[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FUTURE OF COAL: UTILIZING
AMERICA'S ABUNDANT ENERGY RESOURCES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 25, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-44
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-223 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois SCOTT PETERS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DEREK KILMER, Washington
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming MARC VEASEY, Texas
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JULIA BROWNLEY, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARK TAKANO, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy
HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming, Chair
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas MARC VEASEY, Texas
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois MARK TAKANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ZOE LOFGREN, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY WEBER, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Cynthia Lummis, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 12
Written Statement............................................ 12
Statement by Representative Eric Swalwell, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Witnesses:
Mr. Chris Smith, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy,
Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Mr. Ben Yamagata, Executive Director, Coal Utilization Research
Council
Oral Statement............................................... 31
Written Statement............................................ 33
Mr. Don Collins, Chief Executive Officer, Western Research
Institute..................................................
Oral Statement............................................... 55
Written Statement............................................ 57
Ms. Judi Greenwald, Vice President, Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions
Oral Statement............................................... 96
Written Statement............................................ 98
Discussion....................................................... 104
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Chris Smith, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy,
Department of Energy........................................... 118
Mr. Ben Yamagata, Executive Director, Coal Utilization Research
Council........................................................ 134
Mr. Don Collins, Chief Executive Officer, Western Research
Institute...................................................... 139
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Submitted letter for the record by Representative Cynthia Lummis,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 154
Department of Energy's International Energy Outlook charts
submitted by Representative Cynthia Lummis, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 157
THE FUTURE OF COAL:
UTILIZING AMERICA'S
ABUNDANT ENERGY RESOURCES
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:36 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cynthia
Lummis [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Lummis. Good morning. Welcome to today's hearing
titled ``The Future of Coal: Utilizing America's Abundant
Energy Resources.'' And now the Subcommittee on Energy will
come to order.
In front of you are packets containing the written
testimony, biographies and Truth in Testimony disclosures of
today's witness panel. I now recognize myself for a five minute
opening statement and then I will turn it over to my Ranking
Member, Mr. Swalwell. Thank you all for being here, and we will
have others trickling in as the morning goes on.
Coal is of critical importance to the United States. From
Thomas Edison's construction of the world's first electric
power plant in 1892, through today, coal has led the way in
enabling the enormous improvements to Americans' health and
well-being. It remains our leading source of affordable and
reliable electricity, providing a foundation for our national
and economic security while directly supporting hundreds of
thousands of jobs and powering industrial facilities that
produce the inexpensive goods we too often take for granted so
middle- and lower-income Americans can enjoy a higher standard
of living and make their hard-earned dollars go farther.
Rarely, however, has such a beneficial, life-improving
resource upon which society depends been under such hostile
attack. Adding injury to insult, this attack is being led by
our own President. In 2008, President Obama boasted on the
campaign trail that his policies would necessarily bankrupt any
company that wanted to build a coal-fired power plant.
Unfortunately, this is one campaign promise that the
President appears determined to keep. Not only are his EPA
power plant regulations effectively prohibiting new coal plants
from being constructed, they are imposing massive costs on
existing plants and forcing scores of shutdowns. For example,
288 coal units in 32 states cited current and pending EPA
regulations as a factor contributing to their expected closure.
Senior members of the Obama Administration have readily
acknowledged the negative impacts of these policies. For
example, former DOE Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil
Energy Jim Wood estimated that EPA rules could force up to--
excuse me--that EPA rules could force up to 70 gigawatts of
coal offline, adding: ``Number one, electric rates are going to
go up. Number two, whether or not construction jobs in the
green industry are created, I think there are virtually no
manufacturing jobs that are likely to be created from the
replacement of coal. Three, transmission grid stability is
likely to emerge as a major issue, both because of the
shutdowns and because of the intermittency of renewables.''
EPA is just one agency leading the war on coal. On Tuesday,
the House Natural Resources Committee discussed the Department
of Interior's anti-coal regulations that would restrict
coalmining activities and result in thousands of lost jobs in
the coalmining industry.
Incredibly, the President is even attempting to limit the
global use of coal by restricting international aid for it in
developing countries, thus limiting access to the primary means
through which those countries' citizens escape poverty.
Even if the President were successful in his quest to
eliminate all U.S. coal-fired power plants, any potential
reductions in projected global warming would more than
undertaken by global emission growth. China continues to build
a coal plant a week, and global coal demand is projected to
continue to grow significantly over the next half century,
regardless of U.S. domestic policy.
The purpose of today's hearing, and the challenge before us
in this Subcommittee, is to apply these regulatory, economic
and global realities to improve the focus and prioritization of
DOE's coal related activities. To this end, I look forward to
hearing more about the recently developed coal R&D roadmap and
how it could help identify technology opportunities to increase
efficiencies, reduce pollutants, minimize water consumption,
and lower the cost of electricity.
I am also eager to examine in more detail the truly
innovative research underway at the Western Resources Institute
in Wyoming. WRI serves as a model of how to bring together
public, private and academic stakeholders to advance
development and use of abundant and affordable energy supplies.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lummis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Chairman Cynthia Lummis
Good morning and welcome to this morning's hearing titled The
Future of Coal: Utilizing America's Abundant Energy Resources.
Coal is of critical importance to the United States. Since the
founding of our country, through Thomas Edison's construction of the
world's first electric power plant in 1892, and continuing still today,
coal has led the way in enabling the enormous improvements to
Americans' health and well-being. It remains our leading source of
affordable and reliable electricity, providing a foundation for our
national and economic security while directly supporting hundreds of
thousands of jobs and powering industrial facilities that produce the
inexpensive goods we too often take for granted.
Rarely, however, has such a beneficial, life-improving resource
upon which society depends been under such hostile attack.
Adding injury to insult, this attack is being led by our own
President. In 2008, President Obama boasted on the campaign trail that
his policies would ``necessarily bankrupt'' any company that wanted to
build a coal-fired power plant.
Unfortunately, this is one campaign promise that the President
appears determined to keep. Not only are his EPA power plant
regulations effectively prohibiting new coal plants from being
constructed, they are imposing massive costs on existing plants and
forcing scores of shutdowns. For example, 288 coal units in 32 states
cited current and pending EPA regulations as a factor contributing to
their expected closure.
Senior members of the Obama Administration have readily
acknowledged the negative impacts of these policies. For example, in
2011, then-DOE Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy Jim Wood
estimated that up to EPA rules could force up to 70 gigawatts of coal
offline, adding:
``Number one, electric rates are going to go up. Number two,
whether or not construction jobs in the green industry are created, I
think there are virtually no manufacturing jobs that are likely to be
created from the replacement of coal. Three . transmission grid
stability is likely to emerge as a major issue, both because of the
shutdowns and because of the intermittency of renewables.''
EPA is just one agency leading the war on coal. On Tuesday, the
House Natural Resources Committee discussed the Department of
Interior's anti-coal regulations that would restrict coal mining
activities and result in thousands of lost jobs in the coal mining
industry.
Incredibly, the President is even attempting to limit the global
use of coal by restricting international aid for it in developing
countries, thus limiting access to the primary means through which
those countries' citizens escape poverty.
Even if the President were successful in his quest to eliminate all
U.S. coal-fired power plants, any potential reductions to projected
global warming would more than overtaken by global emissions growth.
China continues to build a coal plant a week and global coal demand is
projected to continue to grow significantly over the next half century,
regardless of U.S. domestic policy.
The purpose of today's hearing--and the challenge before us in this
Subcommittee--is to apply these regulatory, economic, and global
realities to improve the focus and prioritization of DOE's coal related
activities. To this end, I look forward to hearing more about the
recently developed coal R&D roadmap and how it could help identify
technology opportunities to increase efficiencies, reduce pollutants,
minimize water consumption, and lower the cost of electricity.
I am also eager to examine in more detail the truly innovative
research underway at the Western Resources Institute in Wyoming. WRI
serves as a model of how to bring together public, private and academic
stakeholders to advance development and use of abundant and affordable
energy supplies.
Thank you, and I now yield to Ranking Member Swalwell for his
opening statement.
Chairman Lummis. Thanks, and I now yield to Ranking Member
Swalwell for his opening statement.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chairman Lummis, and first, I ask
unanimous consent that Ranking Member Johnson of the Full
Committee, that her opening statement be entered into the
record. She will not be able to be here today but has been a
leader in this area, and I hope the Committee will accept that.
Chairman Lummis. Accepted.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Committee on Science, Space and Technology
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Lummis for holding this hearing today. I would
also like to thank all the witnesses for coming in to discuss the
future role of coal in the United States.
I am pleased, in particular, to welcome Ms. Judi Greenwald, who
will be able to tell us more about some important projects in the great
State of Texas--where we have seen the value of coal energy, but also
its negative impacts.
Coal has been an abundant and important source of energy through
much of our Nation's history, and that is why I support the Department
of Energy's efforts to make our use of coal cleaner and more efficient
even as we lay the foundation for a more sustainable energy future.
I am not here to promote one industry over another. Instead, I
believe we must promote policies that protect our environment, meet our
energy needs, and keep Americans working.
We must do more than just keep the lights on. We need to work
towards an energy future that recognizes that our environment is
changing, in part due to our past energy usage.
Record droughts and severe storms are sadly becoming too common,
but I and many of my colleagues here today stand determined to do
everything we can to curb the man-made causes of climate change and
give our future generations a sense of environmental security while
still providing them with a strong economy.
So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on what we
are doing, and what still needs to be done, to ensure that our mature
coal industry follows the lead of our vibrant renewable energy sector
in developing the environmentally responsible energy sources of today,
and tomorrow.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, I also wanted to thank you for
holding this hearing, and I want to thank the witnesses for
their testimony today, and I am pleased also to welcome Ms.
Judi Greenwald from the Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions, a group that does a lot of work in Texas, the home
state of our Full Committee Chairman Mr. Smith, our Ranking
Member, Ms. Johnson, and my colleague on this Subcommittee, Mr.
Veasey, and Mr. Veasey will introduce Ms. Greenwald in a
moment.
This morning before I came over here, I had some students
in my office, just part of a constituent thing that we do about
a couple times a month, and they asked where I was going and I
told them I was going to this hearing on coal, and these are
students from my district. They kind of had this puzzling look
on their face, and I said yes, that is right, coal. You know, I
know you are from California, we don't necessarily rely upon
coal as our energy resource but the rest of the country and
many places does, and I explained to them that we are at this
point right now in our country where we are in a struggle and a
pull, and we are trying to figure out where are we going to
provide, how are we going to provide the future of our energy
needs, and in California, we are proud that 20 percent of our
electricity in 2009, the last study that was available, was
provided by renewables. And so California has always seen
ourselves as kind of leading the country forward and moving
away from dirty fossil fuels that could hurt the environment
and not be so good for our children or the future. But coal
does have a place to play, and I am interested and have always
agreed that the all-of-the-above approach is the way we should
go, and wherever we can make it safe, we should make it happen,
and I support the chair's interest in doing this.
But I say that what the President talked about a couple
weeks back with climate change was not a war on coal. In fact,
I saw it as the opposite. I saw it as a retreat from coal, not
a war on coal but an attempt for the United States to
eventually one day hopefully pull out of coal and pull closer
to more renewable, cleaner energy sources, and that is what I
support. But until that day comes, I will continue to work with
our chair to find a future of coal that is clean and good for
our environment, and we should not ignore the possibilities
available today as we continue to move and strive for the fuels
of tomorrow. And programs like the National Enhanced Oil
Recovery Initiative demonstrate their innovative capabilities
of a mature coal industry that has long enjoyed Federal
support. Carbon capture and storage and enhanced oil recovery
are examples of important technologies that will help ensure
that our present reliance on coal will not hinder our ability
to move towards a cleaner, safer environment. These advances
also support Americans working in these industries today, even
as we lay the foundation for emerging energy technologies that
will support the workforce of the future.
So I look forward to working with you, Chair, on doing
this, hearing from our witnesses and making progress in this
area, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Swalwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Subcommittee Ranking Member Eric Swalwell
Thank you, Chairman Lummis, for holding this hearing. I want to
also thank the witnesses for their testimony and for being here to
answer our questions today. I am pleased to welcome Ms. Judi Greenwald,
from the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a group that does a
lot of work in Texas, the home state of our Full Committee Chairman Mr.
Smith, our Ranking Member Ms. Johnson, and my colleague on this
Subcommittee, Mr. Veasey.
This hearing is an opportunity to demonstrate the value of a true
``all-of-the-above'' approach to energy production, which has to
include taking the necessary steps to make existing fuel technologies
cleaner and more efficient. I am a strong supporter of the policies
that have helped my state of California see growth in the solar and
wind energy sectors, which provide clean energy to millions while
meeting the job demands of a growing workforce. However, we should not
ignore the possibilities available today as we move towards the fuels
of tomorrow.
Programs like the National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative
demonstrate the innovative capabilities of a mature coal industry that
has long enjoyed federal support. Carbon capture and storage and
enhanced oil recovery are examples of important technologies that will
help ensure that our present reliance on coal will not hinder our
ability to move towards a cleaner, safer environment. These advances
also support Americans working in these industries today, even as we
lay the foundation for emerging energy technologies that will support
the workforce of the future.
I look forward to learning more from our witnesses about progress
being made in this area, and with that, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell.
We have not seen the chairman of the Full Committee, Mr.
Smith, come in. We have accepted the statement of the Ranking
Member of the Full Committee. If there are Members who wish to
submit additional opening statements, your statements will be
added to the record at this point. Thank you. We will begin
then.
I would like to introduce our witnesses, and I will defer
to Mr. Veasey when he arrives--excellent. Your opportunity to
introduce Ms. Greenwald will be occurring shortly.
Our first witness toady is Chris Smith, Acting Assistant
Secretary for Fossil Energy at the Department of Energy. Mr.
Smith was appointed in 2009 as Assistant Secretary for Fossil
Energy's Office of Oil and Natural Gas. Prior to joining DOE,
Mr. Smith spent 11 years with international oil companies
focused on upstream business development and LNG trading.
Our second witness is Ben Yamagata. Did I get that right,
Mr. Yamagata?
Mr. Yamagata. Yes, Madam Chair.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you. Executive Director at the Coal
Utilization Research Council. Mr. Yamagata is also a partner at
Van Ness Feldman, where his practice encompasses energy,
environment and natural resources. He has also served as
Counsel and Staff Director for the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development.
Our third witness is Don Collins, Chief Executive Officer
at the Western Research Institute. Mr. Collins focuses on
transitioning scientific and applied research into
technologies. He has spent 29 years of experience in
engineering, management of research and deploying of new
technologies.
And for today's final witness, Judi Greenwald, I yield to
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Madam Chair, and before I introduce
Ms. Greenwald, I would be remiss if I did not mention that Mr.
Smith is from Fort Worth, my hometown in Texas, just outside of
Dallas, and I am happy to have him on the panel today, and I
wanted to introduce Judi Greenwald. Judi is the Vice President
for Technology and Innovation at the Center for Climate and
Energy Solutions. She oversees very many important aspects of
that organization including the analysis and promotion of
innovation in the major sectors that contribute to climate
change including transportation, electric power, buildings and
industry. In addition to her 30 years of working on
environmental and energy policy, she also has a strong Texas
connection and has worked with many organizations and
individuals in our great state, and I want to welcome her here
this morning.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Veasey.
And now we will go to our witnesses. As you may know,
spoken testimony is limited to five minutes each after which
the Members of the Committee will have five minutes each to ask
questions.
We welcome you here today, Mr. Smith. You are recognized
first to present your testimony. My favorite boot store in all
of America is in Fort Worth, and we are delighted to have a
good Fort Worth native amongst us. So Mr. Smith, you are now
recognized for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MR. CHRIS SMITH,
ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR FOSSIL ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Smith. Well, thank you, Chairwoman Lummis. Lots of Fort
Worth references this morning, so I am happy with that.
So thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you, Ranking Member
Swalwell and Members of the Subcommittee, and I appreciate this
opportunity to discuss Department of Energy's coal research and
development activities.
Recently, our Secretary, Secretary Ernie Moniz, announced
an $8 billion draft loan guarantee solicitation to promote the
early development and deployment of innovative fossil energy
projects that reduce carbon emissions. This solicitation in
addition to the $6 billion the Obama Administration has already
committed to clean coal technologies reflects the President's
commitment to an all-of-the-above strategy that embraces an
energy mix of nuclear power, renewable energy sources and
fossil fuel, including clean coal.
The Department of Energy continues to play a leadership
role in the development of clean coal technologies with a focus
on carbon capture and storage, or CCS. The Clean Coal Research
program, in partnership with the private sector, is focused on
maximizing efficiency and environmental performance while
minimizing the costs of these new technologies. In recent
years, the program has been restructured to focus on clean coal
technologies with carbon capture and sequestration. The program
pursues the following two major strategies: first, capturing
and storing greenhouse gases, and second, improving the
efficiency of fossil energy systems.
The Clean Coal Research program is addressing the key
challenges that confront the development and deployment of
clean coal technologies through research on cost-effective
capture technologies, monitoring, verification and accounting
technologies to ensure permanent storage and the development of
advanced energy systems. To get there, we are pursuing these
three technical pathways for carbon capture: post-combustion,
pre-combustion and oxy-combustion. Research in these pathways
is exploring a wide range of approaches that, coupled with
advances in efficiency improvements and cost reductions from
developments in gasification turbines, will help provide a
technology base for the commercial deployment of CCS
technologies.
On the storage side, we have pursued projects to develop
and design innovative advanced technology and protocols for the
monitoring, verification, and accounting of CO2
storage in geologic formations as well as simulating the
behavior of geologically stored CO2. Our original
carbon sequestration partnerships are an essential component of
that effort. The program is currently in the development phase
during which large-scale field testing involving at least 1
million metric tons of CO2 per project will be
implemented. Several of these large-scale tests are currently
underway, and one project has safely injected over 3.6 million
metric tons and is being monitored for safe and permanent
storage.
The Department is implementing large-scale projects for
their regional partnerships, the Clean Coal Power Initiative,
FutureGen 2.0, and the Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage
program. We currently have eight major CCS demonstration
projects nationwide, and there have been important advances in
several of them. For example, the Archer Daniels Midland ICCS
project in Illinois will demonstrate an integrated system of
CCS in an ethanol production plant. The project is under
construction and is nearly 50 percent complete. FutureGen 2.0
has successfully completed phase I, and phase II commenced in
February of this year. The project is now focused on the
preliminary design and engineering.
Current demonstrations are focused on storing CO2
in a variety of geologic formations including enhanced oil
recovery. Enhanced oil recovery represents the most
commercially attractive utilization option for CO2
storage that could produce substantial quantities of oil while
permanently storing CO2 in geologic formations.
There are currently six projects employing CO2 EOR
and two projects employing saline storage underway across the
United States. And as with saline storage projects, CO2
EOR projects will be subject to rigorous monitoring,
verification, accounting procedures, and technologies to ensure
their safety and effectiveness.
Today, nearly three out of four coal-burning power plants
in this country are equipped with technologies that can trace
their roots back to the Department of Energy's advanced coal
technology program. The Office of Fossil Energy's ongoing
mission is to ensure that this important resource can be
developed and utilized in an environmentally sensible way to
strengthen our Nation's energy security, and I believe that our
Clean Coal Research program demonstrates that we have the
critical experience, expertise and capabilities, and the track
record to meet this challenge.
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee, that
completes my prepared statement, and I would be happy to answer
any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Lummis. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
I now recognize Mr. Yamagata to present his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF MR. BEN YAMAGATA,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
COAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Yamagata. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Swalwell, Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to
make these comments today. I will specifically focus my
comments on the two subject areas you asked me to address by
discussing four points.First, in describing to you, as you
requested, our coal technology development roadmap done in
conjunction with the Electric Power Research Institute, let me
say we concluded that we can develop technologies that will
achieve very high conversion efficiencies moving electricity
generation from today's high of 39 or 40 percent to nearly 50
percent. Following the same roadmap agenda will result in
significant reductions in traditional air pollutants, leading
ultimately to coal-fueled plants that really today are very
clean but will be nearly emissions-free in the future. Since
the 1970s, the DOE's coal R&D program and the work of the
National Energy Technology Lab in collaboration with industry
has, as the Assistant Secretary pointed out, now been installed
on many of the coal units in this country. With DOE's support,
we are confident that technology will be the pathway to also
addressing CO2 emissions from the use of coal.
Second, you have asked if our roadmap might be a way of
examining the prioritization of DOE's R&D activities. Let me
start by stating our general agreement with DOE's R&D portfolio
and note industry's successful collaboration with the Fossil
Energy Office. Where we see need for added emphasis, CCS should
not be the singular focus of the government's R&D supported
efforts. We recommend an emphasis also on technology
development to address water use and discharge from power
plants and increased support for high-temperature-materials
development. These advanced materials are key to increasing the
efficiency of coal conversion to electricity. DOE may need to
focus more attention now on technologies that are truly
transformational, and that move beyond simply adding a series
of improved control technologies to power plant platforms that
generate electricity from power-generating technology now
itself several decades old. And finally, an inquiry should be
made whether the pace of technology development pursued by DOE
fits the age profile of the country's existing coal fleet. We
might require commercially available technology for retrofit of
coal units or the replacement of coal units by the early 2020s
so that technology can be used in the later 2020s or 2030s.
DOE's technology timelines could be too late by several years.
Also, the President's Fiscal Year 2014 coal R&D budget request
is nearly $100 million less than what we believe is required.
Third, the added cost of new and pending environmental
regulations, uncertainty over future regulations and market
competition from abundant natural gas have led to projections
that perhaps 60 to 80 gigawatts of older coal plants--that is
20 to 25 percent of the existing fleet--will be retired in the
next several years. Anticipated CO2 requirements
could dramatically increase the number of those requirements.
CURC has commented that the original EPA CO2
proposal for new coal plants requiring those plants to meet a
defined CO2 standard that can only be met with the
installation of carbon capture technology that is not
commercially available nor economic today, this is not a
realistic standard. We will await the re-proposal of this rule,
but if it is still predicated upon technology that is not
commercially available, our concerns remain. Simply directing
or assuming the existence of technology will not make it so.
And point four, you asked that we comment upon research
activities that should be pursued in the near, mid and long
term. CURC is developing a three-part program that is organized
around the proposition that technology development is a
positive pathway to the sustained and increased use of coal but
our program is being developed through the prism of defining
benefits to the Nation from coal use. In the near term, we are
considering recommendations to undertake the technology R&D to
address challenges to the existing baseload fleet, which is now
a cycling fleet, while simultaneously confronting ever-more
stringent air regulations. In the medium term, we need to
ensure that the DOE demonstrations currently underway are
successful. An additional demonstration program is needed to
encourage the construction of world-class, coal-fueled
generation plants meeting very high efficiency and emission
control standards and committing those projects to retrofit
with carbon capture technology when that technology is
commercially available. Also, we would recommend a program to
use captured CO2 from coal-using facilities for
enhanced oil recovery. We are looking for ways to accomplish
our mid-term program without new government spending. Progress
is being made on this front. And finally, in the long term,
government in partnership with industry needs to pursue a
targeted R&D program.
Thank you for your time, and I will await your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yamagata follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.044
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Yamagata.
I now recognize Mr. Collins for five minutes.
TESTIMONY OF MR. DON COLLINS,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
WESTERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Mr. Collins. Good morning, Chairman Lummis, Ranking Member
Swalwell and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Don Collins from
the Western Research Institute located in Laramie, Wyoming. On
behalf of everyone at WRI, we deeply appreciate the opportunity
to provide testimony on the vital role of innovative scientific
research and technology development that can assure a diverse
energy resource portfolio that utilizes our Nation's abundant
coal resources efficiently and environmentally responsibly.
WRI is a multidisciplinary scientific research and
technology development nonprofit institute currently
specializing in bioenergy, natural gas, emission capture,
environmental monitoring and remediation, asphalt chemistry,
heavy and ultra-heavy oils such as Canadian oil sands, as well
as clean coal power, gasification and conversion to
transportation fuels, hydrogen and industrial chemicals. So I
will summarize my testimony and request that my testimony be
entered into the record.
Our view is that R&D work is successful when viable
technologies are deployed to the betterment of our country. So
in my written testimony, I highlight opportunities to utilize
carbon to achieve energy recycling for living in a carbon-rich
world: utilize low-rank coal as an untapped water-rich
resource, increase plant efficiencies to lower emissions of
hazardous air pollutants and lower water consumption, leverage
existing coal power plant investments to also clean up eco-
legacy contamination levels such as for mercury, create a
diversified energy technology portfolio to best serve very
local conditions, and resource availability across the United
States.
Based on WRI's experience and expertise, I recommend that
Congress take some of the following actions: consider policies
that allow exploring solutions for living in a carbon-rich
world in addition to living in a carbon-constrained world;
cultivate a national best portfolio strategy to leverage all
energy resources and utilization technologies; formulate a
flexible, integrated clean energy technology research portfolio
and priorities that consider local and regional constraints;
allocate funding to support the utilization of carbon dioxide
to stimulate the transformation of this abundant compound from
something to be avoided to a beneficial resource that can be
used to increase chemical feedstocks, biofuels and support
national energy self-sufficiency; allocate resources for
research to support the sustainable and environmental safe use
of fossil fuels, especially energy and water efficiency
advancements in connection with the energy-water nexus;
formulate a Federal leadership team to strategically plan
advanced energy and water efficiency improvements and
environmental impact reductions across the entire coal sector.
In summary, at WRI, we take a portfolio approach to provide
sustainable energy solutions. Our thinking approach will
deliver cost efficiencies and environmental benefits with
respect to utilization of coal. The many boom-and-bust cycles
that we have experienced in the energy sector really are a
function of the marketplace, but the way in which we can
minimize the downside of this fact of life is through an
aggressive, innovative partnership between industry, research
entities and the Federal and state governments. This will
ensure our energy technology portfolio will deliver benefits to
the U.S. consumers and protect the environment.
I would note, for example, that the State of Wyoming is
implemented a long-term strategic plan to maximize the entire
energy portfolio within Wyoming, utilizing CO2 for
enhanced oil recovery and preparing for long-term storage of
CO2. These are precisely the kind of activities the
Federal Government should encourage. Making the best use of
limited financial investments in addition to efficient
utilization of all energy resources is key to achieving
national sustainability goals, energy security and economic
prosperity.
In closing, a strong commitment to a portfolio approach
that includes solutions for living in a carbon-rich world will
facilitate innovation and sustainable economic growth that in
turn strengthens U.S. competitiveness. This necessitates
continued Federal funding of scientific research and
technological development. It is essential to maximize the
energy efficiency and productivity of our country in the most
environmentally and economically sustainable ways.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you, and I would be pleased to answer any questions the
Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Collins follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Collins.
And now I recognize Ms. Greenwald to present her testimony.
Good morning.
TESTIMONY OF MS. JUDI GREENWALD, VICE PRESIDENT,
CENTER FOR CLIMATE AND ENERGY SOLUTIONS
Ms. Greenwald. Thank you. Madam Chairman, Congressman
Swalwell, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify, and thank you, Congressman Veasey, for
that kind introduction.
My name is Judi Greenwald, and I am the Vice President for
Technology and Innovation at the Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions. My testimony today will focus on the most important
climate and energy solution that no one knows about. I will
emphasize two main points.
First, carbon capture and storage, or CCS, is a critical
technology for addressing climate change while allowing
continued reliance on fossil fuels. Second, carbon dioxide-
enhanced oil recovery, or CO2 EOR, can advance CCS
while boosting domestic oil production and creating and
generating that Federal revenue.
The United States and the rest of the world get 80 percent
of our energy from coal, oil and gas, and our fossil fuel
dependence is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.
Carbon dioxide emissions from burning these fuels pose an
enormous challenge. That is why we need CCS, a suite of
technologies that capture CO2 and stores it deep
underground in geological formations. CCS can capture up to 90
percent of emissions from power plant and industrial
facilities, allowing coal and natural gas to remain part of our
energy mix. CCS has been commercialized for certain industrial
processes. However, CCS in other contexts, for example, coal
and natural gas power plants is a relatively expensive
technology that is just reaching maturity. The key challenge
for CCS is to get a sufficient number of commercial-scale
projects up and running to demonstrate the emerging
technologies at scale and bring down their costs.
The Department of Energy's role in CCS development has been
and will remain critical. DOE is working with the private
sector on the leading innovative CCS projects today including
several coal-based power projects. Additional drivers will be
needed, though, to help the next generation of CCS projects
move forward. That is why CCS is being increasingly thought of
as carbon capture utilization and storage, or CCUS.
Utilizing captured carbon dioxide for enhanced oil
recovery, or CO2 EOR, could play a key role in the
development of CCS. It also has the potential to increase
American oil production by tens of billions of barrels while
displacing imported oil and safely storing billions of tons of
carbon emissions underground.
Let me explain how this works. Even after conventional
primary and secondary oil recovery, most of the oil in a
typical field is left in the ground. Injecting carbon dioxide
deep underground can make it possible to recover more oil and
extend the field's life. The United States has been a global
leader in CO2 EOR for 40 years, and gets six percent
of its domestic oil this way. While most CO2 EOR
activities occur in the Permian Basin of Texas, there are also
projects in Wyoming, the Gulf Coast, Oklahoma and Michigan.
Using existing technologies, CO2 EOR could double or
triple U.S. reserves. It could also store 10 to 20 billion tons
of carbon dioxide, equivalent to five to ten years. worth of
emissions from all U.S. coal-fired power plants. More advanced
technologies could yield much higher production and CO2
storage.
Right now, most enhanced oil recovery is done using carbon
dioxide that is already underground and that is ironically in
short supply. By using captured manmade carbon dioxide, we can
increase domestic oil production, promote economic development,
create jobs, reduce carbon emissions, and drive innovation in
CCS technology. Because of these multiple benefits, we have
been able to bring together the National Enhanced Oil Recovery
Initiative, or NEORI, a diverse coalition of industry, labor
and environmental organization, and state officials. This
coalition's consensus recommendations call for a Federal tax
incentive to capture manmade CO2 for EOR.
In some regions, EOR operators are willing to pay upwards
of $30 per ton for CO2. At the same time, industrial
facilities and power plants are emitting billions of tons of
CO2 into the atmosphere as a waste. CO2
EOR offers the opportunity to transform this waste into a
marketable commodity and transform an environmental problem
into an energy production solution. By combining private EOR
operators willing to pay for CO2 with a tax
incentive, society would leverage its public investment. Tax
incentives for carbon dioxide-enhanced oil recovery would more
than pay for themselves within ten years by increasing domestic
oil production and associated taxable oil revenues. Federal
revenue would exceed the fiscal cost of new incentives by more
than $100 billion over 40 years.
To summarize, CCS is a critical technology for reconciling
our continued dependence on fossil fuels with the imperative to
protect the global climate. Our best hope at the moment for
advancing CCS is carbon capture utilization and storage, or
CCUS, and the best current example of that is enhanced oil
recovery. Solving our climate and energy problems will require
a portfolio of technologies, and all must be pursued
vigorously. But we are focusing here today on CO2
EOR because it is the most important climate and energy
solution that no one knows about.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your
questions and to working with the Subcommittee and the Congress
to advance this critical technology.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Greenwald follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Ms. Greenwald, and thank you,
panel.
Now, if we would limit our questions to four minutes each,
we could probably--everybody in this room could get to ask
questions before our vote series. If there is no objection to
going with four minutes instead of five, then so ordered, and
we will start--the Chair now recognizes herself for four
minutes. Thank you, panel, for being here. I am going to start
with Mr. Collins.
In your testimony, you talked about integrated portfolio
approaches to maximize benefits of coal. Could you tell us
which of those technologies you believe are the most promising
to improve energy utilization?
Mr. Collins. Yes, Madam Chairman. We have a process called
WRITECoal that will extract the water out of low-rank coals
that in the past has really been a missed opportunity. Low-rank
coal, especially out of Wyoming, has been beneficial for
reducing sulfur emissions because of its low sulfur content,
and the water has just gone up the smokestack along with other
emissions. By extracting that water at the front end, we can
utilize that water in the power plant and reduce local water
consumption in communities that are water stressed by about 50
to 60 percent for the makeup water, especially in air-cooled
systems. So we see that as a second value of low-rank coals
that were delivering water with the energy resource.
A second technology is a chemoautotrophic bacterial process
that will operate in the dark 24 hours a day to consume
CO2 and make a bio crude oil that can be used to
make synthetic diesel fuel, for instance, and perhaps even
other longer-chain carbon molecules like biopharmaceuticals and
turn that carbon in our coal into an additional economic
resource by using it more than once, and that is our view to
look at recycling energy.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Collins.
Now, Mr. Yamagata and Ms. Greenwald, I have a question
about the fossil energy loan guarantees, and they were--monies
were directed under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to advance
technologies and facilitate commercial application. Four
projects were selected for further evaluation in July of 2009,
and to date, no final loan guarantees have been issued. Your
groups have focused in part on these loan guarantees and their
status. To your knowledge, where are they in the DOE process?
Mr. Yamagata, any response there?
Mr. Yamagata. Madam Chair, frankly, I don't know where they
are. We know that the process that was started several years
ago in which DOE actually accepted--because that is the
process, the applications--and the DOE at least as we
understand it, the Secretary or his designee can stop that
process at any point in time but we don't know that that has
ever happened with respect to those four projects. So the
answer at least in short is, we are not quite certain where
those projects are. They don't appear to have been rejected.
Chairman Lummis. Ms. Greenwald, do you know?
Ms. Greenwald. We don't know either.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you.
Mr. Smith, I might ask, has DOE taken any steps to advance
these projects?
Mr. Smith. Thank you for the question, Madam Chairwoman. So
I manage the Office of Fossil Energy, which oversees all the
research and development that is done to advance fossil energy
technologies. I don't have oversight over the loan guarantee
program. I do know that the projects that were selected in that
first round focused primarily on CTL technologies. We have
recently announced an additional level of funding of $8
billion, which is another series of potential loan guarantees
that would have a very wide range of applications for fossil
energy technologies. We have taken the unprecedented step of
offering that for public comment so we can get feedback back
from industry, back from states, back from key stakeholders so
that we can structure that in a way that has the highest
probability of attracting the right type of participants and
make sure that we are successful moving that forward. So that
is the process that we are pushing for in real time right now.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, panel.
And now I yield four minutes to the Ranking Member, Mr.
Swalwell.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
For our witnesses, it is pretty evident now after a number
of scientific studies that 97 percent of scientists agree that
human activities are causing climate change, and so I want to
ask each one of you whether you agree or disagree with the 97
percent of scientists who believe in that.
Mr. Smith, do you agree or disagree?
Mr. Smith. We agree that most of our programs are focused
very strictly on reducing CO2 emissions and
greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Swalwell. But do you agree that climate change is
caused by human activities?
Mr. Smith. We do agree that this is something we need to
address, so we agree.
Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Yamagata, agree or disagree?
Mr. Yamagata. You are not going to like this answer. We
don't----
Mr. Swalwell. Is it agree or disagree?
Mr. Yamagata. We don't take a position on that issue. It is
not something that we want to deal with. What we want to deal
with is if public policy determines that this is an issue, we
have got to have the technologies available to address it.
Mr. Swalwell. How about you personally, Mr. Yamagata? Do
you agree or disagree?
Mr. Yamagata. I think there is a lot of information out
there that suggests so.
Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Collins, do you agree or disagree?
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Congressman Swalwell. I would say
you probably won't like my answer either. There are multiple
contributions to what people consider climate change, and it is
not all just man made anthropogenic sources. So that statement,
in my mind, is incomplete, so that is why I cannot agree to the
question.
Mr. Swalwell. Do you agree that human activity has played a
role, a substantial role, in climate change?
Mr. Collins. Human activity releases a lot of energy into
the environment that contributes to the warming, but I also
view that CO2 is an untapped resource and we need to
start thinking about how we utilize that. We live in a carbon-
rich world. You and I are carbon-based life forms. To consider
living in a carbon-free world to me sounds like suicide.
Mr. Swalwell. And Ms. Greenwald, do you agree or agree with
the 97 percent?
Ms. Greenwald. We agree. I focus on the technology solution
side of our organization but we do have staff that focuses on
science, and we do work in that area and do agree with the
scientific consensus.
Mr. Swalwell. Great. Thanks, Ms. Greenwald.
Mr. Smith, over the history of research to reduce the
environmental impacts of coal-fired power plants and to improve
their efficiency, where has the bulk of the innovation taken
place? Has that been in the private sector or has it been at
the national laboratories or our research universities?
Mr. Smith. Well, thank you for the question, and without
making a direct comparison, I would say that this is an area in
which it is critical for the government to be involved. We work
very closely with private industry in all the major
demonstrations that we are pushing out. We need to ensure that
we have got scientists that work in national laboratories
working alongside the practitioners in the field in industry,
so that is always going to be a collaborative effort. That is
the only way to move forward.
Mr. Swalwell. And have Federal regulations played a role in
incentivizing these innovations, and if so, how?
Mr. Smith. Well, first of all, I think it is important that
we fund critical programs that allow us to do this work. If you
look at the investments that we have made since the start of
this Administration, we have made a significant investment in
major demonstrations that came from the Recovery Act, and in
every year of the President's budget over the last several
years, we have made important, significant investments in
carbon capture and sequestration that fund that government
programs and allow us to work together with industry.
Mr. Swalwell. Great, and I will yield back in the interest
of allowing more questions from our colleagues.
Chairman Lummis. I thank the gentleman. I now yield to the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, for four minutes.
Mr. Neugebauer. Well, Madam Chairman, thank you for holding
this important hearing.
Mr. Smith, the Environmental Protection Agency is moving
forward with greenhouse gas regulations on both new and
existing coal-fired plants. In EPA's initial regulatory
proposal for new plants released last year, the EPA rulemaking
assumed that CCS technology would be commercially available
within ten years of plant initiating operations. Do you agree
that with this new proposed rule, which I understand is now
under revision, would have basically effectively banned the
construction of new coal plants without CCS?
Mr. Smith. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. I
can't comment on the rule as it has not yet been published. It
is in interagency review at the moment, and that is a process
that is being managed centrally. What I can say is that the
Department of Energy has an important role to play in terms of
shaping that rule, and we believe it is critically important
that we are working together with EPA and that we are working
together with industry to ensure that these technologies are
commercially ready, that they are being developed, that we are
making the right investments, and that these innovations are
created here in the United States so that we are creating that
opportunity here for our country. So that is the role that the
Department of Energy plays in that process.
Mr. Neugebauer. Well, along those same lines, though, then
would you agree that in order for CCS to be a part of the new
coal plant that significant technical, legal, property rights
and liability issues will have to be resolved?
Mr. Smith. Congressman, I agree that there are myriad
issues that need to be resolved, and that is the process that
we are in real time going through. This is an important
innovation that will allow us to achieve this mission.
Mr. Neugebauer. So then with that in mind, what is the
earliest time frame in which you can state with confidence that
CCS will be commercially available for utility scale?
Mr. Smith. Well, Mr. Congressman, I would state that
currently, we know an awful lot about how to capture CO2
and we know an awful lot about storing it. The work that we are
going through right now is to ensure that we are continuing to
push these costs down and that we are making it more and more
affordable for broad-scale release. So I can't make a
projection in terms of what exactly that cost curve is going to
look like, but that is the process of innovation that we are
going through now and we are making important strides in real
time in that mission.
Mr. Neugebauer. So I guess the question goes back to kind
of where I started. If we can't get to that point, are we
basically keeping new power plants from being brought online
and potentially closing existing ones? The chairwoman mentioned
some statistics of how many plants had been closed, so the
vagueness of your answer leads me to believe that you are not
sure whether this technology will be in place and that in fact
would preclude bringing those plants online, wouldn't it?
Mr. Smith. Well, coal is under stress from a number of
factors including the emergence of natural gas that has pushed
natural gas prices down, and natural gas has leapfrogged coal
in a lot of areas in terms of how coal power plants get
dispatched. That is a challenge, and it makes it difficult for
these plants to move forward. What we are working on is making
sure that we are not only focused on CCS, carbon capture and
sequestration, and lowering those costs, but we are also
working with industry to improve efficiencies, to improve
processes, better sensors, better materials, to ensure that
this important part of our energy mix continues to contribute
to energy security in the future. It is--this is research
activity. These are technological innovations. They don't have
certainty, just as any research topic tends not to, but we are
making investments to ensure that we are moving that forward
and we do have high levels of confidence.
Mr. Neugebauer. So would this be a true statement, that
this Administration is not a big fan of coal?
Mr. Smith. I would say that is categorically not a true
statement. I mean, if you look at the investment that we have
made since this Administration started, almost $6 billion
invested in CCS technologies, greater efficiencies, better
materials, better processes, more efficient turbines. These are
all investments that we have made to ensure that this important
source of domestic energy--coal--continues to be part of the
clean energy economy of the future. So when we say all of the
above, I mean, that is not a slogan. It is an investment this
Administration has made over the past four years. So I actually
would not agree with that comment, respectfully, Mr.
Congressman.
Chairman Lummis. I thank the gentleman from Texas and yield
to another gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey, and it is Veasey,
isn't it?
Mr. Veasey. That is correct, Madam Chair.
Chairman Lummis. You know, I had tee shirts made for my
second campaign that said ``Lummis rhymes with hummus'' on them
just because I got it to so much, so I suggest the tee shirt
route, Mr. Veasey.
Mr. Veasey. Yes.
Chairman Lummis. The gentleman is recognized for four
minutes.
Mr. Veasey. I have done ``Veasey is easy'' before.
And I wanted to ask Ms. Greenwald specifically if she could
tell me a little bit more about her organization's work with
important carbon capture and storage and reuse projects in Port
Arthur as well as Pinwale, and for those of you that aren't
from Texas, Port Arthur is a very important geographic area as
it relates to energy and----
Mr. Weber. And represented by the greatest Congressman in
the world, I am just saying.
Mr. Veasey. That would be Mr. Weber.
Ms. Greenwald, please.
Ms. Greenwald. Well, I am glad to talk about projects that
are near and dear to both of your hearts. We were actually just
in Port Arthur recently. We had a workshop for state and
provincial officials from both the United States and Canada
talking about CO2 EOR and its relationship to carbon
capture and storage, and while we were there we did a site
visit to the Air Products facility in Port Arthur, Texas, and
that is a hydrogen production facility that is doing carbon
capture, and they are using their CO2. They are
sending it into a pipeline to be used for CO2 EOR.
So it is a classic example of the kind of project that is
really making a difference, moving ahead on carbon capture and
also advancing our increasing U.S. oil production. So it is a
great project. It is also getting DOE funding, so it is a huge
DOE success as well. And so that has been a great project, and
it just got up and running a few short months ago, and Air
Products is also a member of our National Enhanced Oil Recovery
Initiative group, and so they have been active in that as well.
Mr. Veasey. Good, good. Let me ask you about CCS, and, you
know, how would you compare the need to support CCS with the
need to support other energy sources such as renewable energy
or nuclear power? And I think particularly with renewable
energy and that support going hand and hand because it is
something that we really don't, you know, talk about enough,
and if we want to have a serious all-of-the-above approach, I
think that we obviously need to.
Ms. Greenwald. You know, the way we think about this is, we
think about a strategy. We might say all-of-the-above clean. We
basically think that all of these technologies--nuclear power,
renewables, efficiency, carbon capture and storage with gas or
coal--all of the most promising technologies we should be
working on both in the R&D level but also in deployment and
encouraging them to be used more in the marketplace. So we
recommend that we pursue a portfolio approach and make sure
that we have a range of technologies that are available. For
us, it is all about performance. If any particular fuel or
technology can give the environmental performance that we need
and the energy security benefits that we need, that is what we
want to achieve. So we don't come out and say this is the best
technology.
As I said in my testimony, though, the reason we have been
focusing on CO2 EOR today and recently is that that
is an example of a solution that a lot of people just don't
know about, but we do support looking all across the board and
making sure that we are placing bets on the most promising
technologies so that they will be available for broader use in
the marketplace and encouraging the use of the cleanest and
most energy beneficial projects in the marketplace.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Ms. Greenwald. I appreciate you
answering those questions and I appreciate your work on these
important energy and environmental issues. Thank you very much.
Madam, I yield back the balance.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Veasey, and the chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massey.
Mr. Massey. Before I ask my question, I just want to say
that I have ``friends of coal'' plates on my car, and my car
truly is a friend of coal. It got me here on time today because
it is powered with coal. It is an electric car, and it is
charged by coal power. So I am very excited about coal as an
abundant resource here in the United States because it gives us
the opportunity to have energy independence and releases us
from some of these foreign entanglements. So I am very troubled
by what looks like the Administration's bias against coal, and
I have been told by the engineers in my district, they just
brought online in 2011 a super critical boiler unit. It is a
state-of-the-art coal-fired facility at the Trimble County
station, but they told me the other day that even though this
thing qualified for clean energy tax credits and whatnot two
years ago, today it would be illegal to build. They wouldn't be
able to build it because it doesn't comply with the
Administration's rules that are going to be promulgated.
Mr. Smith, could you tell me, is that correct? Would it be
impossible to build a compliant coal station today without CCS
technology?
Mr. Smith. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. I
can't respond to the specific instance because I am not
familiar with the plant or the details behind it, and----
Mr. Massey. Would it be possible to build a coal plant
without CCS technology that is compliant today?
Mr. Smith. Again, we are not the regulatory agency so, I
mean, I really can't answer questions that are specific to how
the regulations operate. I can talk to the technology pathways
that we are pursuing, our broad Administration goals, how we
are working with EPA. I could address those points.
Mr. Massey. Okay. Well, I will assume they were correct in
stating that.
Let me ask you a question then that maybe you can answer. I
think we need to--because we are determining policy, we can't
base it on opinions. I am an engineer, and I believe that
without facts, all you have is an opinion. So I am looking for
facts and numbers here today. If the Earth has warmed because
of human activity, can you tell me what percentage of that
warming was due to anthropogenic causes?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Congressman, what I can say, you know,
without getting into a detailed scientific discussion----
Mr. Massey. I am just looking for a number like a
percentage.
Mr. Smith. What I can tell you is that we do believe the
anthropogenic CO2 production, anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions are an important component of global
warming and it is something that we do have to comprehensively
address.
Mr. Massey. That is an opinion. So let us take it into the
realm of facts. What percent would you apply to anthropogenic
causes?
Mr. Smith. Again, Mr. Congressman, I am not going to go
through a peer review of scientific studies, and to select a
number, I can't say that it is comprehensively important. We
could certainly provide your office with more detail.
Mr. Massey. Well, I would love to see those facts, because
every time somebody from the DOE comes here, we ask this
question. We have never gotten an answer to that question.
I do have another question that is based on math, and this
is a little bit easier exercise. What is the percent cost
increase in coal production, coal-produced electricity that you
associate with CCS technology?
Mr. Smith. Well, right now we are looking at three, I
guess, separate tranches in the way that we think about the
implementation of CO2 technology.
Mr. Massey. If it were ideally implemented, what would the
additional costs be to a kilowatt-hour?
Mr. Smith. Well, Mr. Congressman, it would depend on the
state of the technology at the point of implementation.
Mr. Massey. I think in your testimony notes, you said
between 35 and 70 percent. Is that a good range?
Mr. Smith. I think that would be a reasonable range.
Mr. Massey. Okay. So let us say it is 50 percent, and if a
middle-class family had a $200 electric bill in Kentucky, 50
percent of $200 is what?
Mr. Smith. That would be $100.
Mr. Massey. Okay. So their electric bill would go from $200
to $300, and in 12 months they would have another $1,200
electric bill. Does the Administration--does the DOE care that
this is going to push some people below the living standard and
that more people may have to go on public assistance because of
promulgating the carbon capture technology?
Mr. Smith. The point that the--the position that the DOE
takes on this is that these are technologies that are going to
be critical to be developed. Our job is to make sure that they
are done in a way that is most cost-effective, that minimizes
the impact on consumers, that ensures that clean coal has a
role in the clean energy economy of the future, ensures that we
have energy security here in the United States, and that we
have the maximum amount of energy diversity for families
throughout the United States.
Mr. Massey. But you wouldn't dispute those numbers?
Mr. Smith. I would say that if we do not move forward on
these technologies, that we are not going to have a pathway to
ensure that coal is part of the clean energy economy of the
future. This is work that we must do to ensure that we do keep
this important energy source.
Chairman Lummis. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Massey. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Lummis. I am so sorry, Mr. Massie. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Smith, I want to explore a little bit more about the
competitiveness of coal vis-a-vis natural gas. Can you tell me
the impact that the increased efficiency and the technology in
terms of extracting natural gas have had on coal's
competitiveness?
Mr. Smith. Well, thanks for the question. It has had a
pretty large impact. If we look at availability of natural gas
and how it has changed over the past decade, you know, a couple
data points. You know, I grew up in Fort Worth, Texas, as Mr.
Veasey mentioned, the geographic mid center of the Barnett
shale. When I grew up there, there was absolutely no gas
production or very, very little, and now it has been an
absolute boom. Prices for natural gas were, you know, creeping
into the double digits at one point. They bottomed out at
somewhere around $2 last year. And so as you have that large
decrease in the price for natural gas, it makes--it brings
another option for American consumers, and we think that is
generally positive.
Mr. Takano. I mean, would it be fair to say that the
viability of natural gas has become a war on coal?
Mr. Smith. I would----
Mr. Takano. I am being a little facetious there. I am just
saying that it seems like the market forces have more to do
with coal's struggling than Administration policy.
Mr. Smith. Markets have a lot to do with it, and it is also
part of the rationale why we have to be working very closely
with industry to make sure that we are working together to
develop these technologies to make sure that coal remains
relevant.
Mr. Takano. Well, let us talk a little more about coal
versus natural gas. I mean, what makes natural gas such a more
compelling source of energy on the fossil fuel side?
Mr. Smith. Well, I would dispute the, I guess,
categorization of more compelling because we think that energy
diversity is very important and that in all-of-the-above, we
have to make sure that we are using all of our energy sources.
But I would say that natural gas has the benefit of having half
of the CO2 impact, and right now it is much more
affordable than it was just five years ago.
Mr. Takano. Thank you for that. I mean, I don't mean to
cast--so it just seems to me, just looking at the
Administration's policies, that the expenditures that it is
seeking to make to--it looks like it is trying to make coal
competitive. I mean, I would characterize the Administration's
policies as not a war on coal but an attempt to make coal
competitive with other sources of energy so we have--because it
is plentiful in our country. It is something in our back pocket
that we can develop potentially in the future for energy
independence.
Mr. Smith. We believe that energy diversity is a very
important part of the all-of-the-above strategy. Coal creates a
lot of jobs, it creates a lot of economic benefits in those
parts of the country in which coal production is important. We
firmly believe that we are going--the clean energy economy of
the future is going to be a carbon-constrained world, and the
only way that we can ensure that there is a role for all of our
energy sources, which is going to be good for our economy, good
for our energy security, is to move forward with research and
development to ensure that we are doing something about the
problem that we have with coal, which is, it is a major emitter
of CO2. That is the challenge that we have to rise
to, and that is the heart of our collaboration with industry,
to move forward on these technologies.
Mr. Takano. So the way I--so I see--thank you for your
comment. I think the policy of the Administration is really an
attempt to be supportive of coal, to keep it as a viable source
of energy in the future because it is so plentiful in our
country. It will help us with energy independence, and it truly
does contribute to the all-of-the-above strategy.
Mr. Smith. I think that would be an accurate
characterization of what our intent is.
Mr. Takano. Thank you.
Chairman Lummis. I thank the gentleman and yield four
minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber. Thank you.
Chris, good to see you. I haven't seen you since you were
down in Port Arthur at the opening of that plant. You said in
your conversation with Congressman Neugebauer that you would
categorically say it is not true that the Administration was
waging a war on coal, but let me talk about that very
fundamental question of the future of coal in America as it
relates to President Obama's policies.
During his first campaign, the President famously said that
his objective was to bankrupt anyone that tried to build a
coal-fired power plant. Since that time, the President has
worked hard to deny he was ``waging a war'' on coal. However,
after the President announced he intends to aggressively pursue
new climate regulations last month, in a moment of candor, one
of his key advisors said, and I am quoting, ``Politically, the
White House is hesitant to say they are having a war on coal.
On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what is needed.''
Now, that was one of the President's advisors.
So my question to you, Chris, and I have got a list here
for you, is what is the Administration doing? Is it much more
important than what the President and advisors are saying? Do
they say one thing and do another? And let me just say,
consider this list of the recent pending regulations affecting
coal. Number one: carbon regulations--I think my colleague down
here, Mr. Massie, talked to you about it--on new coal power
plants, carbon regulations on existing coal power plants,
utility MACT with EPA estimated compliance costs of $10
billion, the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, which I know you
are familiar with, BACT, or Best Available Control Technology,
rules for greenhouse gas emissions, particulate matter
regulations, section 316(b) rule concerning cooling water
intake, and the list goes on and on and on. Effluent limitation
regulations costing between $200 million and $900 million per
year, new EPA regional haze requirements, new EPA monitoring--
excuse me--mountaintop mining rules, Department of Interior
stream buffer zone regulations, and forthcoming ozone
regulations which are projected to be the most costly
regulation in the history of the U.S. government, most recently
estimated by not your agency but the EPA to cost $90 billion
annually. And yet we say that the President's Administration,
with all due respect to my colleague from California, says that
the gas market has waged a war on coal. That is the free market
and American entrepreneurs will take that free market and they
will make that work. They will make that adjustment. Consumers
will respond by buying those products. But it is a fact, in my
opinion, that this Administration has a war on coal. In fact,
there is a YouTube video out on him where he was campaigning
and he said under his energy plan, electricity prices would of
necessity skyrocket. And I am sorry, I am out of time.
You say that your mission is to make sure that America has
clean, affordable energy. You say the future is a carbon-
constrained world. But don't you think that given what I just
said is happening, the only thing that is going to be
constrained is America's economy and our world competitiveness?
Mr. Smith. Well, thank you, Congressman. There is a lot
there so I will try to comment, I guess, on the----
Mr. Weber. You have got lots of time, 28 seconds.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Great. Well, last month I saw you were
down in Port Arthur in your district where we were doing a
ribbon cutting for the Air Products project, which I think was
mentioned by one of the panelists. I think that is the--I mean,
we can talk about who said what in an unattributed article but
if you look at what we have actually done, particularly here
within the Department of Energy, particular our research and
development projects, we are taking concrete actions to ensure
that coal remains relevant. Market forces are going to do what
they do. Certainly the emergence of natural gas has had a big
impact on coal. The technological innovations around shale gas
have pushed natural gas prices down. We think it is important
that as we go forward that we are making the research, we are
putting the research in place to ensure that coal does continue
to have a role.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you very much. I am sorry. The
gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Weber. I yield back.
Chairman Lummis. The chair now recognizes the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Hall, chairman emeritus of this Committee.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you
yesterday for your good questioning and answering of the EPA
people here. I think you put them in their place properly.
I want to just touch on the climate change research
causation that was inquired. I think Mr. Smith quickly said yes
when he thought that it was people that had caused it.
Causation. I just--you know, we were told 12 years ago that it
was going to be halfway or 12 feet up on the Statue of Liberty,
and it is less than a foot up on the Statue of Liberty. All
kinds of warnings and people coming before us being paid a lot
to come here to testify that scared us to death. And just like
going to the moon. We are going to go to the moon but we are
not going to the moon until the people can go to the grocery
store, and on global warming, we better well be aware that we
are not getting any help from anybody hardly in the world on
that. We are doing it ourselves, and for what little has been
done, we don't know whether people caused it or not. We have
spent $34 to $38 billion for the small steps that have been
taken. I think before you answer yes to something like that,
you ought to know the causation and what it has cost the
taxpayers to get what little we have got there, and I hope the
record will reflect that.
Ms. Greenwald, I know you, and I have served with you and
admired you always. I can't remember if you were a Republican
or a Democrat, though, when you were here.
Ms. Greenwald. Do I have to say?
Mr. Hall. No, you don't have to. I just remember that we
worked on the Clean Air Act Amendments and the Energy Policy
Act, and since then we passed another landmark energy policy,
2005 Energy Policy Act, and you have seen the development of
new technologies in your position. Rather than government
mandates, what are the most effective methods of advancing
energy technologies and efficiencies when we have a President
Obama with his mandates, and he has not just got a war on coal,
he has a war on energy. Could you give me some kind of an
answer to that?
Ms. Greenwald. Well, we believe that to get clean energy
sources and energy efficiency into the marketplace requires a
combination of policy and making sure that the market can work.
So that is why we advocate for flexible policies and incentives
so that you can set targets and requirements, but you leave to
the private sector as much as possible the ability to make
choices so that they pick the best technologies that can meet
your environmental----
Mr. Hall. We need to be aware of it and abreast of it and
never forget it and looking at it every day, but we need to be
reasonable about what we have to spend with no help from people
that ought to be assisting us. Have you answered my question? I
think you have.
I will use the rest of my time. I have about 37 more
seconds to go here. I am a coal--I am from Texas and I am a
fossil fuels and oil and gas guy but I have seen coal operation
make significant investments and progress in advancing clean
air emission controls and employing advanced technology, so I
am heavy on coal and I think that we really--this is an
important meeting, and I thank all of you for your service. I
yield back my five, four, three, two, one, time. Thank you,
Madam Chairman. Thank you for your good work yesterday.
Chairman Lummis. Thank you very much.
We made it. The votes have been called on the Floor of the
House, and everyone was very cooperative so everyone got to
participate in this hearing today. We thank the witnesses so
much for your valuable testimony and the Members for their
questions. Members of the Committee may have additional
questions for you, and we will ask you to respond to those in
writing. The record will remain open for two weeks for
additional comments and written questions from Members. We will
look forward to your responses to those questions that you may
be receiving shortly.
Before we adjourn, I ask unanimous consent to enter into
the record two items. First, a letter signed by 23 Members of
Congress, including me, to President Obama on July 22nd
expressing our concern about the implementation of the New
Source Performance Standards addressing greenhouse gas
emissions for new and existing power plants. And secondly, two
charts from DOE's International Energy Outlook, which was just
released this morning showing the forecast for global coal
demand, which is projected to increase by 39 percent in the
next 20 years. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Lummis. Obviously, those charts indicate that the
subject of today's hearing is tremendously relevant, and the
challenges exist for the technology that you espoused in your
testimony, Mr. Collins. Ms. Greenwald. We look forward to your
continued work, Mr. Yamagata, as well as the Department of
Energy's continued work on fossil fuel technologies.
The witnesses are excused with our deep gratitude, and this
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. Chris Smith
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.091
Responses by Mr. Ben Yamagata
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.107
Responses by Mr. Don Collins
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82223.112
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Submitted letter for the record by
Subcommittee on Energy Chairman Cynthia Lummis
Department of Energy's International Energy Outlook charts
submitted for the record by Chairman Cynthia Lummis