noted that an EV can travel just 100 miles on a 30-kilowatt hour charge. She remarked that the Biden administration is seeking to support EVs at the expense of U.S. consumers and Iowa ethanol through the EPA’s proposed set rule and the EPA’s “market commandeering” standards for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles. She commented that the EPA’s proposed set rule would create a statutorily unauthorized program to incorporate EVs into the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program. She asked the witnesses to address how these Biden administration policies will increase costs for American families.
  • Dr. Nunes stated that the EPA’s proposed fuel economy standards will cost American families with internal combustion engine vehicles thousands of dollars based on the EPA’s figures. He estimated that these proposed standards would increase the cost of a conventional vehicle by at least $2,000. He noted that while the sale of EVs could enable compliance with the EPA’s proposed fuel economy standards, he asserted that this approach has challenges. He described the economics of building EVs as “challenging. He also mentioned how many original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) do not make profits from EV sales, even when the EVs cost $60,000.
• Rep. Miller-Meeks asked Dr. Nunes to indicate the power source for EVs.
  • Dr. Nunes noted that the power source for EVs depends on the state where the EV driver lives. He indicated that power sources for EVs can include coal, natural gas, and renewable energy sources.
• Rep. Miller-Meeks then mentioned how the IEA had estimated that the demand for lithium will increase by 43 times during the next 20 years. She noted how the U.S. produces less than 2 percent of the world’s lithium supply. She stated that the mining of critical minerals and rare earth materials is neither environmentally friendly nor labor friendly. She asked Mr. Simmons to indicate whether the U.S. possesses sufficient lithium reserves to satisfy expected future lithium demand.
  • Mr. Simmons stated that the U.S. does not necessarily have sufficient lithium reserves to meet global demand for lithium. He noted that the U.S. does maintain large amounts of lithium reserves. He questioned whether the U.S. could access these lithium reserves and whether the Biden administration will continue to prevent the U.S. from accessing these reserves.
• Rep. Miller-Meeks asked Mr. Simmons to indicate whether having the U.S. solely rely upon allies to make up lithium production and refining deficits would constitute a sustainable long-term strategy. She also asked Mr. Simmons to address whether this approach would be environmentally and labor friendly.
  • Mr. Simmons stated that the U.S. maintains some of the world’s best environmental and labor standards. He contended that exporting the production and refining of critical minerals to other countries would therefore result in lower environmental and labor standards.

Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-CA):

• Rep. Barragán discussed how Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration had passed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the IIJA in order to support domestic clean energy manufacturing jobs and to invest in clean energy technologies. She then noted how the U.S.’s defense and intelligence leaders have identified climate change as a current national security risk for the U.S. She also stated that climate change is impacting global stability and military readiness, creating humanitarian crises, and increasing the risk of war. She then mentioned how Subcommittee Republicans have claimed that clean energy technologies are being forced upon Americans. She stated however that many Americans are currently being forced to deal with urban oil drilling. She commented that his urban oil drilling is causing her constituents to suffer from air pollution and health problems. She highlighted how fossil fuel extraction infrastructure is harming many low-income communities and communities of color. She asked Mr. Higgins to indicate whether clean energy technologies are being forced upon environmental justice communities or if these communities are voluntarily pursuing clean energy technologies for health and environmental reasons.
  • Mr. Higgins remarked that clean energy technologies have health and environmental benefits. He mentioned how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s investments are estimated to save up to 4,500 lives by the end of the decade and nearly 125,000 asthma attacks annually. He noted that the U.S.’s pollution burdens are not equitably distributed and are instead concentrated in communities of color and low-income communities. He stated that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2202’s investments will help communities of color and low-income communities to avoid pollution through making clean energy technology options available for these communities. He emphasized that these laws do not force these communities to pursue clean energy technologies.
• Rep. Barragán then criticized Congressional Republicans for recently passing legislation that would exempt refineries that use highly toxic hydrofluoric acid from completing hazard assessments or assessments of safer technology options. She mentioned how the United Steelworkers had opposed the legislation. She accused Congressional Republicans of only raising worker safety concerns when the concerns suit their argument. She stated that Congressional Democrats are working to create good-paying clean energy jobs that benefit communities. She asked Mr. Higgins to address how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 supports the creation of more responsible and sustainable energy jobs and energy supply chains.
  • Mr. Higgins highlighted how the Inflation Reduction Act ties clean energy incentives to requirements for apprenticeship programs and prevailing wages. He stated that this approach will ensure that the clean energy economy will have higher job quality and will support career paths for Americans.

Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA):

• Rep. Carter expressed concerns that many climate change policy debates tend to ignore the issue of renewable energy technology waste. He mentioned how his Congressional District contains a significant amount of biomass and highlighted how biomass is a carbon neutral energy source. He discussed how is state of Georgia is working to address climate change through deploying solar panels, nuclear energy, EV manufacturing, and battery manufacturing. He reiterated his concerns that climate change debates often fail to consider the full lifecycle of many energy sources. He also noted how China is the global leader in hydrocarbon pollution and highlighted how the U.S. has decreased its carbon emissions more than the next 12 countries combined over the previous decade. He contended that the U.S. should pursue an “all of the above” energy strategy that involves fossil fuels and natural gas. He then noted how only 5 percent of all lithium-ion batteries for EVs are being recycled. He indicated that 99.3 percent of lead-acid batteries for traditional gasoline-powered vehicles are being recycled by contrast. He asked Mr. Mills to indicate the best way for addressing the end-of-life disposal issues associated with EVs.
  • Mr. Mills noted how EV batteries are mechanically and electrically complex machines that each weigh around 1,000 pounds. He discussed how EV batteries contain thousands of components, including chemicals, electronic pieces, and cooling systems. He noted how EV batteries are typically dismantled by hand and indicated that it takes between one and two days for a technician to dismantle a single lithium-ion battery. He commented that this process is chemically and electrically hazardous. He stated that while it is technically possible to recycle EV batteries, he also noted that it is “very expensive” to recycle EV batteries. He further noted that EV batteries will not be available for recycling until the EVs wear out.
• Rep. Carter asked Mr. Mills to indicate the best way for addressing the end-of-life disposal issues associated with wind turbine blades.
  • Mr. Mills remarked that there currently does not exist a pathway for recycling wind turbine blades.
• Rep. Carter then noted how Mr. Simmons had suggested that the U.S. could address the human rights problems associated with critical minerals production and refining through moving these production and refining activities to the U.S. He asked Mr. Simmons to address how the U.S. can expand its domestic critical minerals production and refining activities under the Biden administration’s current policies.
  • Mr. Simmons remarked that the U.S. cannot expand its domestic critical minerals production and refining activities under the Biden administration’s current policies.
• Rep. Carter reiterated his assertion that federal policymakers must assess the environmental merits of potential energy sources based on their full lifecycles.

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX):

• Rep. Crenshaw discussed how “green energy” sources require significantly more material execution and land space than traditional energy sources to produce the same amount of energy. He also stated that traditional energy sources tend not to have the same intermittency issues as renewable energy sources. He asserted that energy security should be considered a basic human right and warned that the increased adoption of renewable energy sources could undermine this security. He commented that the elimination of energy security will harm poor people, people of color, and disenfranchised populations. He mentioned how California had sought to aggressively adopt renewable energy sources and noted that this adoption has caused the state to experience higher energy costs relative to the rest of the U.S. He also mentioned how Germany had sought to eliminate their use of nuclear energy, which has caused the country’s energy costs to increase by 300 percent. He added that Germany has needed to resort to burning coal and wood to generate energy, which produce even more carbon dioxide emissions. He further stated that renewable energy technologies increase the likelihood of energy blackouts. He then noted how Mr. Mills’s written testimony had indicated that manufacturing a single battery capable of holding the amount of energy contained in a single barrel of oil entails processes that use the energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil. He asked Mr. Mills to elaborate on the materials and land needed to produce renewable energy technologies.
  • Mr. Mills mentioned how several international organizations (including the IEA and the World Bank) have published studies indicating that the fundamental infrastructures required to make and transport the minerals and materials needed for renewable energy technologies are all hydrocarbon-based (such as coal, oil, and natural gas). He also noted how mineral producing industries consume 40 percent of the world’s industrial energy. He stated that there currently is no pathway for replacing coal, oil, and natural gas at scale globally in the industrial sector. He remarked that the production of an EV thus entails the consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas, which results in carbon dioxide emissions. He indicated that there currently does not exist an estimate for these carbon dioxide emissions. He commended Volkswagen and Volvo for publishing studies that highlighted the carbon dioxide emissions associated with EV production and how these emissions “radically” reduce the climate change benefits of EVs. He acknowledged that driving an EV will eventually reduce carbon dioxide emissions relative to a conventional vehicle. He indicated however that these emissions reductions will only amount to between 15 percent and 20 percent. He remarked that the carbon dioxide emissions associated with producing renewable energy technologies tend to be ignored in emissions, geopolitical, and cost calculations. He elaborated that the increased costs of hydrocarbon energy sources increase the cost of renewable energy technologies.
• Rep. Crenshaw remarked that the U.S. must employ a cost-benefit analysis with respect to renewable energy technologies. He stated that the U.S. should pursue nuclear energy given its reliability and clean nature. He also stated that the U.S. should pursue natural gas exploration given its reliability, ability to displace foreign coal, and ability to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions. He further asserted that the U.S. should work to export its natural gas globally.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI):

• Rep. Dingell remarked that climate change will impact every aspect of American life. She stated that it will become more expensive and complex to address climate change the longer the U.S. waits to take action. She asserted that the U.S. must immediately invest in climate change technologies to reduce their costs and overall emissions. She then expressed interest in working to maintain the U.S. automobile industry’s global competitiveness and to protect the U.S. automobile industry’s workforce. She expressed concerns that the U.S. automobile industry is failing to adequately compete with other countries. She specifically asserted that China is outcompeting the U.S. in terms of clean energy technologies. She mentioned how sales of alternative propulsion vehicles had beaten the sales of internal combustion engine vehicles in Europe during the previous economic quarter. She emphasized the global nature of the automobile market and stated that U.S. companies should lead this market. She asserted that U.S. leadership in this market constitutes an economic security issue, an energy security issue, and a national security issue. She then discussed how automobile OEMs are working to bring down the cost of EVs and commented that scaling up EV production will be key to this effort. She mentioned how the U.S. transportation sector accounts for roughly 30 percent of the U.S.’s greenhouse gas emissions. She contended that the U.S. will need to “rapidly” shift its vehicle fleet to EVs or other alternative vehicle types (such as hydrogen-powered vehicles) in order to meet its climate change goals. She remarked that the U.S. should seek to achieve 50 percent EV sales by 2030. She stated that the major U.S. automobile companies (including General Motors and Ford) are actively pursuing EV development and deployment in response to domestic and global market pressures. She asked Mr. Higgins to discuss the risks associated with the U.S.’s failure to support its EV industry and alternative clean vehicle technologies.
  • Mr. Higgins thanked Rep. Dingell for her work on the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and asserted that this work would facilitate automobile industry investments. He stated that U.S. automobile manufacturers had previously lagged other countries in terms of developing and producing EVs and noted how China had long invested in consolidating their manufacturing capacity for advanced technologies (including EVs and EV batteries). He remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 supports investments across the EV supply chain (including critical minerals, EV batteries, and EVs). He noted how 32 EVs are currently eligible for the law’s EV tax credit and commented that the “overwhelming majority” of these EVs are from U.S. automobile manufacturers.

Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-ID):

• Rep. Fulcher mentioned how his state of Idaho contains the world’s largest antimony deposit that is not under Chinese control. He discussed how antimony is used in key defense and clean energy technologies and noted how the U.S. currently relies upon China and Russia for some of its antimony processing. He highlighted how the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) lists antimony and cobalt as materials of interest. He also mentioned how the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has concerns over the U.S.’s depleting stockpile of antimony and that this depletion could result in ammunition shortages. He asked Mr. Simmons to discuss the national security benefits of purchasing locally-produced critical minerals from both U.S. and allied sources.
  • Mr. Simmons noted how many of the minerals deemed critical by the USGS are used for military purposes and called it “critically important” that the U.S. obtain these critical minerals from trusted partners. He warned that the U.S.’s dependence on adversaries for critical minerals could prevent the U.S. from obtaining sufficient critical mineral supplies during periods of conflict. He noted that while the DoD might be able to satisfy their critical mineral needs during periods of conflict through using their reserves, he stated that the broader U.S. economy could lose access to these critical minerals during such periods.
• Rep. Fulcher mentioned how Idaho is facing challenges accessing its critical mineral deposits. He then discussed how the Pacific Northwest region is experiencing significant economic growth and stated that the region needs more power. He commented that density levels can vary significantly across power sources. He mentioned how the Northwest Power and Conservation Council had stated that replacing 3,400 megawatts of existing hydropower and nuclear power would require 5,500 megawatts of new wind and solar power (as well as 2,000 megawatts of natural gas). He asked Mr. Mills to explain why there is currently a push to replace high-density energy sources with low-density energy sources.
  • Mr. Mills remarked that the efforts to replace high-density energy sources with low-density energy sources are based on a desire to avoid the use of hydrocarbon energy sources and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He stated however that these efforts ignore the use of hydrocarbon energy sources (and their associated carbon dioxide emissions) in the total fuel cycle. He also stated that these efforts ignore the scale of the infrastructure and land use required to produce renewable energy sources. He mentioned how Germany’s pursuit of increased renewable energy sources has caused the country to double the size of its energy grid over a 20-year period, even though the country’s electricity consumption had only increased by 10 percent during this period. He stated that Germany’s energy policies have resulted in limited carbon dioxide emissions reductions and a tripling of consumer electricity costs. He contended that the U.S. should not attempt to emulate Germany’s clean energy policies based on the aforementioned economic consequences.
• Rep. Fulcher remarked that the U.S. has a wealth of available hydropower, geothermal power, and nuclear power. He stated that policymakers must decide whether to make use of these power resources.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL):

• Rep. Castor criticized the debt ceiling proposal from Congressional Republicans and stated that this proposal will increase energy and electric bills for U.S. families and businesses. She also asserted that this proposal will result in more pollution from fossil fuel companies. She mentioned how the Florida Public Service Commission had recently approved significant energy price spikes for the state’s residents. She stated that Tampa Electric customers can expect their energy bills to increase by about 10 percent starting this month and indicated that the average customer’s energy bill will have risen by 62 percent since 2019. She added that other energy utility companies servicing Florida markets (including Duke Energy and Florida Power & Light Company) will also increase their energy rates. She attributed these energy rate increases to Florida’s overreliance on natural gas for electricity production. She remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 could help to address Florida’s energy price increases through supporting the deployment of clean energy options, including solar energy and EVs. She also remarked that the law’s policies are supporting the creation of many domestic manufacturing jobs. She indicated that the law has supported the creation of over 142,000 jobs and $240 billion in new investments in U.S. communities. She further questioned the rationale for rolling back policies that support domestically- or allied-sourced critical minerals for batteries, domestic battery manufacturing, solar energy production, and wind energy production. She highlighted how China still holds most of the world’s manufacturing capacity for lithium-ion battery cells. She asked Mr. Higgins to discuss how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is supporting domestic solar energy manufacturing facilities.
  • Mr. Higgins stated that the U.S. had lost its solar energy manufacturing advantage to China as a result of China’s solar energy manufacturing subsidies. He remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s investments in new manufacturing capacity and incentives for energy projects containing certain levels of domestic content will support more domestic energy technology manufacturing. He stated that these policies are already supporting the creation of new U.S. manufacturing facilities for wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and EVs. He asserted that bringing these industries to the U.S. will provide the U.S. with better control over its supply chains and will enable the U.S. to globally compete with regard to clean energy technologies.
• Rep. Castor asked Mr. Higgins to address how the passage of the debt ceiling proposal from Congressional Republicans and the repeal of the Biden administration’s two-year pause on solar panel tariffs will impact U.S. jobs.
  • Mr. Higgins stated that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s policies will create up to 1 million jobs by 2030 and noted how 140,000 jobs have already been created since the law’s enactment. He remarked that repealing the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 would raise household energy costs, increase air pollution, and jeopardize many already created and soon to be created jobs. He also asserted that repealing this law would jeopardize private sector investments in clean energy and provide China with a geopolitical advantage.
• Rep. Castor asserted that Congress should not repeal the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI):

• Rep. Walberg first noted how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 has not yet been fully implemented and called on Congress to repeal the law. He then remarked that recent federal policies have sought to mandate EVs and commented that many automobile companies are surrendering to political pressures to produce EVs. He stated that the increased production of EVs will result in lost jobs and accused labor unions of acting against the best interests of their members. He contended that the U.S. should make its vehicle production decisions based on engineering considerations and consumer demands (rather than based on political pressures). He remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will harm the U.S. and benefit other countries with weaker environmental policies (including China). He stated that consumers are not demanding EVs and noted how EVs currently account for just 6 percent of car sales. He added that most of these EV sales are for second or third vehicles. He commented that most middle-income Americans do not desire EVs. He noted how Dr. Nunes had asserted that EVs will need substantially greater ranges and significantly lower costs before most American consumers will choose to adopt them as their primary vehicles. He highlighted how the most popular selling vehicles in the U.S. are currently SUVs and trucks. He asked Dr. Nunes to indicate whether current EVs meet the size and range needs of U.S. consumers.
  • Dr. Nunes answered no. He estimated that the price of EVs would need to decrease by between $10,000 and $15,000 and the range of EVs would need to increase by approximately 50 percent for EVs to become more popular with consumers.
• Rep. Walberg asked Dr. Nunes to indicate whether EVs are feasible for just wealthy buyers at the current time.
  • Dr. Nunes remarked that EVs cater to upper-income Americans at the current time.
• Rep. Walberg asked Dr. Nunes to indicate whether the greater production of EVs will necessarily lead to lower EV costs.
  • Dr. Nunes noted how increased production volumes have historically led to declining prices. He stated however that EVs have experienced price increases in terms of inflation-adjusted U.S. dollars, despite increased production.
• Rep. Walberg then mentioned how General Motors had just announced that it would end production of the Chevrolet Bolt. He noted how the Chevrolet Bolt is considered to be the cheapest EV that is currently available in the U.S. He noted how Dr. Nunes’s testimony had stated that the number of miles driven by an EV significantly influences any emissions advantage over gasoline-powered vehicles. He posited a scenario in which a wealthy family purchases an EV as a second or third vehicle. He asked Dr. Nunes to indicate how many miles this EV will need to be driven in order for the EV to reach emissions parity with an internal combustion engine vehicle.
  • Dr. Nunes stated that an EV acting as a second vehicle might need to be driven for at least ten years to achieve emissions parity with an internal combustion engine vehicle. He commented however that his answer is dependent on whether the EV is purchased as a new second car or is being used to replace an existing second car.
• Rep. Walberg commented that a ten-year old EV would have a low resale value because its battery would likely require replacement. He asked Dr. Nunes to indicate whether this low resale value could deter people from purchasing EVs.
  • Dr. Nunes answered affirmatively. He noted how the cheapest EV in the U.S. had cost $27,000 in 2022. He indicated that this model had only sold 12,000 units and that there are over 700,000 total EVs.

Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX):

• Rep. Pfluger raised concerns that the U.S.’s failure to use its own natural resources is enriching the CCP and fueling human rights violations. He applauded the Institute for Energy Research’s recent paper titled, “The Economic and Strategic Importance of Domestic Mineral Production.” He mentioned how this paper details the challenges of rapidly transitioning toward critical mineral intensive technologies and how the Biden administration is working to force electrification. He stated that mining companies are not sufficiently increasing their investment levels to meet projected mineral demands. He asked Mr. Simmons to recommend policies that could support domestic mining activities.
  • Mr. Simmons remarked that the U.S. requires “massive” permitting reform and recommended that Congress build upon the proposals in the Lower Energy Costs Act. He noted how mining projects are very capital intensive and must undergo extensive regulatory reviews. He asserted that the regulatory reviews for mining projects must be shortened if the U.S. seeks to domestically produce critical minerals.
• Rep. Pfluger remarked that the quantity of critical minerals needed to produce an EV is “massively different” than the quantity of critical minerals needed to produce smartphones and tablets. He then noted how U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm had recently stated that the U.S. could learn lessons from China’s approach to clean energy technologies. He asked Mr. Mills to indicate whether China should be viewed as a role model for clean energy.
  • Mr. Mills remarked that China is leading the world in terms of building the infrastructure for exporting the critical minerals needed to support clean energy machines. He noted however that China is a net-importer of oil and gasoline and described China as a hydrocarbon-based economy. He stated that domestically manufacturing battery cells and battery packs and domestically assembling solar panels would not change the fact that most solar modules are fabricated on coal-powered energy grids in China. He noted how the solar module fabrication process is very energy intensive. He added that most of the chemicals used in solar module fabrication are produced using coal-powered energy grids in China. He remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s incentives for clean energy technologies are making the U.S. more dependent on China for its energy needs. He also stated that the law’s incentives are not leading to more mining of critical minerals in the U.S. or in foreign countries. He noted that the global mining industry’s total investments to produce the critical minerals needed for clean energy technologies have been declining for years. He mentioned how recent data has indicated that the global mining industry’s activities will only provide one-tenth of what is needed to support the U.S.’s clean energy technology ambitions over the next decade. He noted how it takes an average of 16 years to open a new mine in the U.S. and emphasized that new mines are not being opened en masse. He stated that the mining industry is consolidating and is not pursuing new production. He commented that these trends suggest that the mining industry does not view it as economically viable to pursue new mining projects.
• Rep. Pfluger called the Biden’s “rush” to electrification unrealistic and asserted that this approach is emboldening China. He stated that the lifecycle emissions of EVs are much worse than the lifecycle emissions of current conventional vehicles.
  • Mr. Mills expressed agreement with Rep. Pfluger’s statement. He also raised concerns over Chile’s recent call to nationalize its lithium industry and form a lithium cartel in South America. He stated that this potential South American lithium cartel would have greater pricing power over lithium than OPEC’s pricing power over oil.
• Rep. Pfluger asked the witnesses to address how the U.S.’s dependence on foreign countries for critical minerals impact U.S. national security.
  • Mr. Mills remarked that the U.S.’s dependence on foreign countries for critical minerals has a negative impact on U.S. national security. He stated that it is difficult to project the extent of this impact because the U.S. is shuffling its resource dependencies. He noted that while some of these resource dependencies are moving toward allied countries (such as Canada and Australia), he indicated that most of these resource dependencies are moving toward countries that are hostile to the U.S.
• Rep. Pfluger called it important for the U.S. to maintain its critical mineral resources and to pursue sustainable energy policies. He asserted that the U.S.’s current pursuit of clean energy technologies is not sustainable.