Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


	BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH
	FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

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

	HEARING

	BEFORE THE

	SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

	OF THE

	COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
	AND TECHNOLOGY
	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION

	__________

	MARCH 25, 2021

	__________

	Serial No. 117-7

	__________

	Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

	[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


	Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

	__________

	U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
	43-798PDF WASHINGTON : 2021

	-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


	COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

	HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
	ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
	SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
	AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
	HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, BILL POSEY, Florida
	Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
	MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey BRIAN BABIN, Texas
	JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
	BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
	ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
	JERRY McNERNEY, California PETE SESSIONS, Texas
	PAUL TONKO, New York DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
	BILL FOSTER, Illinois MIKE GARCIA, California
	DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
	DON BEYER, Virginia YOUNG KIM, California
	CHARLIE CRIST, Florida RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
	SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
	CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
	DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina JAY OBERNOLTE, California
	GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin PETER MEIJER, Michigan
	DAN KILDEE, Michigan VACANCY
	SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
	LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
	VACANCY
	------

	Subcommittee on Energy

	HON. JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York, Chairman
	SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon RANDY WEBER, Texas,
	HALEY STEVENS, Michigan Ranking Member
	JERRY McNERNEY, California JIM BAIRD, Indiana
	DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey MIKE GARCIA, California
	SEAN CASTEN, Illinois RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
	CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
	DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina PETER MEIJER, Michigan


	C O N T E N T S

	March 25, 2021

	Page

	Hearing Charter.................................................. 2

	Opening Statements

	Statement by Representative Jamaal Bowman, Chairman, Subcommittee
	on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
	House of Representatives....................................... 5
	Written Statement............................................ 6

	Statement by Representative Randy Weber, Ranking Member,
	Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
	Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 7
	Written Statement............................................ 8

	Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
	Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
	House of Representatives....................................... 10

	Witnesses:

	Dr. Nora Esram, Senior Director for Research at American Council
	for an Energy-Efficient Economy
	Oral Statement............................................... 11
	Written Statement............................................ 13

	Dr. Roderick Jackson, Laboratory Program Manager for Buildings
	Research at National Renewable Energy Laboratory
	Oral Statement............................................... 24
	Written Statement............................................ 26

	Dr. James Tour, T.T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry at
	Rice University
	Oral Statement............................................... 40
	Written Statement............................................ 42

	Ms. Jacqueline Patterson, Director of Environmental and Climate
	Justice Program, NAACP
	Oral Statement............................................... 47
	Written Statement............................................ 49

	Mr. Joseph Hagerman, Group Leader for Building Integration and
	Controls at Oak Ridge National Laboratory
	Oral Statement............................................... 53
	Written Statement............................................ 55

	Discussion....................................................... 70


	BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH
	FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

	----------


	THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2021

	House of Representatives,
	Subcommittee on Energy,
	Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
	Washington, D.C.

	The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:04 p.m.,
	via Webex, Hon. Jamaal Bowman [Chairman of the Subcommittee]
	presiding.
	[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Chairman Bowman. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our
	hearing entitled ``Building Technologies Research for a
	Sustainable Future.'' This hearing will come to order. Without
	objection, the Chairman is authorized to declare recess at any
	time.
	Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note
	that, today, the Committee is meeting today virtually. I want
	to announce a couple of reminders to the Members about the
	conduct of this hearing. First, Members should keep their video
	feed on as long as they are present in the hearing. Members are
	responsible for their own microphones. Please also keep your
	microphones muted unless you are speaking. Finally, if Members
	have documents they wish to submit for the record, please email
	them to the Committee Clerk, whose email address was circulated
	prior to the hearing.
	I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
	Good afternoon, and thank you to all of our witnesses who
	are joining us virtually today to discuss the importance of
	sustainable buildings research. This is a critical component of
	fighting the climate crisis.
	In my State of New York, we have some of the most densely
	populated cities in the country. We also have some of the most
	aggressive climate goals in the world. Thanks to a broad
	coalition of social movements, New York State passed the
	Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act in 2019. Part
	of this law was the inspiration for President Biden's Justice40
	Initiative, which will channel 40 percent of the Federal
	Government's climate investments into marginalized communities.
	Also in 2019, New York City passed a first-of-its-kind law to
	cut greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. Now, we need to
	come together as a nation and build on these victories at the
	Federal level.
	When we think of reducing emissions, we often think of
	renewable power or electrifying our transportation sector. But
	another large source of emissions, especially in New York, is
	buildings. Currently, about 40 percent of our country's carbon
	dioxide emissions comes from the structures that we live, work,
	and sleep in, and that we depend on for life-sustaining care.
	This goes to the heart of why we need to address climate
	change, inequality, and racism together.
	As we have been discussing on this Committee, when climate
	disasters strike, redlined communities of color and low-income
	people are hit hardest. They're the first to lose power when
	the electricity grid is strained, as we saw in Texas. And these
	are the same communities that struggle with housing and utility
	costs. They face health risks from toxic materials in
	buildings, including in public housing that we have allowed to
	fall into a state of disrepair. In my district and around the
	country, the people who live in these buildings have been dying
	at higher rates from COVID, partly because of co-morbidities
	caused by the fossil fuel economy. We need sustainable
	buildings now, and we need to rebuild our communities from the
	ground up.
	The Department of Energy (DOE) invests millions of dollars
	every year in improving building technologies in a variety of
	ways. DOE, along with other Federal science agencies, plays a
	role in making buildings more resilient to extreme weather. DOE
	also researches energy efficiency and increased electrification
	in buildings, with an emphasis on ensuring the equitable
	distribution of the effects of this clean energy research.
	Let's also think about how Federal research can become
	more interdisciplinary. Social scientists, for example, have
	started exploring how green investments in neighborhoods can
	lead to gentrification. This process is not only unjust but can
	undermine climate goals. Instead of cutting emissions for
	everyone, this can create a low-carbon economy for people with
	privilege, while displacing communities of color and other low-
	income people out of dense, walkable neighborhoods. We need a
	combination of natural science, engineering, and social science
	to guide equitable and effective green investments for
	everyone.
	And research alone won't be enough. The other work that
	DOE must continue to focus on is how to get the results of this
	research into the hands of the communities that need it most. A
	week ago, I released a proposal to heal our K-12 school system
	from the impacts of climate change and the pandemic, and from
	decades of disinvestment. A huge part of this plan is focused
	on retrofitting public school buildings and removing toxic
	materials, beginning in the highest-need districts. Schools can
	become living laboratories for the energy transition, putting
	students and young people at the center of the Green New Deal,
	and launching STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
	mathematics) careers across the country.
	Big problems require big solutions, and that is exactly
	what we will be pursuing together on this Committee. I am
	excited to chair the Energy Subcommittee this Congress and to
	hold this first Subcommittee hearing on such an important
	topic. Investing in building technologies means investing in a
	safe, healthy future for our country and for the entire world.
	I want to thank our excellent panel of witnesses assembled
	today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony. With that,
	I yield back.
	[The prepared statement of Chairman Bowman follows:]

	Good afternoon, and thank you to all of our witnesses who
	are joining us virtually today to discuss the importance of
	sustainable buildings research. This is a critical component of
	fighting the climate crisis.
	In my state of New York, we have some of the most densely
	populated cities in the country. We also have some of the most
	aggressive climate goals in the world. Thanks to a broad
	coalition of social movements, New York State passed the
	Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act in 2019. Part
	of this law was the inspiration for President Biden's Justice40
	Initiative, which will channel 40% of the federal government's
	climate investments into marginalized communities.
	Also in 2019, New York City passed a first-of-its-kind law
	to cut greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. Now, we need to
	come together as a nation and build on these victories at the
	federal level.
	When we think of reducing emissions, we often think of
	renewable power, or electrifying our transportation sector. But
	another large source of emissions, especially in New York, is
	buildings. Currently, about 40% of our country's carbon dioxide
	emissions comes from the structures that we live, work, and
	sleep in, and that we depend on for life-sustaining care.
	This goes to the heart of why we need to address climate
	change, inequality, and racism together. As we have been
	discussing on this Committee, when climate disasters strike,
	redlined communities of color and low-income people are hit
	hardest. They're the first to lose power when the electricity
	grid is strained, as we saw in Texas. And these are the same
	communities that struggle with housing and utility costs. They
	face health risks from toxic materials in buildings, including
	in the public housing that we have allowed to fall into a state
	of disrepair. In my district and around the country, the people
	who live in these buildings have been dying at higher rates
	from COVID--partly because of co-morbidities caused by the
	fossil fuel economy. We need sustainable buildings now, and we
	need to rebuild our communities from the ground up.
	The Department of Energy invests millions of dollars every
	year in improving building technologies in a variety of ways.
	DOE, along with other federal science agencies, plays a role in
	making buildings more resilient to extreme weather. DOE also
	researches energy efficiency and increased electrification in
	buildings, with an emphasis on ensuring the equitable
	distribution of the effects of this clean energy research.
	Let's also think about how federal research can become more
	interdisciplinary. Social scientists, for example, have started
	exploring how green investments in neighborhoods can lead to
	gentrification. This process is not only unjust, but can
	undermine climate goals. Instead of cutting emissions for
	everyone, this can create a low-carbon economy for people with
	privilege, while displacing communities of color and other low-
	income people out of dense, walkable neighborhoods. We need a
	combination of natural science, engineering, and social science
	to guide equitable and effective green investments for
	everyone.
	And research alone won't be enough. The other work that DOE
	must continue to focus on is how to get the results of this
	research into the hands of the communities that need it most. A
	week ago, I released a proposal to heal our K-12 school system
	from the impacts of climate change and the pandemic, and from
	decades of disinvestment. A huge part of this plan is focused
	on retrofitting public school buildings and removing toxic
	materials, beginning in the highest-need districts. Schools can
	become living laboratories for the energy transition--putting
	students and young people at the center of the Green New Deal,
	and launching STEM careers across the country.
	Big problems require big solutions, and that is exactly
	what we will be pursuing together on this Committee. I am
	excited to Chair the Energy Subcommittee this Congress, and to
	hold this first subcommittee hearing on such an important
	topic. Investing in building technologies means investing in a
	safe, healthy future for our country, and for the entire world.
	I want to again thank our excellent panel of witnesses
	assembled today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
	With that, I yield back.

	Chairman Bowman. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Weber for an
	opening statement.
	Mr. Weber. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
	the Committee. We're going to have a little fun. We're going to
	be a lighthearted Committee, and we're going to be very serious
	about our work, serious about what we do with energy and for
	our country, so I appreciate you being here Chairman Bowman.
	All of my thanks I want to add to all the witnesses for being
	with us here virtually this afternoon.
	I will tell you that, today, we're going to discuss
	building technology research and development (R&D) needs. And
	while I'm excited to hear about the critical work being
	performed by the Department of Energy's Building Technologies
	Office and, quite frankly, all across DOE, I want us all to be
	mindful of the role that industry can and should play in this
	area, especially where there is a clear incentive and an
	ability to take up mature technologies.
	I say this as someone who knows the building industry
	firsthand. In the 1970's, I couldn't even spell air
	conditioning or what we call AC in Texas, but by the mid-'90's
	I was actually running my own AC company. And I can tell you
	this: Whether it's through regulation, taxation, mandates,
	businesses suffer when the government gets heavy handed and
	intervenes, so we have to take a very careful approach.
	Today, we must also remember that we have limited Federal
	research and development dollars. The Department of Energy
	mainly supports building technology research and development
	through their Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
	which I am inclined to mention is the highest funded applied
	energy office at the Department with a budget this past year
	alone of $2.8 billion with a B. That's why I have long
	prioritized investment in basic and early stage research that
	will drive innovation into the next century and not just for
	building technologies but across our entire energy and
	efficiency portfolio.
	DOE's world-leading national laboratories support that
	type of cutting-edge research that we're talking about here
	today. National labs around the country, from Oak Ridge and
	NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) to Argonne and
	Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, are leveraging DOE's unique
	capabilities and user facilities to support critical
	discoveries in innovative material science, data analytics, and
	advanced sensors and controls. And private-public partnerships
	with these labs are exactly how we get the most bang for our
	taxpayers' buck when investing taxpayers' dollars in this
	research. DOE partnerships with industry and academia enable
	the development of new technologies that can increase the
	energy efficiency of building envelopes, improve construction
	practices, and meet the demand for greater energy generation
	capacity.
	Today, we will hear from Dr. Jim Tour of Rice University
	in my home State of Texas, who will give us his perspective as
	one of those partners. As a professor of chemistry along with
	materials science and nanoengineering, Dr. Tour's research
	focuses on advanced building materials like, for example,
	lighter, stronger concrete that is a result of turning waste
	into a manufacturing additive called graphene. I look forward
	to hearing his testimony on how fundamental materials research
	can transform building technologies and at the same time how
	successful public-private partnerships have supported these
	innovations.
	And just like Dr. Tour's example of turning trash into
	treasure, we can support a future that protects our environment
	for the next generation and is affordable for all Americans.
	But we won't necessarily accomplish this by doing what we call
	in Texas, just throwing in the kitchen sink and billions of
	dollars at a broad, unspecified portfolio. Instead, we should
	make our clean technology affordable through significant
	investment in fundamental research paired with targeted and
	responsible investments in applied energy R&D.
	That is why, this week, I was proud to sign on as one of
	the original cosponsors of Ranking Member Lucas' Securing
	American Leadership in Science and Technology Act. This
	legislation supports a diverse, all-of-the-above clean energy
	strategy and prioritizes critical research to establish U.S.
	leadership in industries of the future, like advanced materials
	and manufacturing. This long-term strategy for investment in
	basic research and infrastructure is how we in Congress should
	support innovative building technologies. It creates a pipeline
	from lab to market and is the most direct and efficient path to
	a more sustainable future for both new and current buildings.
	Thanks to the witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
	back.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:]

	Thank you, Chairman Bowman, for hosting this hearing, and
	thank you to all our witnesses for being with us virtually this
	afternoon. Today is the first Energy Subcommittee hearing of
	the 117th Congress and I'm looking forward to continuing the
	bipartisan successes that have marked my time here.
	Today, we will discuss building technology research and
	development needs. And while I am excited to hear about the
	critical work being performed by the Department of Energy's
	Building Technologies Office and across all of DOE, I want us
	all to be mindful of the role industry can and should play in
	this area, especially where there is a clear incentive and
	ability to take up mature technologies.
	I say this as someone who knows the building industry
	firsthand. In the 70s, I couldn't even spell air conditioning,
	but by the mid-90s I was running my own HVAC company. And I can
	tell you this: whether it's through regulation, taxation, or
	mandates, businesses suffer when the government gets a heavy
	hand and intervenes.
	Today, we must also remember that we have limited federal
	R&D dollars. The Department of Energy mainly supports building
	technology research and development through their Office of
	Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), which I am
	inclined to mention is the highest funded applied energy office
	at the Department with a budget of $2.8 billion this past year
	alone. That's why I have long prioritized investment in basic
	and early stage research that will drive innovation into the
	next century. Not just for buildings technologies--but across
	our entire energy and efficiency portfolio.
	DOE's world-leading national laboratories support the type
	of cutting-edge research I'm talking about. National labs
	around the country--from Oak Ridge and NREL to Argonne and
	Lawrence Berkeley National Lab--are leveraging DOE's unique
	capabilities and user facilities to support critical
	discoveries in innovative material science, data analytics, and
	advanced sensors and controls.
	And public-private partnerships with these labs are exactly
	how we get the most bang for our buck when investing the
	taxpayers' dollars in this research. DOE partnerships with
	industry and academia enable the development of new
	technologies that can increase the energy efficiency of
	building envelopes, improve construction practices, and meet
	the demand for greater energy generation capacity.
	Today, we will hear from Dr. Jim Tour from Rice University
	in my home state of Texas, who will give us his perspective as
	one of those partners. As a professor of chemistry along with
	materials science and nanoengineering, Dr. Tour's research
	focuses on advanced building materials like lighter, stronger
	concrete that is a result of turning waste into a manufacturing
	additive called graphene. I look forward to hearing his
	testimony on how fundamental materials research can transform
	building technologies and how successful public-private
	partnerships have supported these innovations.
	Just like Dr. Tour's example of turning trash into
	treasure, we can support a future that protects our environment
	for the next generation and is affordable for all Americans.
	But we won't accomplish this by throwing the kitchen sink and
	billions of dollars at a broad, unspecified portfolio. Instead
	we should make our clean technology affordable through
	significant investment in fundamental research paired with
	targeted and responsible investments in applied energy R&D.
	That is why, this week, I was proud to sign on as an
	original cosponsor of Ranking Member Lucas' Securing American
	Leadership in Science and Technology Act. This legislation
	supports a diverse, all-of-the-above clean energy strategy and
	prioritizes critical research to establish U.S. leadership in
	industries of the future, like advanced materials and
	manufacturing.
	This long-term strategy for investment in basic research
	and infrastructure is how we in Congress should support
	innovative building technologies. It creates a pipeline from
	lab to market and is the most direct and efficient path to a
	more sustainable future for both new and current buildings.
	I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here and I
	look forward to a productive discussion, Mr. Chair. Thank you
	and I yield back the balance of my time.

	Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
	The Chair now recognizes the Chairwoman of the Full
	Committee, Ms. Johnson, for an opening statement.
	If Ms. Johnson is not present at this time, the Chair is
	going to move forward.
	If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
	statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
	point.
	[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

	Good Afternoon and thank you Chairman Bowman for holding
	this hearing today, as well as to all of our witnesses for
	being here.
	The sustainability of our buildings is a topic that touches
	on every American across the country.
	Buildings make up almost 40% percent of the total energy
	consumption in the United States, and reducing that consumption
	can not only decrease our electric bills, but also
	significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
	My own city of Dallas, Texas is the fastest growing
	metropolitan area in the U.S. Our growing population supports a
	growing economy, but we must ensure that new infrastructure to
	meet these needs is built with the most up-to-date technologies
	to provide efficiency, comfort, and resilience.
	Existing buildings are another key component of federal
	research, development, and demonstration activities. Many of
	the advancements that have been made on improving heating,
	cooling, windows, and lighting can be more easily applied to
	new construction projects, but our existing buildings are not
	going away any time soon. Retrofit technologies can help to
	equitably distribute local and federal resources, as some of
	the communities that could most use healthier, cleaner, and
	more resilient buildings have aging infrastructure.
	As we have seen with recent, devasting events in my home
	state of Texas, ensuring the resilience of our grid is
	paramount. When constructing new buildings, grid connectivity
	could be a key element in alleviating energy demand and
	improving reliability through next-generation sensors,
	controls, and communication technologies. I look forward to
	hearing how our national labs and the Building Technologies
	Office within the Department of Energy can help us achieve
	these goals.
	Buildings affect all aspects of our daily lives, and we
	should be doing everything we can to ensure that we are laying
	a foundation for these technologies to improve our
	infrastructure for decades to come.
	Thank you again to our witnesses for being here, and with
	that I yield back the balance of my time.

	Chairman Bowman. At this time I would like to introduce
	our witnesses. Dr. Nora Esram is the Senior Director for
	Research of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient
	Economy (ACEEE). Dr. Esram overseas ACEEE's research programs
	on buildings, transportation, industry, and behavior. Dr. Esram
	holds a Ph.D. in architecture from the University of Illinois
	Urbana-Champaign and is a licensed architect.
	Dr. Roderick Jackson is a Laboratory Program Manager for
	Buildings Research at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
	His portfolio includes a broad range of research, development,
	and market implementation activities that aim to improve the
	energy efficiency of buildings materials and practices. He
	holds a bachelor's, master's, and Ph.D. in mechanical
	engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology.
	Dr. James Tour is a T.T. and W.F. Chao professor of
	chemistry, professor of computer science, and professor of
	materials science in nanoengineering at Rice University. He
	received his bachelor's degree from Syracuse University and his
	Ph.D. in chemistry from Purdue University.
	Ms. Jacqueline Patterson is the Director of the NAACP
	Environmental and Climate Justice Program. She has worked as a
	researcher, program manager, coordinator, advocate, and
	activist working on women's rights, violence against women, HIV
	and AIDS, racial justice, economic justice, and environmental
	and climate justice. She received her master's degree in social
	work from the University of Maryland and a master's degree in
	public health from Johns Hopkins University.
	Last but certainly not least, Mr. Joseph Hagerman is a
	Section Head for buildings technology research at Oak Ridge
	National Laboratory. He leads the lab's research in building
	envelope materials and equipment, as well as in integrated
	building performance and multifunctional equipment integration.
	He holds a master's in civil engineering from the Fu Foundation
	School of Engineering and Applied Science at Columbia
	University and earned his bachelor's in architecture from
	Mississippi State University.
	Thank you all for joining us today. As our witnesses
	should know, you will each have 5 minutes for your spoken
	testimony. Your written testimony will be included in the
	record for the hearing. When you all have completed your spoken
	testimony, we will begin with questions. Each Member will have
	5 minutes to question the panel.
	We will start with Dr. Esram. Dr. Esram, please begin.

	TESTIMONY OF DR. NORA ESRAM, SENIOR DIRECTOR

	FOR RESEARCH AT AMERICAN COUNCIL

	FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY

	Dr. Esram. Thank you. Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member
	Weber, and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me
	to testify on the topic of building technologies research and
	development. I bring with me today my 20 years of knowledge and
	experience as an architect, an educator, a lab scientist, and
	now as a Research Director at American Council for an Energy-
	Efficient Economy.
	Building efficient technologies are known to lower energy
	costs and create local jobs, but the biggest opportunities are
	still ahead. Improving efficiency of buildings has the
	potential to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 20
	percent. The industry needs help from the Federal Government
	and science community to develop integrated solutions and
	productive processes to upgrade existing buildings faster.
	Building retrofits also improve occupants' health,
	comfort, productivity, and community resilience. Today, many of
	our buildings don't serve us well. For instance, when COVID-19
	hit, public health experts suggested increasing indoor
	ventilation and filtration to lower this ease of transmission
	risk, but many legacy building systems can't handle that. When
	offices were sitting empty during the lockdown, they still
	consumed 40 to 100 percent of their usual energy. That's a huge
	waste. When the power went out across much of Texas, many
	poorly insulated homes quickly dropped to near freezing
	temperature. Imagine if these houses could have been kept warm
	with a heating device as small as a hairdryer. That's not a
	dream. That's efficiency building technologies.
	Thanks to decades of Federal investment in research, we
	have many technologies to make buildings efficient, healthier,
	and resilient for everyone. But we don't know yet how to
	expeditiously deliver these technologies to existing buildings.
	Improving construction productivity offers a path. If
	construction labor productivity were to catch up with the
	progress made by other sectors, we will gain $1.6 trillion
	economic growth globally. A third of that is in the United
	States.
	Many countries are moving onsite construction toward a
	manufacturing inspired mass production platform. We'll lose our
	competitive edge if we don't take bold actions. Transforming
	the building industry would also provide an opportune time to
	reduce embodied carbon in building materials and products.
	I also believe a strong and a creative workforce is key to
	success. We need to equip the building contractors and
	specialized trades with knowledge and skills to adapt to new
	technologies. We need to educate and attract a new generation
	of innovators and entrepreneurs. Buildings of the future are
	machines that interact with the grid and transportation
	systems. Workforce development is a creative and interactive
	process. Therefore, we need Federal R&D support to grow
	tomorrow's building leaders outside the classroom.
	I urge Congress and DOE to take bold actions to lay a
	solid foundation for a successful transmission of the building
	sector. First, spur modernized approaches to accelerate deep
	energy retrofits and create local jobs. Second, train and
	diversify our workforce and inspire a new generation of
	leaders. Third, drive enduring market transformation through
	integration of efficiency with health, resilience, and other
	societal goals. Last but not least, collaborate with local and
	State governments and community-based organizations to create
	proactive, replicable solutions for all.
	I truly believe that we are facing a paradigm shift.
	Together, we can both create and witness history. Thank you
	again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to
	your questions.
	[The prepared statement of Dr. Esram follows:]
	[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Dr. Esram. Dr. Jackson, you
	are now recognized.

	TESTIMONY OF DR. RODERICK JACKSON,

	LABORATORY PROGRAM MANAGER

	FOR BUILDINGS RESEARCH

	AT NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY

	Dr. Jackson. Thank you to the Subcommittee for giving me
	this opportunity today to provide a testimony on a topic of
	critical national importance and deep personal passion. So my
	bio is included in the written testimony for reference, so I
	won't get into those details, but I wanted to provide a
	personal perspective of who I am and my passion.
	So my father, Louis C. Jackson, was one of 16 children,
	and out of 16--and out of 11 boys, they all built houses. So
	construction was a deep passion for my dad, so much so that he
	first introduced it to me when I was only 3 years old. I think
	my first job was to go out on the jobsite and pick up all the
	straight nails.
	A little after finishing my undergraduate degree, he and I
	formed L&R Jackson Construction back in my hometown of Canton,
	Mississippi. However, my personal passion for science and
	engineering drew me back to Georgia Tech to complete my Ph.D.,
	but the legacy my dad and my brothers, [inaudible] was never
	far from my heart.
	I have since been able to marry my love for science with
	family legacy, and that brings me here today. Unfortunately, my
	dad passed away on January 19th, 2021, but the opportunity to
	provide testimony on the future of the industry he so--he loved
	so dearly is immensely fulfilling.
	So let's talk science. Because buildings consume about 3/4
	of our current electricity demand, they can be a large part of
	the sustainable energy solution. By leveraging energy
	efficiency, greater connectivity, advanced data science and
	analytics, along with next-generation materials, sensors, and
	controls, buildings can be designed to synergistically interact
	in real-time with the electric grid to provide demand
	flexibility, all while not compromising comfort, health, or
	productivity.
	DOE is leading the charge in this new vision for the
	pivotal role that buildings can play and has appropriately
	titled this initiative Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings. In
	my written testimony I highlighted how modeling, sensors, and
	controls enable this future of Grid-Interactive Efficient
	Buildings by providing a platform to understand, plan, and
	optimize the performance of buildings in varying scenarios. I
	provided ResStock as an example of an idea first cultivated by
	laboratory directed R&D funds and developed by DOE funding and
	support. It is now currently being used by multiple research
	activities, as well as private-sector use cases.
	In my written testimony I also highlighted the need for
	thermal energy storage because thermal end uses like space
	conditioning, water heating, and refrigeration represent
	roughly half of our building energy demand. Thermal energy
	could be stored as a complement as well as an alternative to
	battery energy storage to balance supply and demand.
	Now, I'm particularly excited about a publication--NREL
	publication in this month's Nature Energy journal. It presented
	an analogous adaptation of the energy/power tradeoff curve that
	has been foundational in the design and advancement of battery
	systems. This and others are really just some of the examples
	of opportunities that we can use to further accelerate the
	deployment of thermal storage as a viable energy storage
	solution.
	So as we continue to advance the science of--science and
	engineering of individual Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings,
	there are actually new possibilities that emerge to aggregate a
	collection of buildings with other local distributed resources
	into connected communities. So not only can we then see
	optimized solutions where the total is indeed greater than the
	sum of the individual parts, we can also enable innovation at
	the intersection of these diverse and distinct technology
	domains.
	However, unfortunately, according to a recent McKinsey
	study, labor productivity in the United States has remained
	stagnant over the last 80 years, approximately marking the time
	when the first Jacksons began to master the carpentry trade. So
	this reality not only hinders U.S. competitiveness, it limits
	the transition to a sustainable energy future with affordable
	building construction and retrofit costs. The DOE's Advanced
	Building Construction (ABC) Initiative targets this opportunity
	with a vision to integrate higher levels of energy efficiency
	into new construction and retrofits.
	But--so as we transition to a sustainable energy future,
	we have to ensure the benefits as well as the costs are more
	equitably distributed. Our examples of centering equity in
	energy technology innovation and energy transition are most
	often focused on the deployment phase of the research,
	development, demonstration, and deployment spectrum. However,
	while this is important and essential, deployment is the final
	stage of that technology spectrum I just described. And so as a
	result, in many cases, it actually may be more difficult to
	equitably deploy technology that was developed without regard
	to equity. In other words, this approach could be akin to
	attempting to force a square peg into a round hole. So, as an
	alternative, the R&D community, the community to which I
	belong, should take the additional step of centering equity
	into the early stages of the technology development pipeline.
	And then also due to historical under-investments, the
	solutions faced by low-income communities are actually
	different and actually distinctly more difficult to overcome in
	many cases, hence the need for science, engineering, and
	innovation are even more pressing.
	So in summary, thank you for this opportunity. And to meet
	our Nation's goal and continue our American leadership in
	energy innovation, we should continue to prioritize the R&D
	investments in building technologies. I look forward to any
	other questions you may have. Thank you.
	[The prepared statement of Dr. Jackson follows:]
	[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Chairman Bowman. Thank you so much, Dr. Jackson. Dr. Tour,
	you are now recognized.

	TESTIMONY OF DR. JAMES TOUR,

	T.T. AND W. F. CHAO PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY

	AT RICE UNIVERSITY

	Dr. Tour. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a professor of
	chemistry, material science, and nanoengineering at Rice
	University and part of the Welch Institute for Advanced
	Materials. I have 730 research publications, 234 of those on
	the topic of graphene. I have over 50 U.S. patents plus 90
	international patents on graphene. In the past 6 years alone,
	my academic research has led to the formation of 14 companies,
	eight of those in nanomaterials, and two of them now public
	companies.
	On March 15, 2017, I gave testimony before the Energy and
	Commerce's Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer
	Protection on the topic of graphene and attaining U.S.
	preeminence. Four years later, I'm here to report that the
	future has arrived.
	What is graphene? Think of it as carbon chicken wire.
	That's what it looks like, chicken wire in its atomic
	arrangement but on the one-atom-thick scale. Graphene is a non-
	toxic, naturally occurring carbon material, and it's a
	glomerate to the natural mineral graphite. It is very slow to
	enter the carbon dioxide cycle, and hence it can be considered
	a terminal carbon sink with near zero contribution to
	greenhouse gas emissions.
	Graphene is a revolutionary material for building
	construction, but until recently, affordability and access to
	sufficient quantities made it only a dream for those
	applications. In 2018, a graduate student in my laboratory Duy
	Luong, working under funding from the Air Force Office of
	Scientific Research, discovered a process that we call flash
	graphene. We immediately filed patents to protect the
	technology, and companies were formed 1 year later, Universal
	Matter Inc. and Universal Matter Limited.
	The process can take any carbon material, any carbon
	material and convert it into graphene in less than 1 second
	using only electricity, no water, no solvents, no additives
	other than carbon itself. This new graphene manufacturing
	process will lower the cost by a factor of 10, therefore making
	it economically viable for use in building materials.
	The majority of waste products generated by human beings
	are carbon-based. If it's not rocks or water, it's probably
	carbon. We can take coal, petroleum coke, unsorted plastic
	waste, discarded food, mixed household waste, any other carbon
	source and convert it into graphene. Our production rate is
	doubling every 9 weeks, thereby projecting to hundreds-of-tons-
	per-day scale within 3 years. With grants from the Department
	of Energy and Department of Defense in collaborations with the
	Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC (Engineer Research and
	Development Center), Argonne National Laboratory, and several
	large automotive, concrete, asphalt, and wood manufacturers,
	we're developing graphene for concrete, asphalt, aluminum,
	plastics, polymer foams, lubricants, rubber, wood, fabric, and
	paint composites. By adding just .1 weight percent, that's 0.1
	weight percent to cement, we get a 35 percent enhancement in
	compressive strength. It means we could use 1/3 less cement for
	construction. And since cement and concrete constitute 8
	percent of all worldwide carbon dioxide emissions, that could
	translate into a remarkable diminution of emissions.
	Concrete alone is a $30 billion new market opportunity for
	graphene. Zero-point-five weight percent addition of graphene
	to asphalt will triple the life of the road. Zero-point-zero-
	five weight percent of graphene to carbon fiber composites will
	lower the weight of an aircraft by 20 percent, translating into
	enormous fuel and carbon dioxide reductions, all made possible
	by this U.S. invention.
	Through Rice University's carbon hub, we're developing
	methods to convert natural gas into hydrogen and graphene with
	near zero carbon dioxide emissions. That's clean hydrogen fuel
	from natural gas. The next step is developed--is to develop
	entirely new classes of graphene composites that can substitute
	for the energy-intensive 2,500-year-old materials that we use
	today like concrete and steel while providing a non-toxic
	carbon sink for most human waste products.
	The takeaway from my testimony is this: First, continue to
	foster basic support of basic and applied research directed
	toward advancement and deployment of new materials. A few years
	ago, graphene was only viewed as appropriate for ultrahigh-end
	aerospace and device applications but not anymore. The
	bipartisan Endless Frontier Act could embody an interesting
	approach to achieve the requisite research and translational
	goals.
	Second, it remains challenging to go from the lab bench to
	the build site with market profitability. Congress has immense
	power and influence over tax policy and administrative and
	regulatory burdens that can make or break our startup
	companies.
	Third and finally, streamlining the green card process for
	scientists and engineers that have received their Ph.D.'s in
	the United States so that people like Duy Luong, the Vietnamese
	graduate student that discovered the flash graphene process in
	my laboratory, can stay to develop their discoveries in our
	Nation's companies. We just need to do it right, safeguarding
	U.S. intellectual property through background checks and
	security oversight. Thank you.
	[The prepared statement of Dr. Tour follows:]
	[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Dr. Tour. Ms. Patterson, you
	are now recognized.

	TESTIMONY OF MS. JACQUELINE PATTERSON,

	DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL

	AND CLIMATE JUSTICE PROGRAM, NAACP

	Ms. Patterson. Thank you so much. It's an honor to be here
	with you all. And I appreciate being--having the opportunity to
	share these brief remarks.
	So the NAACP, when we first started doing this work,
	people were surprised that we were working on energy, much less
	the sustainable building sector. However, as one considers the
	extreme disparities in equality, safety, and health of the
	places where African American communities especially live,
	learn, and work, play, and worship, for us the historic social,
	political, and economic disenfranchisement has been detrimental
	to generational well-being.
	In 1861 and 1862 the United States Government passed the
	Morrill and Homestead Acts, which were intended to give land
	grants to White Americans for colleges and those seeking land
	to farm. These acts were also accompanied by offers of
	subsidies to facilitate the acquisition and use of the land. As
	slavery was not abolished in the United States until 1865, many
	enslaved and freed African Americans were unable to benefit
	from these acts, and a lack of legal services meant that
	African Americans who managed to acquire land couldn't even
	write legally binding wills that would facilitate legalized
	inheritance of property.
	This is all tied to the fact that overall economic
	insecurity has resulted in extreme income and wealth
	differentials that persist over centuries. Even now at $171,000
	in net worth of a typical White American family is nearly 10
	times greater than that of a Black American family at $17,150.
	And for Black American single women-headed households, the
	average family net worth is only $5. At 44 percent, African
	Americans are least likely to be homeowners, whereas it's 75
	percent of White Americans and overall 65 percent for the
	Nation.
	Historic and modern-day redlining practices impact
	everything from whether we own homes, where we own homes, and
	the quality of the homes and other resources to which we have
	access. Also impacting is the quality of the infrastructure in
	our communities such as levees that protect our homes, and
	property values that finance our schools are also--also affects
	the quality of the buildings in which our schools are housed.
	Subpar quality of the buildings and structures in our
	communities means that we are inundated by energy burden, which
	challenges our finances, indoor air pollution which sickens our
	family, and poor housing stock, which renders us vulnerable
	when disaster impacts.
	African Americans have the highest energy burden, which
	means that the amount of income that goes toward energy in the
	buildings we occupy is the highest of any other racial and
	ethnic group. African Americans are also more likely to have
	our energy shut off for nonpayment, too often with fatal
	impacts as we pay the price of poverty and racism with our very
	lives when a candle or a space heater or carbon monoxide has
	taken the lives of too many seeking to heat or light our homes
	when our finances can't meet the demands of our bills.
	Yet we're more likely to suffer from the pollution being
	emitted from energy production as we are more likely to live
	near coal-fired power plants, oil and gas refineries, waste-to-
	energy incinerators, et cetera, and we pay the price with our
	health. We are more likely to bear the impacts of climate
	change that results from emissions from buildings.
	We also know that energy improvements, whether it's
	weatherization, retrofits, and clean energy like solar are tied
	to homeownership and credit ratings, which are compromised by
	the historic and current factors I've already described.
	COVID-19 means that we are in buildings more due to remote
	working and due to the need for isolation, which means we are
	using more energy and also are more exposed to indoor air
	pollution.
	With 2020 being the hottest year on record as part of the
	progression of increasingly hotter years, as well as greater
	weather extremes, our ability to cool and heat our homes
	reliably and affordably becomes increasingly more critical. Yet
	communities and populations most impacted by these disparities
	are underrepresented in the building sector and professions,
	including those working on building standards in terms of
	organizations, architects, and beyond. For example, just .03
	percent of certified architects are Black women, while, again,
	$5 is the average wealth of a single Black woman-led household,
	thereby arguably rendering us as Black women as the No. 1
	critical stakeholder in the future of buildings.
	Key steps to right the wrong--right the historic and
	present-day wrongs include campaign-finance reform so that
	money interests don't have their thumb on the scale of the
	change we need to have in advancing energy justice for all.
	Dismantling the weapons of mass distraction, including the
	formulas that tie property values with quality of
	infrastructure and services at the local level, increasing
	investments in BIPOC, Black, indigenous, and people of color in
	education and leadership in STEM, increasing resources for job
	and business opportunities for BIPOC communities, and shifting
	wealth to community-led endeavors to develop sustainable,
	affordable, safe, and healthy infrastructure, including
	buildings.
	In 2018 the NAACP launched----
	Chairman Bowman. Ms. Patterson, your time is expired.
	Ms. Patterson. Oh, thank you. Sorry.
	[The prepared statement of Ms. Patterson follows:]
	[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Chairman Bowman. Don't worry. We'll come back to you when
	we get to questions. Thank you so much.
	Mr. Hagerman, you are now recognized.

	TESTIMONY OF MR. JOSEPH HAGERMAN, GROUP LEADER

	FOR BUILDING INTEGRATION AND CONTROLS

	AT OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

	Mr. Hagerman. Thank you. Chairman Bowman, Ranking Member
	Weber, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
	for the opportunity to virtually appear before you today. My
	name is Joe Hagerman. I lead the Building Technologies Research
	Section at the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National
	Lab in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. I'm a building technologies
	researcher by education and training.
	I'm not going to take our time today to discuss how much
	energy is consumed in buildings. We all pay energy bills at the
	end of the month. In fact, last year, buildings used 74 percent
	of all the electricity in the Nation at a cost of over $332
	billion. I think we can all agree that's a big bill.
	I want to focus today on the impact that Oak Ridge has
	made with the support of DOE Building Technologies Office. It
	is our thesis that when our Nation's buildings are cleaner and
	more efficient and--the effect can be profound, improving
	comfort, safety, productivity, and it will take American labor
	and American jobs to realize these benefits.
	So what's Oak Ridge doing? Staff at the lab are
	accelerating clean energy innovation throughout the buildings'
	ecosystem. Our Nation's fastest supercomputer at Oak Ridge's
	speeds modeling and simulations to analyze the potential for
	retrofits down to the neighborhood level for every building in
	America. Our nanomaterials science leads to new building
	materials with extraordinary insulation and self-healing
	properties. And our engineering expertise continues to drive
	breakthroughs for new energy-efficient equipment like cold
	climate heat pumps, climate-friendly refrigerants, and advanced
	next-generation appliances. A lot of this sounds like science
	fiction, but it's not. It's science fact, and that's the
	current seat of the lab, transformational science.
	The cornerstone for our research is of course our
	facilities, particularly the Building Technologies Research and
	Integration Center or BTRIC. BTRIC is DOE's only user facility
	dedicated to accelerating breakthroughs for clean energy-
	efficient buildings. But the largest contributor to our work is
	our partnerships. We partner with industries, universities, and
	communities, and we make good partners because success to my
	staff is clear: make positive, practical impact.
	Let me share with you about working with the lab. The
	sheer volumes of connections, interactions, and collaborations
	are what make Oak Ridge a special place to work. We foster
	great science because we invest in great diverse people,
	expertise, and skills. And equally important we have clear
	goals. Our first goal is that Oak Ridge will continue to lead
	the building energy efficiency research for the Nation. One
	example is how Viral Patel and his team at Oak Ridge developed
	piezoelectric drying science that mechanically shakes and
	vibrates fabric at a high frequency to remove moisture. They
	demonstrated a faster drying time with five times less energy
	that will one day reshape conventional residential dryers. To
	me that's transformative.
	But let's transform it again here today by recognizing
	that these innovations can also provide a solution to the hard-
	to-decarbonize industrial sector. This is another important
	thesis to the lab's research and science. Our advancements can
	apply to other processes, and it's my hope that American
	companies engage with us to decarbonize all sectors.
	Our second goal, Oak Ridge will continue to pioneer
	connected smart communities for grid resilience, benefiting
	consumers and the grid equally. Group leader Heather Buckberry
	worked with Southern Company, Alabama Power, and Georgia Power
	to provide and prove that homes and businesses can provide a
	central stability to the grid. Heather and her team
	demonstrated that more than 30 percent decreased overall energy
	consumption and an approximately 35 percent lower demand during
	peak winter, all with no impacts to comfort. More importantly,
	residents engage with their buildings and controls in no
	different way than normal, and that's Heather's thesis: Control
	science can be done behind the scenes, and with Oak Ridge's
	deep bench in cybersecurity, we can guard the associated data
	and control actions.
	Goal No. 3, Oak Ridge will help lead the Nation in meeting
	our decarbonization goals. Another group leader Kashif Nawaz is
	developing direct air carbon capture solutions with building
	equipment technologies. Looking forward, Kashif hopes to
	develop concepts and methods for net negative carbon buildings
	where equipment can efficiently heat, cool, dehumidify the air
	while capturing CO<INF>2</INF>, all possible by relying on
	transformative science, not science fiction.
	In closing, Oak Ridge is a foundational partner that can
	accelerate the clean energy transition across the Nation to all
	communities, and the challenges ahead to the Nation are great.
	I believe they are bigger than one person, one team, or one lab
	alone. It's going to take all of us, not some of us, to achieve
	our goals, but from great challenges, great opportunities
	emerge, opportunities for equities, collaboration, and allies
	across the sciences, and opportunities to create good-paying
	American jobs while we're at it.
	I'm proud to work for my staff every day and honored to
	work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Thank you.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Hagerman follows:]
	[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	Chairman Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Hagerman.
	At this point we will begin our first round of questions.
	The Chairman recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
	Dr. Esram, thank you for your testimony. I appreciated
	your emphasis on the need to align carbon reduction with other
	social goals such as health and equity. I want to zero in on
	the health piece. We know that redline communities and poor
	people in this country face multiple health threats from
	buildings. Our public school and public housing infrastructure,
	for example, has major issues with mold, asbestos, and other
	toxins.
	What do we know about the health benefits of deep energy
	retrofits at this point, and what do we still have to learn?
	Can you paint a picture for us for how life could be better in
	a highly efficient, zero-carbon home or workplace?
	Dr. Esram. Well, thank you for the question, Chairman
	Bowman. What we know, decades of scientific research have
	proven the impact of a built environment on the human circadian
	rhythm, immune system, cognitive function, and task
	performance. There are plenty of literature. But what we don't
	know is how to fully integrate these nonenergy benefits with
	technology and strategy development that speaks to the
	consumers and the investors. And there are no standard methods
	to quantify and monetize these benefits in a trustworthy way
	for consumers.
	A quick example is when we buy organic food, we trust USDA
	(United States Department of Agriculture) organic stamps.
	There's a standard way to measure these nonenergy benefits for
	organic food and procedure, but we don't have those for
	buildings, for healthy buildings.
	Just to--yes, that's my answer in a simple way. Thank you.
	Chairman Bowman. Thank you. Thank you very much.
	Ms. Patterson, thank you for being with us today. Can you
	speak more to the challenges involved in bringing sustainable
	building technologies to redlined and low-income communities?
	I'm wondering what the CESBS (Centering Equity in the
	Sustainable Building Sector) program has learned about what the
	main barriers are and what we need to do to surmount those
	barriers. How can we scale up weatherization, energy
	efficiency, and electrification efforts in low-income and
	affordable housing, for example? What do you see as some of the
	research and policy needs here?
	Ms. Patterson. Thank you so much. So--yes, so there are a
	lot of questions in that one question. But--so first definitely
	some of the barriers are really just lack of investment in
	these communities both in--not only in terms of homes but also
	in terms of various structures and communities. And so whether
	we have--the challenge I spoke of before with housing in terms
	of the historic challenges that resulted in people in the
	disproportionate homeownership and so much in terms of these
	kind of weatherization, retrofitting, clean energy. All of that
	is tied to homeownerships and being able to be--get financing
	mechanisms to--equity in one's home. And so that's definitely a
	barrier.
	In terms of ways that we can shift this is everything from
	making sure that there are economic opportunities to bring up
	the economic well-being of people so that they can make those
	investments and the homeowners themselves but then also
	shifting--and so that's from an individual standpoint, but also
	shifting as well to communities that have been under-invested
	in historically over time, shifting away from this notion that
	all of the--what's available in terms of public financing
	through property values, which we know just kind of continues
	to have the same communities not having the types of resources
	that are needed and really thinking about new and innovative
	economic ways of lifting all boats because we know that there's
	been attempts through--whether it's the opportunity zones or
	other types of mechanisms but that have not necessarily been
	successful in actually lifting the well-being and the economic
	status and what's available in terms of finance for those
	communities. So we're actually advancing this transformational
	climate finance initiative to significantly invest in these
	communities and making sure that, whether it's social impact
	investing or municipal bonds or other finance mechanisms, that
	they're being brought into communities in ways that aren't
	extractive or that actually put communities in the driver's
	seat so that these actually work for them. And the Centering
	Equity in the Sustainable Building Sector Initiative is a
	multi-sector initiative that pushes policies, and that's
	everything from renewable portfolio standards to making sure
	that building codes are also tied to the economic engine to be
	able to ensure that people can be up to the standards we're
	putting forward in building codes. So I don't know how much
	longer I have to respond, but I'll pause there [inaudible].
	Thank you.
	Chairman Bowman. That was perfect. Thank you so much. I
	now recognize Mr. Weber for 5 minutes.
	Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go to you,
	Dr. Tour. I want to make sure that what I think I heard, I
	heard. Are you with us, Dr. Tour?
	Dr. Tour. I am.
	Mr. Weber. OK, good. You've got 730 publications, 230 of
	those are on graphene, and there was how many patents and how
	many companies formed as a result?
	Dr. Tour. I have over 150 patent families, but 50 U.S. on
	graphene and 90 international on graphene, started 14
	companies, eight of those in nanomaterials.
	Mr. Weber. Thank you for that. You said a decade ago your
	program was supported 90 percent by Federal funds and then 10
	percent by industry and that that was normal for many research
	groups. Then, due to a number of factors, you started appealing
	to industry and showing them how your fundamental research in
	nanoscience could address some of their technical needs. And
	boy, the numbers you just reiterated for us, if they don't
	prove you were successful, I don't know what does.
	Dr. Tour. Yes.
	Mr. Weber. This might surprise some people who think
	industry only wants applied research. So, Dr. Tour, can you
	talk more about basic research, how it can deliver applications
	for industry, and specifically in the building technology
	sector, please?
	Dr. Tour. Right. So thank you for that, Representative
	Weber. I--so what happens is I do basic research. I'm a
	scientist primarily. And--but the transition is something that
	we need to look for. How do I transition this into something
	that can be applied and utilized? And when we make discoveries,
	right away, we need to be thinking how can I apply this? And if
	we just publish a paper and just think somebody else will apply
	it, it just doesn't work. We need to carry that banner several
	more steps forward to show them how it might work. I don't have
	to bring it all the way to the building, but I have to bring it
	to a point where some company is really interested.
	So for many years we would license our technology to big
	companies, and for one reason or another it would stall in
	those big companies. So about 6 years ago I made a categoric
	decision we are going to start our own companies, and we're
	going to start our own companies and build upon those because
	then we can control the technology and push it forward.
	And success breeds success. After we were successful with
	one or two, then investors started coming and wanting to fund
	more and more. And part of that, as I say, you've got to
	continue to fund some of the basic work in my laboratory that
	will broaden the applications of these, and that then spawns
	new companies. So that's basically how we've done it.
	Mr. Weber. Well, and that's a great segue because when you
	talk about broadening and spawning new companies--as you know,
	as a Texan, Houston is an active hub for the oil and gas
	industry and also the aerospace industry, and so these large
	industries have become interested in your work. And can you
	explain that why many of the, quote, building technologies, end
	quote, research projects have applicability actually to more
	than just the skyscraper construction business? What other
	applicabilities does it have?
	Dr. Tour. Well, it has to do with roads, as well as
	concrete for building, with paints, for wood composites.
	Everything is about light-weighting and using----
	Mr. Weber. Right.
	Dr. Tour [continuing]. Less materials. And when we use
	less materials, there's less carbon dioxide emissions, less
	energy put into them, and the processes that we've come up
	with--so, for example, just plastics, high density polyethylene
	is $2,000 a ton. We put in $30 a ton to convert waste plastic
	into graphene that can strengthen a huge amount of plastic with
	that. So these innovations have great implications for the
	energy industry and for lowering carbon emissions.
	Mr. Weber. Sure. Well, I'm just about out of time, so I
	will go ahead and yield back, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
	your indulgence.
	Staff. Mr. Casten is next.
	Mr. Casten. Thank you so much. Always a pleasure in this
	panel, Mr. Chairman and to our witnesses. This is a hugely
	timely hearing not least because as we sail into thinking about
	infrastructure bills, we have some real opportunities I think
	to modernize our Federal building stock, public housing,
	Federal buildings, the whole scope of that. It's going to be
	real important to understand as we are prudent stewards of
	taxpayer capital where the biggest bang for the buck is.
	So I want to start, Dr. Esram, I wonder in the work you've
	done or your colleagues have done at ACEEE, as you're looking
	at building efficiency technologies, not the ones of the future
	but the ones we can deploy today, what kind of simple payback
	can owners realize on these technologies? And if you had to
	pick sort of your top three absolute no-brainers that every
	building owner should do, what would they be?
	Dr. Esram. That's not a very easy to answer question. I
	would pick lighting and water heater and probably, you know,
	some HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems
	depending on the home location, the building types. Yes, that
	is usually--we have done a lot of research. For most of the new
	technologies, they pay for themselves. However, they may not
	pay fast enough to speak to the consumer's needs. There are
	additional benefits as we discussed in the health, resilience,
	and productivity. They haven't been really translated in a way
	that the consumer will value more with energy efficiency. If
	there were a way to quantify, monetize those, I think we can do
	retrofitting much faster than we're doing now.
	Mr. Casten. OK. Well, would that be a good area for
	further research then to try to figure out how to monetize and
	understand those benefits?
	Dr. Esram. Yes, definitely.
	Mr. Casten. OK.
	Dr. Esram. We have a lot of pieces of technologies. We
	don't know how to build efficient, affordable, healthy
	resilient building at the same time. We--they haven't been put
	together yet.
	Mr. Casten. OK. Well, part of the reason that I started by
	asking about proven technologies is that a number of years ago
	I had the pleasure of touring the Bullitt Center in Seattle,
	Washington, that my friend Denis Hayes has been responsible
	for. Many folks on this Committee know Denis is one of the co-
	founders of Earth Day. That building uses about 10,000 BTUs per
	square foot in a city that averages 90,000, so almost 1/10 of
	the energy use with no compromise on the--it's a beautiful
	building. It's a wonderfully comfortable place to work, and
	they've done it with some low-tech stuff like natural lighting,
	with some high-tech stuff like continuous commissioning, and
	then really interestingly with the regulatory reforms that they
	actually had to work to get the local utility to pay them for
	the benefit they provided the utility for reducing peak energy
	demand in the city of Seattle. And that building was
	commissioned in 2013. There's no reason that technology
	couldn't be widely deployed other than perhaps people having
	access to capital and what those returns are. Can you tell us a
	little bit about the split incentive problem in buildings? Are
	you familiar with that term?
	Dr. Esram. Yeah, of course. The split incentive meaning if
	the landlord is paying for the retrofits and the saving will be
	from the tenants because, you know, they are getting the saving
	on their utility bills.
	Mr. Casten. So when you say that the analysis of some of
	the benefits is--some of the--and I'm going to misquote you
	here, but some of them have a good payback, some of them don't.
	How much would that move if we solve the split incentive? So if
	we took a holistic approach, how many of these problems you--or
	the challenges you described would go away if we said what is
	the total societal savings that would come from these
	investments? If we frame it that way, what are--do you have--
	does it change your answer at all?
	Dr. Esram. Yeah, absolutely. You know, in the commercial
	real estate there's like a 3, 30, 300 rules that on average you
	pay $3 dollars per square foot for utilities, $30 for rent, and
	$300 for your personnel, your salaries. So if we're able to
	quantify all the non-energy benefits and pick a package and the
	investors, the building owners, the business owners, the
	tenants all have more incentives to work together to upgrade
	the buildings.
	Mr. Casten. Well, thank you. And I see I'm about out of
	time, but perhaps we can follow up afterwards because I think,
	again, as we think about making significant investments in our
	Federal building stock, we've got a real incentive to save a
	lot of money for future generations. But as we think about how
	much money we're willing to spend and how to finance that, it's
	going to be important that we quantify those things as much as
	we can and would welcome the opportunity to work with you and
	your colleagues to quantify that as we move forward. Thank you,
	and I yield back.
	Staff. Ranking Member Lucas is next.
	Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
	and the Ranking Member. This is a fascinating hearing, and some
	really impressive witnesses today.
	With that, Dr. Tour, I'd like to turn to you and note that
	the Securing American Leadership in Science and Technology Act,
	SALSTA as a lot of us like to refer to it, creates a long-term
	strategy for investment in basic research and infrastructure to
	ensure American competitiveness in industries of the future.
	So with that, I turn to you. In your testimony you noted
	that you or your companies have received grants from both the
	Department of Energy and the Department of Defense and you've
	also collaborated with the Army Corps of Engineers. Having
	worked with different agencies, do you think a more coherent,
	governmentwide strategy on Federal science and research efforts
	could assist Federal agencies and the national laboratories in
	being a more effective partner to researchers?
	Dr. Tour. Yes, absolutely. Anything that can be done to
	assist these interactions were we can work across because the
	national labs have tremendous facilities, facilities that we at
	universities would love to be able to access. And working with
	the national labs has been terrific. I mean, we have
	representatives here today from Oak Ridge. We've published
	papers just recently with Oak Ridge, and we're doing more. And
	so to facilitate this and then it's not just--then it goes from
	me to then the companies. The companies are able to work, and
	so we have both me at Rice University and the companies working
	with the Army Corps of Engineers, the companies doing much
	bigger projects. We're doing the nano-sized projects, they're
	doing the macroscopic projects, but all working toward the same
	direction. So whatever Congress could do to streamline that
	would be terrific.
	Mr. Lucas. And how do you think such a strategy would
	impact international competitiveness in next-generation
	technologies like building efficiency?
	Dr. Tour. Yes, so one of the things that we have done in
	the past because we didn't have access in the university to
	certain equipment is we've established collaborations with
	overseas universities, and that's a shame. I mean, if we could
	keep it all here in the United States, that would be much
	better. And this has to do with the nanomaterials that are
	going to go into making building materials with a lot less
	footprint of energy. Like I said, concrete and cement, 8
	percent of all CO<INF>2</INF> emissions. If we could lower
	that, it is tremendous. And then the jobs then it all effects
	right here. So it would be very good if we could streamline
	that and have to be less dependent on the excellent access to
	equipment, particularly in Asia.
	Mr. Lucas. Dr. Tour, our legislation I mentioned, SALSTA,
	also aims to expand our American STEM workforce pipeline and
	its investment in infrastructure needed to maintain domestic
	research facilities. So I'd ask you the following. What role
	does infrastructure--and by that I mean world-class
	laboratories, top-notch instruments, collaboration,
	collaborative user facilities--have in attracting and keeping
	researchers here in the United States?
	Dr. Tour. This is a very big deal. We have a brain drain
	going on right now because students are going back to their
	home countries rather than becoming professors in the United
	States, which they have traditionally done, because of the lack
	of equipment and the lack of deep support from government
	agencies toward academic research. And they are going home
	because the packages they can get are much better. I've
	testified to Congress before on this same issue, that the brain
	drain that is currently happening in the United States is
	frightening. Many of these people would have stayed in the
	United States had the packages been here, had the equipment
	been here. So if we want to keep the first-class people here,
	we've got to have the infrastructure to maintain this.
	Mr. Lucas. Let me conclude by saying, Ms. Patterson, I
	very much appreciate your comments about the Morrill Act of
	1862. Hopefully, with time and generational societal change we
	are overcoming those deficiencies.
	I'm very proud of the efforts made by Congress in 1890 to
	create the 1890 land-grant universities and the 1994s. At some
	point this is not the right venue we should discuss how we
	address the proper funding of the 1890's. I have one of those
	in my district, Langston University, an outstanding facility,
	but making sure the necessary resources are there so that they
	can be fully utilized by people.
	With that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chair.
	Staff. Ms. Stevens is next.
	Ms. Stevens. OK, great. Well, thank you all so much, and
	thanks to our Chairman. And congratulations to him on his first
	hearing on a critical topic with some great witnesses.
	So our energy efficiency sector employees, you know, just
	shy of 2.5 million people according to the latest data that we
	have from 2019, and it's projected to grow at about, you know,
	3.4 percent year-over-year, and that's according to the
	National Association of State Energy Officials and Energy--our
	Energy Futures Initiative, yet 91 percent of construction
	employers in energy efficiency reported difficulty in hiring
	experienced, trained workers. And we certainly hear from our
	construction and building trade stakeholders here in Michigan
	about our critical workforce shortage, which has been obviously
	exacerbated by COVID-19.
	And energy efficiency in buildings, as we've been talking
	about, has an enormous potential to be a job creator, and we
	want to have equity, we want to have inclusion, we want to
	target the needs, as our Chairman was discussing.
	So, Mr. Hagerman, you discussed the need for workforce
	development and training in the energy efficiency sector. You
	touched on that. Can we shed some light on the role that the
	Federal Government can maintain to help fill this gap, and
	could you also comment on programs at Oak Ridge National Lab
	that are working to address this need?
	Mr. Hagerman. Absolutely. So, first, thank you for that
	wonderful question. And as I said in my--with my written and my
	oral testimony, jobs are--American jobs are so critical as we
	start to decarbonize all the sectors and we actually achieve
	energy efficiency savings for the Nation particularly because
	these are jobs that are--should be un-outsourceable, right? We
	need real people to go in buildings and make them more
	efficient.
	So let me first to speak to what Oak Ridge is doing. And
	of course I think we need to do more. We always need to do more
	to train the available workforce that are actually going to
	make good on the retrofits and all the other activities that
	American companies want to pursue. But we do three main things.
	One, we have the Oak Ridge Institute, which is a collaboration
	with University of Tennessee, where we're trying to grow the
	talent population and pool, pipeline to actually train and
	educate the workforce of the future. In one example, a
	colleague of mine works in the power electronic space. That's a
	space where I think that we need to spend a little bit more
	time and focus on actually making sure that Americans lead the
	intellectual pursuits in power electronics and advanced power
	electronics. It was a little concerning in the renewable space
	we saw Huawei as the No. 1 seller of solar----
	Ms. Stevens. Right.
	Mr. Hagerman [continuing]. At one point in time, right? So
	we need to----
	Ms. Stevens. Yes, we need this to be American jobs. No,
	and, Ms. Patterson, thank you so much for your testimony. I
	wanted to give you back some of your time because I know 5
	minutes goes quick. But you say the lack of representation in
	certain energy efficiency fields specifically that only .3
	percent of architects are Black women. So let's talk about this
	a little bit more. What are some ways--and, you know, I've been
	working on this in my career before I got to Congress, very
	focused on this now, but what are ways in which we can target
	and train workers particularly in communities of color in an
	appropriate and significant way?
	Ms. Patterson. Thank you so much for that question. Yes,
	so we have been working with Department of Energy specifically
	and through the Solar in Your Community Initiative and also
	through their Solar Energy Technology Office around how do we
	start to deploy both kind of the skills and resources to
	support kind of skills building, as well as providing resources
	for entrepreneurs and vendors so they can be competitive in
	this market.
	So one of the--so everything from policymaking like local-
	hire provisions and disadvantaged business enterprise
	provisions that are tied directly to these contracts I think is
	critical so that [inaudible]--and then also ways that we can
	look at the investments in--I think, as we talked before, in
	terms of the HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and
	Universities) and other educational institutions to ensure that
	we have a pipeline, the good kind of pipeline in terms of
	pathways for folks to enter into these professions are critical
	as well and really working closely with those institutions to
	help to build. And then also the skills training in terms of
	vocational training but it's not necessarily through the
	university, but those--making pathways like we--we're working--
	we're starting a Solar Vets Initiative to help to train--that's
	just--that's tied to the solar that's resources that are
	available that we'd love to see--I think they've cut back on
	their funding. We'd love to see that reignited and fully funded
	in terms of the Solar Vets Initiative, as well as really some
	funding that would target women. We did a project that was
	doing----
	Chairman Bowman. Ms. Patterson, just finish up your last
	thoughts. Sorry about that.
	Ms. Patterson. Yes, it's no problem. So working with
	things like grid alternatives [inaudible] and others that were
	specifically trying to train women and making sure that we have
	funding [inaudible]--thank you.
	Ms. Stevens. Thanks. I yield back, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
	Staff. Mr. Baird is next if he's available.
	Mr. Baird. I am.
	Staff. OK. You may proceed.
	Mr. Baird. Thank you, sir. You know, I really appreciate
	your having this hearing, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
	Weber. Now, I see our Ranking Member Lucas is on here, too, and
	he's always got an interesting perspective.
	But the thing that I was very interested in, Dr. Tour, I'm
	going to start with you because I found this carbon sink and
	the materials you mentioned kind of fascinating. And you know
	we have a tremendous capability at DOE with the computer
	capacity that we have to be able to advance this kind of
	technology. So I hope we can see a strong future partnership
	between the industry and our national labs and all this kind of
	research. But I would just like for you to elaborate on using
	the material to make cement, airplanes, building materials, and
	how we get that to our rural communities and some of our more
	remote situations. So that's the question.
	Dr. Tour. Yes, so thank you, Representative Baird. This is
	a real material that is transforming right now. So, like I
	said, our production rate is doubling every 9 weeks, so a
	single factory within 3 years will be able to produce hundreds
	of tons of this per day in about 3 years, and that's the
	projection rate. This--the collaborations right now are
	happening with companies that are testing these in concrete and
	asphalt, and one of those entities is the Army Corps of
	Engineers, ERDC, in Mississippi because they have the
	capability to do this, and then there's agreements with
	companies. We are working with big auto manufacturers taking
	their waste plastic because they're responsible now at least
	overseas--they're responsible--the American companies that sell
	overseas are responsible for their plastic in the E.U. now from
	every vehicle, and it's almost 200 kilograms of plastic in a
	car. We've converted that into graphene, we've given it back to
	them to put it into new plastic that goes into cars, so it's
	really a wonderful cycle here.
	And the energy savings are real material. This is real
	material going into then construction, concrete, wood
	composites with wood manufacturers, so this is really beginning
	to transform this. And this is one of the things that's been
	permitted by keeping this in a small company where I can help
	to control this and say, no, we got to get this into these
	products, as well as small companies contacting me that want to
	deploy this. I say, OK, we're not in the big scale deploying
	right now, but that's going to come within a few years and we
	marked down their names and we want to see this deployed.
	Mr. Baird. Fantastic. I find that extremely interesting.
	And with the ag background, some of the materials that you
	could have access to, including forest products that can be
	converted into this kind of material is of great interest to
	me, so I'm glad to see the research that we do, the research
	that you've done making that kind of progress.
	If any of the other witnesses would like to or care to
	make a comment, feel free to do so at this time. I got about a
	minute and 25 seconds left.
	Mr. Hagerman. I--so this is Joe Hagerman with Oak Ridge
	National Lab and, you know, partnerships are a key to our
	science, right? They are one of the fuels for our science. In
	our BTRIC user facility we have 19 active CRADAs (cooperative
	research and development agreements) where we're actively
	working with companies, and companies seek us out. And DOE has
	just announced or has announced a technical collaboration
	program that companies can use and leverage Oak Ridge to solve
	their problems, and I think that's a wonderful way that we can
	augment U.S. companies and make them get to the results that we
	know they can have.
	Mr. Baird. Yes, I think it's important, too, that our
	national labs--I'm very pleased that they're able to do some of
	the basic research sometimes that the industry cannot really
	justify, that that then leads into the kinds of things we're
	talking about here, so thank you very much. And I yield back.
	Dr. Jackson. Can I add as well?
	Mr. Baird. Sure.
	Dr. Jackson. Yes, so I'd like to add as well, coming from
	a background of being a general contractor before going into
	the national lab, really understanding that most general
	contractors are small and don't have the research budgets, and
	so the role of DOE and a national lab being able to provide
	research and through programs such as Building America where
	Building America is actually taking technologies that are
	developed in the lab and working with builders boots on the
	ground to actually deploy this, as well as retrofit
	contractors, and so that's just one example. Better Building is
	another. And then the ABC, Advanced Building Construction, is
	yet another initiative that is intending to do that, to be that
	venue, and now we can develop science, take science, develop it
	into products and bridge that gap, so those contractors like
	myself back in the day could help get technologies developed
	and deployed.
	Mr. Baird. Excellent point, excellent point. I yield back.
	Thank you.
	Staff. Ms. Bonamici is next.
	Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chair Bowman and Ranking Member
	Weber. Thank you to all of our witnesses for joining us today
	and for your expertise.
	I know that residential and commercial buildings--we know
	this--are notoriously challenging to decarbonize. But to
	address the climate crisis, we need to meaningfully repair and
	rebuild our Nation's infrastructure in a resilient and
	sustainable manner. So last year I joined my colleagues on the
	Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. We released a bold,
	comprehensive, science-based climate action plan to reach net
	zero emissions no later than midcentury and net negative
	thereafter. Our plan includes many policies to eliminate
	emissions from new buildings by 2030, increased homeowner
	incentives for energy-efficient affordable housing. And I look
	forward to working with my colleagues on this Subcommittee and
	the Full Committee to advance these policies.
	Dr. Esram, I represent a district in northwest Oregon. I
	know you're in the Pacific Northwest as well. In the district I
	represent, the Orchards, which is--was completed in June of
	2015, at the time was the largest certified multifamily Passive
	House building in North America. They anticipated in its 57
	units to have a 90 percent energy reduction for heating and 60
	to 70 percent overall savings in energy use compared to a
	typical building of its size. Not far from the Orchards is the
	headquarters of the First Tech Federal Credit Union, which is a
	five-story 156,000 square-foot building built of cross-
	laminated timber (CLT).
	So in northwest Oregon the industrial sector is turning to
	mass timber as an alternative to steel and concrete, and cross-
	laminated timber, when harvested using sustainable forest
	management practices, can sequester and store massive amounts
	of carbon dioxide. There are still questions about the
	lifecycle assessments of CLT, but the material raises the
	possibility of storing massive amounts of carbon in buildings
	for decades or perhaps in perpetuity.
	So, Dr. Esram, in your testimony you noted that the R&D
	gap in our understanding of lifecycle carbon--that there is an
	R&D gap. So what initiatives could the Department of Energy's
	Building Technologies Office advance to better address embodied
	carbon and operational carbon emissions in building materials,
	equipment, and construction processes?
	Dr. Esram. Well, thanks for the question, Congresswoman.
	The most-needed R&D gap is a standardized way to calculate the
	lifecycle impact of all these materials and also from a
	holistic perspective to consider building as an integrated
	entity, not just pieces, you know, the concrete [inaudible]. I
	think we need to think about what is a target, how to
	standardize it, and also give innovation or freedom to the
	architect, to the builders to create low-embodied carbon
	buildings and not just really at a surface level and go one
	step deeper, standardization, and the most holistic view of
	looking at embodied carbon buildings.
	Ms. Bonamici. And what difference would it make if we had
	those standards?
	Dr. Esram. I think that will make the industry being more
	innovative to actively think about how can they create building
	products that--increase--include multiple benefits for the
	society and for the building owners and for the building
	occupants because currently our so-called lifecycle analysis is
	too narrowly defined on the economic payback of certain
	technologies or constructions. It's just----
	Ms. Bonamici. That's helpful. And I don't want to cut you
	off, but I really want to get a question in to Ms. Patterson.
	And, Ms. Patterson, Portland State University recently released
	a study demonstrating how historically racist redlining housing
	policies in northeast Portland have exacerbated the effects of
	warming temperatures and poor air quality and we--for Black
	people and people of color. Extreme heat events are expected to
	increase in frequency and intensity because of the climate
	crisis and, as a result, these same historically underserved
	neighborhoods will face health risks of increasing
	temperatures, higher energy bills, and inequitable access to
	green spaces.
	And we know that many Federal programs like the DOE's
	Weatherization Assistance Program can't meet current demands.
	So what does this mean for our BIPOC communities and how can
	Congress better support innovative residential weatherization
	and energy practices, particularly for frontline households?
	Ms. Patterson. Thank you so much. Yes. So I think one key
	strategy is to really think about spending priorities across
	the board and think about models that are multi-solving so that
	we don't just think about energy retrofits that are just
	focused on energy reference retrofits through the Department of
	Energy but we think about how we do energy retrofits that are
	tied to other--you know, that are financed through health
	funding because we know that having better indoor air quality
	and better temperature moderation and so forth are better for
	multiple reasons and also tied to resources from Department of
	Labor. So we've put together kind of cross-sector packages in
	order to be able to truly fund these and recognize that it's
	not just about providing one single thing, but it's about
	lifting the quality of housing and the quality of health and
	well-being and think about how each of these sectors contribute
	to that goal. So I think really multi-solving is the key--key
	term here and therefore multisector or multi-funding
	approaches.
	Ms. Bonamici. Great, thank you. And I see my time is
	expired. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Staff. Mr. Garcia is next.
	Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chair Bowman and
	Ranking Member Weber, thanks for pulling this together. This is
	actually very interesting discussions here. I want to thank all
	of our guests and actually congratulate you all for your
	achievements and your successes in being leaders in your
	respective fields.
	I've got two questions. The first is for Dr. Tour and the
	second is for Dr. Jackson. Dr. Tour, this graphene discussion
	is very interesting. When I saw the writeups for this, I was
	doing some homework yesterday in preparation for today, and
	what I was looking at initially was whether or not the use of
	graphene would become a potential environmental risk like what
	we've seen with PFAS creeping into our water tables. I'm sure
	you're familiar with what PFAS is, the polyfluoroalkyl
	substances. We have a contamination problem in California with
	PFAS getting into our waters. And while I was doing that
	research, I was reading that graphene is actually as it is
	effectively an allotrope of carbon, right? It's a derivative of
	sort of an activated carbon. And I was reading articles where
	graphene may actually be used to remove PFAS as a potential
	filtrate opportunity. Have you seen any research or done any
	research to where the use of graphene within water filtration
	systems can help mitigate our PFAS problems that we're seeing
	in some of our local communities?
	Dr. Tour. Yes, I don't know particularly with PFAS, but I
	know that graphene, these carbon materials are indeed being
	used for water filtration. In fact, I have a company that's
	actually doing that, using graphene in water filtration
	systems. And so--and the thing about graphene is it's already
	naturally occurring. If you have graphite in a riverbed, it's
	shearing off slices of graphene. It's already naturally
	occurring, and that's what makes it all the more attractive in
	that it's a naturally occurring material, hard to access, but
	for water filtration, the PFAS problem, there are other ways
	that we're addressing that. And actually my group is addressing
	particularly that problem, so I know something about that. And
	we've just recently gotten some grant money to do that through
	the Department of Defense to try to address specifically that
	PFAS problem.
	Mr. Garcia. If it's OK, maybe you and I can take it
	offline, but I'd love to connect you with our local water
	districts here in my district in southern California. They're
	struggling with this right now, as many are, but they're on the
	precipice of making very significant investments, and I just
	want to ensure they're looking at all options before we go too
	far downrange. A lot of Federal assistance going into those
	types of programs as well, as you know, so I would love to be
	able to connect you offline if we can with some of our folks on
	our end.
	Dr. Tour. I would be glad to.
	Mr. Garcia. Thank you, sir. Dr. Jackson, it's hard to
	believe that solar power for residential applications has been
	around for, what, 30 years now, maybe even a little bit longer.
	Can you talk to us a little bit about the generational shifts
	in solar power? I know the cost curve is coming down. You know,
	it's Moore's law really, right? It's double-capacity, half-
	price every, what, 5 or 6 years. We're seeing that real-time.
	Is it just an improvement in efficiencies and costs, or are
	there other sort of revolutionary increments in terms of the
	technology? I know the integration of solar into roof tiles now
	is a new thing, but can you talk to us about how the solar
	industry is actually--what is the state-of-the-art and why is
	that so important right now?
	Dr. Jackson. So I think that's a great question. I think
	we've seen some of the trends because of multiple things. I
	think it's a multifold, one being the materials. We have been
	able to go from some of the traditional semiconductor-type
	materials that we used 30, 40 years ago, and now we're actually
	using even some of organics so even one of the things that's
	been--really NREL has been leading on is perovskites (PV) is
	one where you can basically paint it on. There's YouTube videos
	of painting on of PV device.
	And so one of the things--then the next step is what we do
	as we continue to advance the curve is the soft costs, the cost
	of integration, because if you make a supercheap material but
	it takes a lot integrate it, then the overall effective cost is
	still high. So that's been coming down as well.
	Then finally where I see this going is now what we're
	seeing--actually, it was a Nature Communications paper last
	year where we took those advances in perovskites and other
	types of materials and said what if you actually integrated
	those into your window--into your building facade? So now you
	can see that window that actually is glazing. You can see out
	of it, but by innovating some technology that we have, you can
	make it where it switches, where it's a clear window when it's
	kind of the light it isn't as clear, but then when the sun is
	readily available, it can actually serve as a glaze to help
	with glare while also collecting solar. So you have a--so it's
	taking that perovskites, those types of innovations and
	incorporating into traditional facade and windows to be able to
	take solar innovation to the building envelope to the next
	level.
	Mr. Garcia. That's fantastic. I can go on for hours on
	this stuff. Thanks, guys, for sharing, very interesting
	technologies. And I yield back. I'm out of time. Thanks, guys.
	Staff. Ms. Ross is next.
	Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
	having this be our first hearing. It's really fascinating.
	I want to talk a little bit about your initial theme for
	the hearing, and so--which is how do we get some of these
	technologies that are good for our environment and good for
	people's health in affordable housing. And right now in my
	district I have a--I'm from the Research Triangle area. It's a
	growing area. And we are coming up against a real battle to get
	more affordable housing. At the same time, old--what used to be
	called housing projects are being torn down because they are--
	they're past their useful lives and the living conditions are
	not as good, and we're replacing them.
	And so I'd love to know from any of the panelists where
	there are good examples of sustainable, healthy, affordable
	housing projects in this country or in other countries so that
	when we build again, we build in a way that all residents get
	the health benefits, get the energy-efficiency benefits, and we
	get the environmental benefits. So to anybody, it looks like we
	have a few people who want to jump in. Yes.
	Mr. Hagerman. So this is Joe Hagerman with Oak Ridge. I
	can talk a little bit about our work with Clayton Homes, so
	Clayton Homes is the largest affordable housing manufacturer I
	think in the Nation. We're working with them to apply some of
	the connected-community principles into their manufactured
	housing and make those homes safer, more efficient, and
	healthier in terms of indoor air quality. And this is really
	about adding controls into their normal product and making
	those things world-class and really taking the lessons learned
	from our previous projects in Alabama, Georgia, and with EPRI,
	the Electric Power Research Institute.
	Ms. Ross. And as a follow-up, how can we in Congress
	create incentives to do that? So, you know, some people who are
	in the affordable housing business are in it as a business.
	Other people are in it because they really care about the
	residents. Are there any triggers or incentives that we in
	Congress could provide to have that--these practices--best
	practices be more widespread?
	Mr. Hagerman. Oh, absolutely. So another project we have
	with the Knoxville Community Development Corporation, they're
	actually actively decarbonizing their buildings, and they--
	those are actually their words, right? And so I think we as a
	lab have really learned a lot from that in terms of seeing
	retrofits, and as you talk about best practices for retrofits,
	they need to pivot to see those as decarbonization events
	because it would make the house healthier for the homeowner and
	they'd pay one less bill at the end of the day as well. So I
	think those incentives to really kind rethink retrofits is a
	whole--and incentives to help decarbonize or make the
	justification to decarbonize would help.
	Ms. Ross. Thank you. Does anybody else know of examples
	around the country or around the world, any of the other
	panelists?
	Dr. Jackson. I'll give some--I'll give an example
	[inaudible] because I think one of the things we have to be
	[inaudible] to ensure that we approach the affordable housing
	challenge particularly with retrofits. Those are distinctly
	harder. As the Chairman mentioned, in--because--in New York
	we've seen--the New York Times, we've talked about like some of
	the urban heat island effects, and so a lot of times in
	projects you see the actual temperature change--the temperature
	dynamics in those environments are different, so we have to
	think through them differently to make sure that we have the
	right solution for the right application.
	And so a--we've seen in Europe--some of the things they've
	done in Europe is they use modular construction and actually
	replace the whole building facade. Now, those are some of the
	things that the Advanced Building Construction Initiative
	through the DOE's funding were actually trying to say how can
	we take the best from those things like we--in Energiesprong
	that's done in Europe and say what does that look like or what
	is a modular-type approach that can be used here or a panelized
	approach and say for these types of affordable construction,
	how do we do the best thing for that? Because just because it
	worked in a market rate or advance market community doesn't
	mean it's going to work in an affordable community. And I think
	that's the--that's the challenge that we face is if we do that,
	we have--we end up with a less optimal or a less correct
	solution for those communities that actually need more
	investment.
	So to your question of what we can do, I think we need to
	have a very focused effort on the affordable community so that
	we can make sure we're developing the right solutions for those
	challenges.
	Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
	Staff. Mr. Feenstra is next.
	Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member
	Lucas.
	Before I start, I just want to thank each of the witnesses
	for their testimony and sharing their extensive research and
	opinions with us. Iowa's 4th District, where I'm from, is no
	stranger to leading an energy and environmental design. With
	over 65 LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)-
	certified buildings in my district, northwest Iowa takes its
	sustainable buildings very seriously.
	Additionally, I'm an original cosponsor on Ranking Member
	Lucas's SALSTA's Act that includes an increase in the
	investment in the DOE's Office of Science. Their research can
	help support the next generation of clean energy and efficiency
	and technology.
	Dr. Jackson and Dr. Hagerman, I got a question.
	Retrofitting existing buildings, which we have a lot of here in
	the 4th District, is one way to avoid the embodied carbon and
	cost produced from the building and construction process. What
	are some of the most cost-effective and carbon-reducing
	retrofitting techniques that can be utilized today?
	Dr. Jackson. So I'll start. I think the most cost--one of
	the things is it's kind of--you know, as an engineer, it
	depends. It depends on the application in many instances. So
	for the climate, one of the things that you would do is the
	building facade to ensure that you get the biggest bang for
	your buck because that helps you with resilience, particularly
	as we look forward with climate change and making sure that the
	building works today but it also works 50 years from now. So
	the best you can do is a building facade.
	And so now going back to the question Dr. Esram mentioned
	before, we need to ensure that we understand the embodied
	impact of the materials that go into that facade, and so that's
	why we need to continue to advance the research in what--in
	embodied energy so that as we do those facade retrofits that
	can be done today, they can use the least-embodied energy
	approach. So those are--that's one of the most readily
	available.
	Mr. Hagerman. So this is Joe Hagerman from Oak Ridge, and
	I would answer controls and retuning, so controls, if you can
	get your controls right, tune up the equipment, you can save a
	lot of money, and then once we have controls available, we can
	make the schedules fit people's active lives. And then we can
	also expose those controls to the utilities so we can start
	using and leveraging those buildings as a resource of the grid
	to make the grid more resilient, just as we're making your
	house more resilient.
	Mr. Feenstra. That's very good. This is for anybody. So my
	district, we're very high into agriculture production, and so
	we maximize the use of our bio-based materials. As an example,
	Iowa State Centers for Crop Utilization has worked on projects
	like creating adhesives and insulation from crops and crop
	byproducts. These can provide a cost-effective alternative
	instead of petroleum-based products. Is there a way--or how do
	we see that we could expand this research or do you think this
	is a good method that we should be spending our time on in
	future research?
	Mr. Hagerman. So if I could answer that, yes, and, right,
	we see a lot of those types of cellular materials going into
	the feedstock for our additive manufacturing machines, so I
	would encourage you to explore, you know, other uses of those
	materials, too, especially in the advanced construction kind of
	industry and this 3-D printed world we're about to live in.
	Mr. Feenstra. All right. Well, thank you so much, Doctors.
	Mr. Chair, thank you, and I yield back.
	Chairman Bowman. Thank you very much. Before we bring the
	hearing to a close, I want to thank our witnesses for
	testifying before the Committee today. The record will remain
	open for 2 weeks for additional statements from the Members and
	for any additional questions the Committee may ask of the
	witnesses.
	The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now brought
	to a close. We are adjourned.
	[Whereupon, at 2:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

	[all]
	</pre></body></html>