[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUILDING AMERICA'S CLEAN FUTURE: PATHWAYS
TO DECARBONIZE THE ECONOMY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 24, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-55
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
43-928 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
PAUL TONKO, New York
Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Witnesses
Karl Hausker, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Climate Program, World
Resources Institute............................................ 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Answers to submitted questions............................... 171
Shannon Angielski, Executive Director, Carbon Utilization
Research Council............................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Answers to submitted questions............................... 172
Armond Cohen, Executive Director, Clean Air Task Force........... 73
Prepared statement........................................... 76
Answers to submitted questions............................... 175
Rachel Cleetus, Ph.D., Policy Director, Climate and Energy
Program, Union of Concerned Scientists......................... 105
Prepared statement........................................... 107
Answers to submitted questions............................... 177
Submitted Material
Letter of July 24, 2019, from Mike Williams, Interim Co-Executive
Director, BlueGreen Alliance, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus,
submitted by Mr. Tonko......................................... 154
Letter of July 24, 2019, from Lonnie R. Stephenson, International
President, Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Maria
Korsnick, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute, to Mr.
Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko.................. 163
Fact sheets from Nuclear Energy Institute, submitted by Mr. Tonko 166
BUILDING AMERICA'S CLEAN FUTURE: PATHWAYS TO DECARBONIZE THE ECONOMY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Paul Tonko (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Tonko, Clarke, Peters,
Barragan, McEachin, Blunt Rochester, Soto, DeGette, Matsui,
McNerney, Ruiz, Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Shimkus
(subcommittee ranking member), Rodgers, McKinley, Johnson,
Long, Flores, Mullin, Carter, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
Staff present: Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Jean Fruci,
Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Caitlin Haberman,
Professional Staff Member; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and
Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy
Coordinator; Dustin Maghamfar, Air and Climate Counsel; Mike
Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; Adam Buckalew, Minority
Director of Coalitions and Deputy Chief Counsel, Health; Jordan
Davis, Minority Senior Advisor; Mary Martin, Minority Chief
Counsel, Energy and Environment and Climate Change; Brandon
Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Brannon Rains,
Minority Staff Assistant; and Peter Spencer, Minority Senior
Professional Staff Member, Environment and Climate Change.
Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate
Change will now come to order.
Today, we are proceeding in a slightly different order.
Chairman Pallone and I will each speak for no more than four
minutes so that we can yield to the gentleman from Virginia,
Mr. McEachin, two minutes after Chairman Pallone has spoken. I
recognize myself for four minutes for the purpose of an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Yesterday, I joined Chairman Pallone, Energy Subcommittee
Chairman Rush, and other members of the committee to announce
support for a 100 percent clean economy by no later than 2050.
Congress is looking to this committee to take a leading
role in developing the policies to achieve a net zero
greenhouse gas emissions result.
This must include significant direct emissions reductions
in every community, and the just and equitable transition for
every American including adversely impacted individuals and
communities.
This is the first in a series of hearings to study the
challenges and potential solutions before us. One thing is
clear. We cannot afford to wait until 2050 or even 2030 to act.
We must be prepared for the earliest opportunity with a
plan that can garner support from a very broad coalition. After
10 years of congressional inaction, today no consensus exists
on the best policies to achieve this scientifically necessary
target.
But we have the benefit of a panel of expert witnesses who
can discuss effective pathways for decarbonization. I believe
there is a broad agreement that our decarbonization strategy
should seek to improve energy efficiency, deploy new and
preserve existing clean electricity resources, enable
electrification across all sectors of our economy, and utilize
carbon dioxide removal through natural and technological
methods.
This core strategy will not capture all greenhouse gas
emissions. We will also need development of cleaner fuels for
heavy duty transportation and new materials and processes for
industrial applications.
We also acknowledge that any meaningful climate action will
require significant federal investments; particularly in rural,
deindustrialized, and environmental justice communities, which
will create new economic opportunities and accelerate the
transition to a clean energy future for all.
Despite apparent agreement on this overall strategy of
decarbonization, there is little consensus on which specific
policy mechanisms would be most effective and fair to achieve
it.
No single policy will deliver America's transition to a 100
percent clean economy on its own. Congress must develop economy
wide and sector-specific solutions, and we should be clear.
This target requires nothing short of transforming the United
States economy.
If we can limit economic disruptions and expand
opportunities in the process we should do so. Throughout this
process, we will consider how deep decarbonization may impact
communities and workers, equity and environmental justice,
energy affordability and United States competitiveness, and
processes that are difficult to decarbonize.
But we must also keep this simple fact in mind.
Comprehensive climate action will create millions of good-
paying jobs, building a clean energy and climate resilient
economy while reducing harmful pollution.
Efforts to rebuild and modernize our infrastructure,
research and deploy clean technologies, promote workforce
development, and ensure safe and healthy communities will
strengthen American global competitiveness and economic
leadership throughout the 21st century.
The work we do here will impact millions of Americans for
generations to come. We have committed to ensuring this process
will be open to all ideas and thoughtful in its response.
We have already engaged with numerous stakeholders and
committed to them that they have a seat at this table. A
collaborative open approach is the only way to ensure America's
climate transition is not only possible but also just and
equitable.
I look forward to today's discussion as well as a rigorous,
open, and honest exploration of the potential solutions in the
months ahead to put America on the pathway to a clean economy.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko
Yesterday I joined Chairman Pallone, Energy Subcommittee
Chairman Rush, and other Members of the Committee to announce
support for a 100% Clean Economy by no later than 2050.
Congress is looking to this Committee to take a leading
role in developing the policies to achieve net-zero greenhouse
gas emissions. This must include significant direct emissions
reductions in every community, and a just and equitable
transition for every American, including adversely impacted
individuals and communities.
This is the first in a series of hearings to study the
challenges and potential solutions before us. One thing is
clear, we cannot afford to wait until 2050, or even 2030, to
act. We must be prepared for the earliest opportunity with a
plan that can garner support from a broad coalition.
After 10 years of Congressional inaction, today no
consensus exists on the best policies to achieve this
scientifically necessary target.
But we have the benefit of a panel of expert witnesses who
can discuss effective pathways for decarbonization. I believe
there is broad agreement that our decarbonization strategy
should seek to improve energy efficiency; deploy new and
preserve existing clean electricity resources; enable
electrification across all sectors of the economy; and utilize
carbon dioxide removal through natural and technological
methods.
This core strategy will not capture all greenhouse gas
emissions. We will also need development of cleaner fuels for
heavy-duty transportation and new materials and processes for
industrial applications.
We also acknowledge that any meaningful climate action will
require significant federal investments, particularly in rural,
deindustrialized, and environmental justice communities, which
will create new economic opportunities and accelerate the
transition to a clean energy future for all.
Despite apparent agreement on this overall strategy of
decarbonization, there is little consensus on which specific
policy mechanisms would be most effective and fair to achieve
it.
No single policy will deliver America's transition to a
100% clean economy on its own. Congress must develop economy-
wide and sector-specific solutions.
And we should be clear--this target requires nothing short
of transforming the U.S. economy. If we can limit economic
disruptions and expand opportunities in the process, we should
do so.
Throughout this process, we will consider how deep
decarbonization may impact communities and workers, equity and
environmental justice, energy affordability and U.S.
competitiveness, and processes that are difficult to
decarbonize.
But we must also keep this simple fact in mind:
Comprehensive climate action will create millions of good
paying jobs building a clean energy and climate-resilient
economy while reducing harmful pollution.
Efforts to rebuild and modernize our infrastructure,
research and deploy clean technologies, promote workforce
development, and ensure safe and healthy communities will
strengthen American global competitiveness and economic
leadership throughout the 21st century.
The work we do here will impact millions of Americans and
generations to come. We have committed to ensuring this process
will be open to all ideas and thoughtful in its response.
We have already engaged with numerous stakeholders and
committed to them that they have a seat at this table.A
collaborative, open approach is the only way to ensure
America's climate transition is not only possible, but also
just and equitable.
I look forward to today's discussion as well as a rigorous,
open, and honest exploration of the potential solutions in the
months ahead to put America on the pathway to a clean economy.
Mr. Tonko. With that, I now recognize Mr. Shimkus, our
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate
Change, for five minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This hearing kicks off the subcommittee's review of
policies that would aim to substantially reduce greenhouse gas
emissions across the United States economy.
The goals of what is called deep decarbonization are bold
and would sweep across every aspect of our society. The most
aggressive of them call for regulatory schemes to achieve net
zero emissions by 2050 and would change how we generate
electricity, fuel our vehicles, grow our food, and make the
steel and cement and other ingredients of modern
infrastructure, cities, and industry.
As we examine deep decarbonization policies, I hope we can
keep appropriate perspectives. For example, we should be clear
that some of these goals are not possible to achieve with
current technology or through renewable energy alone.
Some are too expensive to implement in any way that would
preserve affordable energy and the goods and services we rely
upon in our daily lives.
We have to take a hard look at the full costs of domestic
policies that would transform our electric infrastructure, our
energy systems, and our mobility.
Hearings like this can help start to shine the light on all
of these. We also should recognize that we are talking about a
global issue. As noted in the previous hearings, there has been
unrelenting growth in global carbon emissions-even as the U.S.
emissions have declined.
While projections show global emissions growth may level
off, they will not decline very much as nations continue to
seek the tremendous benefits of energy, power, and
transportation in their societies as they continue to acquire
the steel, cement, and other infrastructure needed for building
and expanding.
This is particularly true for China, India, and the rest of
the developing world. Affordable energy and industrial output
are key ingredients for these growing economies.
The plain fact is: the world, according to projections by
the International Energy Agency, will continue to rely
primarily on fossil forms of energy for the foreseeable future
and the developing world will continue to dominate global
emissions in the years to come.
The policies we consider in the United States should be
considered against this global energy and economic reality. We
should not put the United States at a competitive disadvantage
to other nations or deprive our nation important opportunities
to innovate and develop the new fossil, or nuclear technologies
or industrial technologies that promise clean future energy
systems.
Focusing on global energy and economic realities will help
us focus on where the real gains can be achieved in reducing
future emissions and maintaining the prosperity necessary for
addressing future climate risks.
Let me suggest that these gains will come less from
radically and expensively transforming a mature $20 trillion
U.S. economy than providing the modern, clean, and low-emission
technologies to nations still putting their modern economies
into place.
In recent months, we have been building a record that
underscores the critical need for technological breakthroughs
to develop cleaner energy and economic systems.
This morning, we will hear from witnesses who can speak to
what is necessary to move these technological breakthroughs
forward, and we welcome you.
I am particularly looking forward to hearing from Shannon
Angielski of the Carbon Utilization Council. She will speak to
the contribution of fossil fuel technologies to decarbonization
objectives and she can outline how bipartisan work in Congress
has helped create new markets and what more is needed to ensure
that these policies are effective.
The bottom line is there are practical policies we can
pursue in a bipartisan fashion that will help incentivize the
development of innovative technologies for coal and natural gas
as well as nuclear energy that will strengthen American
leadership in these critical sectors.
We should avoid complex, regulatory, and command and
control schemes that the majority sometimes seeks to impose.
These would foreclose the potential for innovations that will
enable full use of our nation's tremendous energy and economic
resources----
Our goals should be to perfect the bipartisan policies that
will allow innovation in the private sector to provide the new
technologies that will provide the path to lower emissions,
especially where this is needed most.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, that ends my opening
statement. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus
This hearing kicks off the Subcommittee's review of
policies that would aim to substantially reduce greenhouse gas
emissions across the United States economy.
The goals of what is called ``deep" decarbonization are
bold and would sweep across every aspect of our society. The
most aggressive of them call for regulatory schemes to achieve
net-zero emissions by 2050 and would change how we generate
electrical power, fuel our vehicles, grow our food, and make
the steel and cement and the other ingredients of modern
infrastructure, cities, and industry.
As we examine decarbonization policies, I hope we can keep
appropriate perspective.
For example, we should be clear that some of these goals
are not possible to achieve with current technology-or through
renewable energy alone. Some are too expensive to implement in
any way that would preserve affordable energy and the goods and
services we rely upon in our daily lives.
We have to take a hard look at the full costs of domestic
policies that would transform our electric infrastructure, our
energy systems, our mobility. Hearings like this can help start
to shine a light on this.
We also should recognize that we are talking about a global
issue. As noted in previous hearings, there has been
unrelenting growth in global carbon emissions--even as the U.S.
emissions have declined.
While projections show global emissions growth may level
off, they will not decline very much as nations continue to
seek the tremendous benefits of energy, power, and
transportation in their societies and as they continue to
acquire the steel, cement, and other infrastructure needed for
building and expanding. This is particularly true for China,
India and the rest of the developing world.
Affordable energy and industrial output are key ingredients
for these growing economies. The plain fact is: the world,
according to projections by the International Energy Agency,
will continue to rely primarily on fossil forms of energy for
the foreseeable future. And the developing world will continue
to dominate global emissions in the years to come.
The policies we consider in the United States should be
considered against this global energy and economic reality.
We should not put the United States at a competitive
disadvantage to other nations or deprive our nation important
opportunities to innovate and develop the new fossil or nuclear
technologies or industrial technologies that promise cleaner
future energy systems.
Focusing on global energy and economic realities will help
us focus on where the real gains can be achieved in reducing
future emissions and maintaining the prosperity necessary for
addressing future climate risks.
Let me suggest that these gains will come less from
radically and expensively transforming a mature, 20-trillion-
dollar U.S. economy than from providing the modern, clean and
low emissions technologies to nations still putting their
modern economies in place.
In recent months we have been building a record that
underscores the critical need for technological breakthroughs
to develop cleaner energy and economic systems.
This morning we will hear from witnesses who can speak to
what is necessary to move these technological breakthroughs
forward.
I am particularly looking forward to hearing from Shannon
Angielski of the Carbon Utilization Council, or CURC. She will
speak to the contribution of fossil fuel technologies to
decarbonization objectives. And she can outline how bipartisan
work of Congress has helped create new markets and what more is
needed to ensure these policies are effective.
The bottom line is, there are practical policies we can
pursue in a bi-partisan fashion that will help incentivize the
development of innovative technologies for coal and natural
gas, as well as nuclear energy and that will strengthen
American leadership in these critical sectors.
We should avoid complex regulatory and command and control
schemes that the Majority seeks to impose. These would
foreclose the potential for innovations that will enable full
use of our nation's tremendous energy and economic resources.
Our goal should be to perfect the bi-partisan polices that
allow innovation and private sector to provide the new
technologies that will provide the paths to lower emissions,
especially where this is needed most.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full
committee, for four minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
One of this committee's top priorities is combating climate
change. Yesterday, I joined Chairmen Tonko and Rush and other
committee Democrats in announcing a bold plan to address the
climate crisis by achieving 100 percent clean economy by 2050.
Our plan is based on the science. International scientific
experts tell us we must invest in clean technologies and
initiate an aggressive economy wide effort now to achieve this
goal.
So yesterday we outlined a process for reaching the goal
and that process begins today with this hearing where we will
examine the challenges and opportunities that exist for
reducing greenhouse gas pollution from the major sectors of our
economy.
Recent reports by U.S. scientists and the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change paint a grim picture if we do not get
carbon pollution under control.
We are already experiencing record flooding, sea level
rise, intense wildfires, extended drought, and severe weather
events that experts projected would come with increased
warming, and I don't have to tell anybody that.
Anybody knows over the weekend the temperature in my
district got to 103. We lost power for about 30 to 40 percent
of the homes in my home county including my own home, and my
wife called me this morning to say the power finally came on at
2:30 a.m.
You know, this is what we are all facing. These events are
taking a terrible toll on our communities and we must act.
Transforming our economy is no easy task. There will be costs
associated with the transformation and the scope. But the costs
of inaction are extremely high and rising.
Fortunately, the calls for action continue to grow. This
week, 28 global companies representing a combined market
capitalization of $1.2 trillion responded to the U.N. call to
action by committing to the goal of net zero emissions by 2050,
and we will hear from our witnesses this transformation is
challenging but not impossible.
We have many technologies available today that with wider
deployment can lower carbon and other harmful pollutants in the
near term.
Some sectors will present greater challenges and will
require new technologies and significant investment to reach
net zero. But we want to reward innovation and the businesses
that invest in clean technologies.
However, we cannot only focus on business and technologies
and hope that individual workers and communities automatically
benefit by their adoption. We know that doesn't always happen
and that economic transformations can leave people and
communities behind.
Workers displaced from lucrative jobs in fossil fuel-
dependent industries must be able to find equally profitable
jobs in their communities and in new clean industries, and we
must reinvest in communities that currently are more exposed to
harmful pollution and climate change.
We can use this opportunity to ensure that the economy
works for everyone and supports a safe healthy environment.
United States is a leader in innovation but we cannot stay
competitive without data technology and infrastructure. We must
get ahead in the race to a clean economy. We need to grow now.
Clean industries here employ our workers to deliver modern
high-quality products to the world. We have the talent and
resources. All we need now is determination to act.
So as we begin this process and, you know, we think of
ourselves and we are the innovation committee, I invite
everyone to share their ideas with us about how to modernize
our infrastructure and transform our economy to reduce carbon
pollution, create family-sustaining jobs and lead the world in
growing new clean industries, and I look forward to working
with all of you as our effort to develop legislation to achieve
100 by '50 moves forward.
And, again, I particularly want to thank our two
subcommittee chairs, Mr. Tonko and Mr. Rush. Basically, the 100
by '50 was Mr. Tonko's idea and he has been working for some
time, not only the last six months since we have been in the
majority but for many years, on this goal and best ways to
achieve it.
And so we will see how we develop that over the next few
months when we return from the August recess.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
One of this Committee's top priorities is combating climate
change. Yesterday I joined Chairmen Tonko and Rush, and other
Committee Democrats in announcing a bold plan to address the
climate crisis by achieving a 100 percent clean economy by
2050.
Our plan is based on the science. International scientific
experts tell us we must invest in clean technologies and
initiate an aggressive, economy-wide effort now to achieve this
goal. So, yesterday we outlined a process for reaching that
goal--and that process begins today with this hearing where we
will examine the challenges and opportunities that exist for
reducing greenhouse gas pollution from the major sectors of our
economy.
Recent reports by U.S. scientists and the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change paint a grim picture if we do not get
carbon pollution under control.
We are already experiencing record flooding, sea level
rise, intense wildfires, extended drought and severe weather
events that experts projected would come with increased
warming. These events are taking a terrible toll on our
communities, and we must act.
Transforming our economy is no easy task. There will be
costs associated with a transformation of this scope, but, the
costs of inaction are extremely high and rising.
Fortunately, the calls for action continue to grow. This
week, 28 global companies, representing a combined market
capitalization of $1.2 trillion, responded to the United
Nations call to action by committing to the goal of net zero
emissions by 2050.
As we will hear from our witnesses, this transformation is
challenging, but not impossible. We have many technologies
available today that, with wider deployment, can lower carbon
and other harmful pollutants in the near term. Some sectors
will present greater challenges and will require new
technologies and significant investment to reach net zero. We
want to reward innovation and the businesses that invest in
clean technologies.
However, we cannot only focus on businesses and
technologies and hope that individual workers and communities
automatically benefit by their adoption. We know that doesn't
always happen and that economic transformations can leave
people and communities behind.
Workers displaced from lucrative jobs in fossil-fuel
dependent industries must be able to find equally profitable
jobs in their communities and in new clean industries. And, we
must reinvest in communities that currently are more exposed to
harmful pollution and climate change. We can use this
opportunity to ensure that the economy works for everyone and
supports a safe, healthy environment.
The United States is a leader in innovation, but we cannot
stay competitive with outdated technology and infrastructure.
We must get ahead in the race to a clean economy. We need to
grow new, clean industries here and employ our workers to
deliver modern, high quality products to the world. We have the
talent and resources. All we need now is the determination to
act.
As we begin this process, I invite everyone to share their
ideas with us about how to modernize our infrastructure and
transform our economy to reduce carbon pollution, create
family-sustaining jobs, and lead the world in growing new,
clean industries. I look forward to working with all of you as
our effort to develop legislation to achieve 100-by-50 moves
forward.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back and thank
you for your kind words, Chairman.
And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, the ranking member
of the full committee, for five minutes for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning. Thanks for having this hearing. As you all
pointed out yesterday, the Democrats held a press conference to
outline their plans for decarbonizing the United States by 2050
and today we are reviewing some potential paths to achieve that
goal, and that is important.
We need to fully understand what decarbonization means for
consumers and for American workers. Republicans support
innovation, conservation, adaptation, and preparation.
We support prudent steps to reduce emissions and to address
current and future climate risks. These steps require we
examine the costs, the effectiveness, and the economic impacts
of various solutions proposed to address the risks.
They require we do not undermine the economic priorities of
communities and states around the nation. For this reason, we
have urged our majority colleagues to avoid resurrecting top-
down policies that are costly and harmful.
Taxation and regulation can lead to economic stagnation and
hurts consumers and workers. But instead, we'd like them to
work with us on bipartisan solutions like those that we have
pursued over the last several Congresses with great success.
Those policies have continued America's leadership in
developing innovative technologies to produce energy with
little or no emissions, and our record on this front is clear
and positive for the climate.
Republicans have been working with Democrats over the past
several Congresses to remove regulatory barriers to new
technological advances in power generation from hydroelectric
power to small modular nuclear, from carbon capture and storage
incentives to power grid reforms.
As innovation is where the long-term solutions to climate
change are, we want America to lead. We want America to lead
the world in innovation, as we always have, especially on clean
energy and environmental cleanup as well.
Instead of focusing solely on regulations and taxation that
mandate emissions reductions in the U.S., we need to put more
emphasis on the parts of the world with some of the greatest
CO2 emissions like China and India.
Our most effective policies are the ones that encourage and
support development of clean energy here at home and abroad by
American workers and by innovators.
We can develop these new technologies and we can market
them to the world. We support realistic solutions that will
have meaningful impact on global emissions while growing the
U.S. economy and protecting American workers.
That is why we pursued policies like the 45Q Carbon
Sequester tax credit the Republicans enacted last Congress.
They offer much in the potential for cleaner fossil fuels and
sequester of carbon.
We will hear this morning about the promises carbon capture
holds and what might be done to improve its prospects, and we
are excited to learn about that. We know there is more
innovation just over the horizon in these areas.
We should talk about what it takes to ensure the United
States can lead on clean fossil energy technology, and on
nuclear technology, and not cede our dominance to our
adversarial competitors globally.
We already risk that in the nuclear technology space and we
need to make sure that doesn't continue. Closer to home, we
have to pursue practical policies that strengthen local
economies and make our communities safe.
In my part of the world in the Northwest, we have
benefitted from clean hydropower, from wind generation and
geothermal and solar power.
We have suffered greatly, though, from the lack of
management of our federal forest lands, which are burning up
every summer, choking our citizens and polluting our
atmosphere.
Actively managing our forests not only reduces the risks of
fire, it also reduces carbon emissions, as proven out by the
IPCC itself.
It promotes healthy younger strands of trees, maximizes our
forests' ability to actively sequester carbon; all this while
creating jobs and wood products that store carbon.
Unfortunately, we have got about 80 million acres in need
of treatment and need it now. The federal forests lag behind.
We need to pass legislation like the Resilient Federal
Forests Act, which I have introduced with others to address
this; and whether that is considered decarbonization or not it
is the right kind of bipartisan policy to pursue and we can do
it right here in America.
So let us talk about that as well and let us talk about the
needs for our communities in the fossil-energy-rich cities and
counties in Texas and Pennsylvania that have been pursuing the
economic benefits fostered by the technological revolution in
oil and natural gas production to the New England communities
that do not have the energy infrastructure to ensure even heat
and power on the coldest or hottest nights or warmest days.
So, let us talk about these policies too, in terms of what
matters to people every day, and then together we should be
able to find bipartisan solutions, moving forward, as we have
in the past.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Yesterday, our Majority leadership held a press conference
to outline their plans for decarbonizing the United States by
2050. And today we are reviewing some potential paths to
achieve this goal.
What decarbonization really means for consumers and workers
in terms of policy prescriptions remains to be seen, but we
should look very carefully before we leap back into the failed
regulatory approaches the Majority appears to be contemplating.
Republicans believe that prudent steps should be taken to
reduce emissions and address current and future climate risks.
These steps require we examine the costs, effectiveness, and
economic impacts of solutions proposed to address these risks.
And they require we do not undermine the economic priorities of
communities and states around the nation.
For this reason, we have urged our Majority colleagues to
avoid resurrecting top-down policies that have been shown to be
costly and harmful to consumer and worker interests; and
instead, work with Republicans on the bi-partisan policies we
have been pursuing over the past several Congresses.
These policies aim to continue America's leadership role in
developing innovative technologies to produce energy with
little or no emissions.
And our record on this front is clear and positive for the
climate. Republicans have been working with Democrats over the
past several Congresses to remove regulatory barriers to new
technological advances in power generation, from hydroelectric
power to small modular nuclear, from carbon capture and storage
incentives to power grid reforms.
Because innovation is where the long-term solutions to
climate change are, we want America to lead the world in
innovation, as we always have, especially on clean energy and
environmental cleanup.
Instead of focusing solely on regulations that mandate
emissions reductions here in the U.S., we need to put more
emphasis on the parts of the world with some of the greatest
CO2 emissions, like China and India.
Our most effective policies will be the ones that encourage
and support development of clean energy technologies here in
the U.S. by American workers, which then can be sold to those
countries and around the world. These may not be the splashy
promises--however unrealistic--that drive news coverage and
they may not be the ones that are popular with the
environmental lobby; but they are the ones that can have
meaningful impact on global emissions while growing the U.S.
economy and protecting the American worker.
This is why pursuit of policies like 45Q carbon
sequestration tax credits enacted last Congress offer so much
potential for cleaner fossil energy.
We will hear this morning about the promises carbon capture
holds and what might be done to improve its prospects. And we
know there is more innovation over the horizon.
We should talk about what it takes to ensure the United
States can lead on clean fossil energy technology, on nuclear
technology and not cede our dominance to our adversarial
competitors globally. We already risk that in the nuclear
technology space and we need to make sure that doesn't
continue.
Closer to home, we have to pursue practical policies that
strengthen local economies and make our communities safer.
In the Northwest, while we've benefited from clean
hydropower, wind, geothermal and solar power, we've suffered
greatly from the lack of management of our federal forest
lands, which are burning up every summer, choking our citizens
and polluting our atmosphere.
Actively managing our forests not only reduces the risk of
fire, it also reduces carbon emissions. It promotes healthy
younger stands of trees, maximizing our forest's ability to
actively sequester carbon. All this while creating jobs and
wood products that store carbon. Unfortunately, with around 80
million acres in need of treatment, our federal forests lag
behind. We need to pass legislation--like the Resilient Federal
Forests Act which I have introduced--to address this, and
whether that is considered decarbonization or not, it is the
right kind of bi-partisan policy to pursue.
Let's talk about that. And lets talk about the needs of
other communities-from the fossil-energy-rich cities and
counties in Texas and Pennsylvania that have been pursuing the
economic benefits fostered by the technological revolution in
oil and natural gas production to the New England communities
that do not have the energy infrastructure to assure heat and
power on the coldest nights or warmest days.
Let's talk about these policies in terms that matter to
people every day. And find bi-partisan solutions that work for
families and consumers.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair would
like to remind Members that pursuant to committee rules all
Members' written opening statement shall be made part of the
record.
With that, I now introduce our witnesses for today's
hearing.
We have Dr. Karl Hausker, senior fellow, climate program at
the World Resources Institute. Next, we have Ms. Shannon
Angielski, executive director of the Carbon Utilization
Research Council.
Then Mr. Armond Cohen, executive director of the Clean Air
Task Force. And finally, Dr. Cleetus, who is a policy--the
policy director of Climate and Energy Program at the Union of
Concerned Scientists.
Before we begin, I would like to explain the lighting
system. In front of you are a series of lights. The light will
initially be green at the start of your opening statement. The
light will turn yellow when you have one minute remaining.
Please begin to wrap up your testimony at that point. The
light will turn red when your time has expired. At this time,
the Chair will now recognize Dr. Hausker for five minutes to
provide his opening statement, welcome to you and all of our
panelists, and thank you for your time and the intellect that
you will share with us.
STATEMENTS OF KARL HAUSKER, Ph.D., SENIOR FELLOW, CLIMATE
PROGRAM, WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE; SHANNON ANGIELSKI,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CARBON UTILIZATION RESEARCH COUNCIL; ARMOND
COHEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE; AND RACHEL
CLEETUS, Ph.D., POLICY DIRECTOR, CLIMATE AND ENERGY PROGRAM,
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
STATEMENT OF MR. HAUSKER, Ph.D.
Dr. Hausker. Members of the committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on America's clean energy future, and
Chairman Tonko, Chairman Pallone, and colleagues, I really
thank you for your leadership on launching a plan for
developing climate legislation.
Let me focus on the four main takeaway messages in my
testimony and I will refer to figures in that testimony as I
go.
First, what does science tell us about emission pathways
that can limit warming to 1.5 degrees? In Figure 1, you will
see that global emissions need to reach net zero by mid-century
and then actually turn negative. We need to achieve negative
emissions later in the century.
Why negative? Because we are likely to overshoot safe
concentrations of greenhouse gases that would keep us at 1.5
degrees. So we need sharp declines in emissions beginning in
the 2020s and we will need, as you noted, major transformations
in electricity generation, buildings, transport, and industry;
then we will have to move to creating negative emissions
through carbon dioxide removal. We can do that through natural
means, planting trees and improving soil health, and we can
also do it through technical means, and the two leading
candidates are bioenergy plants with carbon capture and
sequestration and the direct capture of CO2 from air, its
concentration and safe storage underground.
We will likely need carbon dioxide removal at a large
scale, up to 10 billion tons of CO2 per year by around mid-
century, and this amount will exceed the capacity of those
natural means and perhaps exceed what we can do with bioenergy
with CCS.
And that is why I really want to emphasize that we are
likely to need CCS with direct air capture by mid-century at
the scale of billions of tons per year; and this leads me
directly to my second major takeaway.
We must further develop CCS technology. Regardless of
whether you think we need it on power plants, we will need it
for that job of carbon dioxide removal.
Similarly, CCS will be needed for various industrial
sources that have process emissions--iron, steel, chemicals,
and cement. So we must take key steps in the coming decade.
Improve the technology, scale up CCS, bring costs down, build
pipelines and injection sites, refine our policy and governance
frameworks, and build public acceptance. We can't wait until
2030 or 2040 to decide what to do on CCS.
My third takeaway--the transformations needed to get to net
zero emissions are technologically feasible and affordable.
We can do it with current technology and near-commercial
technology in the pipeline. But we should also innovate, as
several of you have said, to keep being able to do it better
and do it cheaper.
The strategies for transformation are depicted in Figure 2
in my testimony. It is quite simple at one level. First, be as
energy efficient as possible across all sectors of the economy.
Second, electrification--switch everywhere possible from
the direct combustion of fossil fuels to the direct use of
electricity. Where you can't do that, develop the low-carbon
zero-carbon fuels for those end uses.
Third, we are going to build a lot of electricity with zero
carbon. That electrification process will make this a huge
growth industry. So we will electrify the economy and then we
need to go to zero-carbon generation.
And fourth, the fourth key strategy, of course, is carbon
capture, which I just described.
Takeaway number four--my last takeaway--to produce all that
carbon-free electricity, we can build out solar and wind very
aggressively in the coming years. But we also need to
commercialize--fully commercialize the other zero-carbon
options.
So in Figure 3 in my testimony, I depict the great,
wonderful jaw-dropping decrease in solar and wind costs over
the last 10 years.
Many models suggest that we could move to 60, 70, 80, maybe
even 90 percent renewable generation from solar and wind over
the next decades, especially if we support it with
transmission--expanded transmission, demand management, and
storage.
However, most modelers and analysts understand that we need
to complement any wind and solar with other dispatchable and
firm power sources.
Sometimes you can do that with hydro and geothermal and
bioenergy. But we are also likely to need carbon-free
generation sources that aren't constrained by location like
hydro and geothermal.
So the good news here is that companies like NetPower are
developing CCS approaches to capture 100 percent of emissions
from fossil fuel plants, and companies like NuScale are
developing advanced nuclear options and small modular reactors
that can play a role in America's clean energy future.
So my closing thought is that is risky to bet the climate
on just a single set of technologies. Support RD&D across a
broad set and let us keep our focus on carbon emissions, not on
the market share of any particular technology.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hausker follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Hausker.
And next, we will here from Ms. Angielski. You are
recognized for five minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF MS. ANGIELSKI
Ms. Angielski. Thank you, Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member
Shimkus, for the invitation to testify before the subcommittee
today and to discuss initiatives that can decarbonize the U.S.
economy, and we really appreciate your leadership on these
issues.
I just want to start by introducing the Carbon Utilization
Research Council. CURC is an industry coalition focused on
technology solutions for the responsible use of our fossil
energy resources in a balanced low-carbon generation portfolio.
Members of CURC believe that American fossil fuel ingenuity
and technology innovation will satisfy the world's growing
appetite for affordable energy, improve energy security,
increase exports of U.S. resources and manufactured energy
equipment, create high-paying jobs, and improve environmental
quality.
In order to achieve these objectives, members of CURC are
at the forefront of their industries to develop and
commercialize technologies that will transform the way the
world uses fossil fuels.
My testimony will address five key points describing what
is needed to unlock the innovation that is needed to
decarbonize the use of fossil fuels in the power sector.
Point one--the growing use of fossil fuels must be
accompanied by robust investment in carbon capture utilization
and storage, or CCUS.
This is because global fossil fuel use is projected to rise
well into the future. As a result, modelling conducted by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International
Energy Agency, or the IEA, agree that carbon capture is an
integral part of the technology solution set in order to cost
effectively achieve global climate targets.
A recent IEA analysis shows that high capture rates are
wind combined with sustainable biofuels. Power generated from
fossil fuels can achieve net zero carbon emissions.
Other recent analysis from IEA estimates that by 2060 CCUS
accounts for approximately 100 gigatons of the CO2 emissions
reductions needed to meet the global goals of the two degrees
scenario.
To put this scale of emissions reductions into perspective,
this would be the same as, roughly, 1,100 coal units installing
carbon capture by 2030 and storing CO2 from those systems for
the next 30 years.
This would also be the same as 3,200 natural gas combined
cycle units with the same amount of carbon capture over the
same period.
Modelling also shows that in order to achieve deep
decarbonization goals, CCUS must be complemented with
technology such as direct air capture and other negative
emissions technologies.
To date, however, carbon capture has not been deployed at
the rate needed to achieve deep decarbonization objectives.
Point two, U.S. industry, thankfully, has years of
experience with CCUS. Projects operating in the U.S. today
capture, roughly, 25 million metric tons of CO2 annually from
industrial processes.
Large volumes of CO2 are also transported through a 4,500-
mile pipeline network and some of that CO2 is stored in well-
documented and studied geologic reservoirs across the country.
For more CCUS deployment to occur, projects need to
integrate each of these individual elements together into one
system. The Petra Nova project that retrofit a coal power plant
with carbon capture in Texas and transports that CO2 by a
pipeline into a nearby oil field as well as the Archer Daniels
Midland ethanol production facility with carbon capture in
Illinois are just two prime examples of how to integrate those
different industries together into one process and demonstrate
that CCUS is technically feasible.
Point three--while carbon capture is in the early stages
of deployment, the U.S. is making significant strides to reduce
costs and create a robust carbon capture industry. Innovative
research and development is well underway that will further
improve the cost and performance of new carbon capture
technologies through DOE's world class carbon capture and
storage programs.
These technologies have the promise of providing
dispatchable fossil fuel power generation with low to zero
carbon emissions necessary to support the growth of renewables
and achieve decarbonization of the power grid.
Importantly, carbon capture is fuel and emissions agnostic.
This means investment in power sector applications will also
benefit the use of carbon capture in other industries and when
applied to other fuel gas streams.
With improved technology and deployment, the technology
will follow a well understood cost reduction curve and
economies of scale will be achieved in the same way this
happened with the wind and solar industries.
Four, investments in carbon capture will benefit the
environment, improve energy security, and provide macroeconomic
benefits to the U.S. economy.
Analysis connected by CURC and ClearPath Foundation shows
that there are significant economic benefits to the U.S. if the
public-private sector investments in carbon capture are
undertaken.
Our analysis projects that at least 17 gigawatts and up to
87 gigawatts of market-driven carbon capture paired with
enhanced solar recovery will significantly increase oil
production, lower retail electricity rates, all of which
contribute to substantial increases in annual GDP as well as
create over 800,000 new jobs by 2040.
Five, with robust and sustained policy support, carbon
capture can contribute to any deep decarbonization goals. 45Q
is a key policy tool for catalyzing a carbon capture industry
in this country and is seen as a model policy by international
energy entities.
And while several carbon capture projects are in
development as a result of this policy, project developers are
eagerly awaiting issuance of Treasury guidance to understand
how to use the tax credits.
However, even as the U.S. continues to invest in innovative
research and projects that will be incentivized through the use
of these credits, it is important to recognize that multiple
policy tools will be needed to accelerate and attract
investment in carbon capture.
I just want to mention several--there are several CCUS
bills in Congress pending that would do that, some of which are
before this committee, and I just want to recognize Congressman
Peters and Mr. McKinley on the Utilizing Significant Emissions
Act as well as the Carbon Capture Modernization Act are just
two examples.
So in closing, I just want to close by saying the world is
watching as we embark on these initiatives. Investment in CCUS
will transform carbon dioxide into an economic resource, lower
the cost of reducing emissions, save consumers money, and
safeguard the environment.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Angielski follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Angielski.
And Mr. Cohen, you are recognized for five minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF MR. COHEN
Mr. Cohen. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and
distinguished members of the committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify this morning.
Rather than read a written statement, I presented or
prepared several slides and visuals that I think I want to just
walk you through to kind of connect some of the threads you
have already heard. It is labelled supporting slides.
So if you turn with me to the first page, there's a pie
chart and it is U.S. energy CO2 emissions by sector. And so we
talk a lot about electricity but as some of the previous
speakers have mentioned, it is not just about electricity.
Actually, electricity is 40 percent of the CO2 energy problem
in the United States. Agriculture is--you know, I will put it
in a separate category.
The point is there are many sectors to address here. We
have got a $2 trillion a year energy economy that we have to
decarbonize over a period of decades.
My bottom line is that it is tough but feasible if we
retain options to go down multiple pathways at once and those
pathways are represented in the next slide, which is called
puzzle pieces for a 100 percent carbon-free energy economy, and
there you can see that we have to do a number of things
simultaneously, some of which have been mentioned.
We need--we can utilize variable zero-carbon electricity
that we have today at low cost like wind and solar and with
storage.
We will need firm always available zero-carbon electricity
to balance the grid. I will get to that in a minute. We will
need carbon capture and storage. We will need electrification.
We will need low-carbon industrial processes, and at the
center of this puzzle diagram you will see something called
zero-carbon fuels, which are essential to making all of this
work. If we have a zero-carbon drop-in liquid or gaseous fuel
to substitute for current gas and oil, we have really a winning
combination.
Finally, there is something in this--there is a puzzle
piece called super pollutants, which is really dealing with
methane leakage from the fossil fuel system, which we will have
to do with fossil energy as to be part of this decarbonized
future.
The next slide is a somewhat complicated diagram but I
won't walk through in detail. But it is called a zero-carbon
energy system. The point that is made here is that we need to
succeed. We are going to need a complementary set of
technologies.
You will see that zero-carbon electricity is kind of at the
core because you can do a lot, as Dr. Hausker has recommended,
in terms of building decarbonization industry and transport.
But we are going to need some other things, and to the left of
the zero-carbon electricity diagram you will see hydrogen, and
we would add to that hydrogen-derived fuels like ammonia, which
can be used as substitutes for gas and oil.
The way that we create zero-carbon electricity through
renewables, through nuclear energy, and through fossil energy
with carbon capture, interestingly, there are a lot of
crossovers in here and complementarities among these
technologies.
So, for example, you will see towards the bottom of the
page that kind of all roads lead to carbon capture, as has been
mentioned. Carbon capture really does triple duty.
It can decarbonize electricity. It can help create zero-
carbon fuels for transport, and it can help create zero-carbon
fuels for industrial heat and process.
So very, very critical lynchpin technology, electrolysis
and hydrogen transformation as well, and you will see that
nuclear also plays a role in this picture along with renewable.
So an overarching point is there has been a lot of talk
about Apollo 11 in the last week, rightly so. But my view is
this is not about moon shots. This is about test flights and it
is about some smart earthbound engineering.
Most of what is in these diagrams has already been
demonstrated. Not all of it has been demonstrated or built
multiple series at commercial scale but it has all
fundamentally been demonstrated.
Whether it is nuclear or carbon capture, it is about smart
engineering, it is about getting into mass production, and
bringing costs down.
Let me close by addressing the electric part of this
equation, which, as we have mentioned, is absolutely critical.
We have a great head start on electricity. A third of the
United States power grid is already decarbonized.
Between hydroelectric, wind and solar, and nuclear, we are
now a third of the way there. So we need to get the other two-
thirds of the way there. So how do we do that?
As was mentioned, we have an enormous accomplishment to be
proud of, which is the degree to which wind and solar costs
have come down.
I have no doubt that they will be the backbone of a future
decarbonized electric grid. But that may not be the whole
solution.
They might be, but I believe that there is reason from the
modelling and the analysis that has been done, which I am going
to walk you through in the next minute. We can talk about that
at greater length in the Q&A.
To demonstrate why we need things in addition to variable
weather dependent electricity, if you turn to slide four you
will see--I took the example of California because it is a
state that is blessed with renewable resources and also a state
that is very dedicated to decarbonizing its grid and has
actually put that into law.
You can see that wind and sun vary by season. If it were
just a question of daily wind and sun variability, we could do
that with battery storage pretty cheaply.
But the fact is we have seasonal variations and you can see
a factor of 400 or 500 percent variation for months over the
year. If you--at the bottom of slide four you will see the
demand in California, which is pretty constant throughout the
year.
But you will see that the available resource--wind and
solar resource combined--fluctuates quite a bit over the year
over seasonal patterns. And if you flip the page to slide five,
you will see that the result is that we have what essentially
is a seasonal surplus and a seasonal deficit.
That is very expensive to deal with with battery storage,
even if we dropped the price of batteries by, say, 80 percent.
My final slide just shows that if we go to a system that
is, let us say, half renewables, we probably have modest costs
right now and we can manage that with storage.
If we push a lot farther than that right now without firm
energy in the system, which would be the light blue bars, we
are looking at a very steep incline.
So bottom line is firm energy, zero-carbon energy very
important and we can address that in the Q&A.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Cohen, thank you.
And now Dr. Cleetus, you are recognized for five minutes,
please.
STATEMENT OF RACHEL CLEETUS, Ph.D.
Dr. Cleetus. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Tonko,
Ranking Member Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee for
providing me the opportunity to testify here today.
My name is Rachel Cleetus and I am the policy director for
the Climate and Energy program at the Union of Concerned
Scientists.
The science is clear. We need to get to net zero carbon
emissions by 2050 to help limit the risks of climate change
including worsening flooding, heat waves, wildfires, and sea
level rise.
Embracing a zero-carbon energy future would also be a boon
for the economy and for public health. If we do this right, we
can help ensure that all communities will benefit from this
transition.
Reaching net zero emissions by 2050 will not be easy and it
requires a sustained effort over decades. But a just and
equitable low-carbon transition is both a necessary and
achievable goal for the U.S.
The U.S. can and must play a leading role in the global
efforts and right now we are far off track. The good news is
that we have today many of the scalable technology solutions
that we need to get on a path to net zero and others are
clearly on the horizon--energy efficiency, renewable energy,
electrifying energy end uses, and increasing carbon storage in
lands and soils, for example.
The costs of wind, solar, and battery storage have been
falling dramatically over the past decade. To decarbonize the
power sector we need a diverse mix of zero-carbon technologies.
Most analyses including from UCS show that renewable
electricity plays a dominant role in decarbonizing the power
sector and, by extension, the rest of the economy.
Our analysis shows renewables reaching 70 to 80 percent of
the generation mix by 2050 while conventional coal-fired power
is phased out by 2030.
Natural gas with CCS and nuclear will likely need to be
part of the mix, although their role is constrained by costs
and we need to address associated safety, security, and social
and environmental concerns.
Significant investments in infrastructure are needed for
this transition. But the near-term public health benefits will
be immense. As renewables are ramped up, we have many tools
available to ensure reliable and affordable integration of this
generation.
A key near-term challenge is how to avoid an over reliance
on natural gas, which is still a fossil fuel and has associated
methane leakage, methane being a potent heat-trapping gas.
The role of conventional natural gas must be contained
within the next decade else we risk blowing past our climate
goals or have billions of dollars in stranded assets.
Another near-term challenge highlighted in a 2018 UCS
analysis--the nuclear power dilemma--is that more than one-
third of existing U.S. nuclear plants face early retirement
over the next decade and could be replaced by natural gas,
risking a six percent rise in cumulative power sector
emissions.
A national carbon price or low-carbon electricity standard
combined with strong safety standards could help limit this
risk. The transportation sector is the leading contributor to
U.S. heat-trapping emissions today.
Therefore, cutting these emissions is essential, and that
can be done by cleaning up vehicles and fuels through strong
fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards and reducing
the carbon content of fuels, and rapidly transitioning to
electrification while investing in low-carbon mass transit.
The middle of the century can seem a long way off but the
reality is we must implement policies right now to drive down
emissions and avoid locking in long-lived carbon-intensive
infrastructure.
We need a robust comprehensive economy wide suite of
policies to scale up the many solutions we already have on
hand, even as we invest in the research, development, and
deployment of a portfolio of the next generation of zero-carbon
technologies.
Congress is already considering many types of these
policies, including proposals for an RES, a CES, 100 percent
clean energy, a range of carbon pricing proposals, and tax
credit extensions.
Done right, climate action can also help address long-
standing inequities for low-income communities and communities
of color that have borne a disproportionate burden of our
dependence on fossil fuels, and we can also unleash the
benefits of clean energy in these communities.
We must invest in just transition policies for fossil fuel-
dependent workers and communities. It is now time for bold and
comprehensive action.
Our choices today will determine the kind of climate future
we leave our children and grandchildren. Last week, UCS
released an analysis, ``Killer Heat in the United States,''
that shows that if we fail to sharply curtail global heat-
trapping emissions, rapid widespread increases in extreme heat
are projected to occur across the country.
However, if we dramatically cut emissions we can greatly
limit the intensity of the coming heat. Our nation just
celebrated the 50th anniversary of humans landing on the Moon,
an amazing testament to American vision, ingenuity, and
courage. That is the can-do spirit we have to bring to the
challenge before us today.
We are greatly encouraged by this committee's leadership,
look forward to seeing Congress enact robust legislation, and
we thank you, Chairmen Tonko, Rush, and Pallone, for the bold
vision that you laid out yesterday.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cleetus follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Cleetus.
That concludes witness opening statements. We now will move
to member questions, each Member having five minutes to ask
questions of our witnesses.
I will start by recognizing myself for five minutes.
A number of members have stated support for achieving
economy wide net zero emissions by 2050 and, obviously, we want
to get there sooner, if possible.
Now, my request here is to have each of you briefly give
your perspective on this target. Is it ambitious? Is it aligned
with the global scientific consensus? Is it achievable if we
get started as soon as possible and how difficult will it be to
achieve?
So Dr. Hausker, we will start with you, please.
Mr. Hausker. Thank you. I will preface my response by
saying there are a lot of young people in the audience and, in
fact, two of my daughters are behind me, and a niece, and we
have a moral obligation to get to net zero by 2050 and leave
them a climate that is not disrupted.
And, frankly, our generation has dithered for 30 years
since I was a Senate staffer in 1988 and Jim Hansen testified
before the Senate Energy Committee.
So, we need to get going on this. In terms of timing, it is
a 30-year multi-sector transformation. I think the hearings
that you are going to conduct over the next months will
establish a good fact-based foundation for what can we do by
2030 realistically; what can we do by 2040 realistically.
Where can we deploy technologies fully commercial in a big
way now versus what do we need to aim for by 2030, and I hinted
at that in my testimony. We can go into more details.
But as several of us have noted, we have fully
commercialized at low cost wind and solar. We can deploy that
like crazy. We are on the edge of breakthroughs in CCS that
will allow us to scale up in the 2020s to the kind of
magnitudes that my colleague, Shannon, described.
There is longer-term research that we will need for things
we need to deploy in the 2040s and beyond. So it is a mixture.
Someone said there is no single policy. There is also no single
technology that is going to do this.
I think all of us look forward to working with you in
further hearings. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Ms. Angielski?
Ms. Angielski. So I will just build on what Dr. Hausker was
just saying, that I think if we look to the lessons learned
from the wind and solar industry, it took 25 years for that
industry to actually commercialize, and with that 25 years
there was significant investment by the U.S. in those
technologies both for innovative research as well as tax
credits and deployment policies as well as at the state and
regional level to actually create markets for the sale of that
electricity.
So, again, to my point, in my testimony was sustained and I
think aggressive policy support--we are already there with
carbon capture. It is not 25 years from now that we are talking
about.
We are talking about another 10 years. We just need to
build on the success of 45Q, continue to innovate, and do more
projects.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, totally feasible and proof of
concept--three examples in history. Sweden, Ontario, and France
virtually decarbonized their grid in 20 years, OK, and they did
it with a combination of technologies.
We can do it if we decide to.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, and finally, Dr. Cleetus?
Dr. Cleetus. Net zero by 2050 is an essential floor for an
ambitious U.S. contribution to global efforts to limit
temperature increase to 1.5 C.
The reality is we are hurtling to well over 3 C right now,
and even right now at 1 C we are seeing terrible impacts across
our nation--flooding, heat waves, droughts, sea level rise.
This is not a moment to lower the bar on ambition. We need
to raise ambition as much as possible. It is not going to be
easy. But the problem is not technology. I think we have all
laid out that there are many pathways. We have the technologies
available.
It is feasible. The challenge is political will. We are
really encouraged to see this particular subcommittee take this
issue seriously because it is political will that we need right
now.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And two of the top line messages we
are hearing today is that everyone believes in order to achieve
this target we must, first, take an inclusive view of clean
energy technologies, and, second, implement policies that
result in emissions reductions from all sectors of the economy.
I am certain that everyone here has slightly different
preferred pathways to decarbonization. But does everyone agree
with these two overarching points and how important are they to
keep in mind as we think through policy specifics?
Dr. Cleetus, why don't we start with you and work backward?
Dr. Cleetus. We have the technologies available and the
core of them is a zero-carbon technology transition in our
energy sector.
Renewables will play a dominant role, as I said, but we
will need to be--to be fully risk averse and be sure that we
will hit our climate targets. We need to have a diverse mix of
zero-carbon technologies on the table.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. Completely agree, and I would just say there are
two halves to this equation. There is innovation to get that
diverse portfolio. But there is also market pull.
Innovation by itself is not going to get the pace we need.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And Ms. Angielski?
Ms. Angielski. I would say that as it relates to carbon
capture, we already have the 45Q incentives that actually put a
price on capturing and storing CO2. So that is a good start and
would encourage incentivizing more to that.
Mr. Tonko. OK. And, finally, Dr. Hausker?
Mr. Hausker. Your analogy is completely right. We need a
broad portfolio. Just like in financial investments and just
like if you are in Vegas--don't put all your chips on one or
two slots.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, and now I recognize Mr.
Shimkus for five minutes. Our clock--we will keep you posted if
it is offset.
Mr. Shimkus. I understand. That is right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For Ms. Angielski, in a February hearing this year on
addressing climate change, Rick Powell of ClearPath testified,
and I quote, ``The expected emissions growth from developing
Asian countries alone would offset a complete decarbonization
of the U.S. economy by mid-century.''
Do you agree with that statement?
Ms. Angielski. I will say that the IEA has actually just
recently issued more analysis that came to the same conclusion.
Mr. Shimkus. In that same hearing, Ms. Angielski, we heard
testimony that fossil energy will remain a major part of the
energy mix in growing nations like India, Vietnam, Colombia,
South Africa, because the sources are domestic, abundant, and
affordable.
From a technological standpoint, what does it take for the
United States to help these nations continue to use fossil
energy and reduce emissions?
Ms. Angielski. So there are a variety of technology
approaches that could be undertaken. Those countries are still
emerging economies so they are looking for the lowest cost
possible opportunity to generate energy.
In many cases that is with coal. And so if we--if they
could adopt more highly-efficient coal systems and when we can
actually export lower cost carbon capture technologies and help
them implement it, I think those are the opportunities that we
can evaluate as the infrastructure in those countries will be
very young.
So they will have those assets on the ground that will
continue to operate for many years.
Mr. Shimkus. Will it be easier for us to help them with a
robust economy or a weak economy?
Ms. Angielski. From our perspective, a robust economy will
also help us to invest in innovation that we need in order to
export those technologies and let them help them to utilize
them.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
Let me go to Mr. Cohen. On your testimony on Page 4 it
shows a chart--and I thought we were going to try to put it up
on here so everyone can see it on the screen--about the change
in primary energy demand globally.
The U.S. is in decline. So, this is the--I don't know if it
is going to get put up, and I hope--anyway, you're going to
have to turn around to see it, but you know it.
But this is a million tons of oil equivalency. So, this is
the IEA's--International Energy Agency--world energy outlook,
and -until, 2040 and it shows the U.S. would take a 30 million
tons oil equivalent decline where you have those other
countries at an increase.
I think we just have to have that in perspective. I think
the technology debate we are having today is very, very
important because we need to be the leader and then we can
export to these areas that they are going to move in the fossil
fuel sector regardless of what we do.
Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. Yes, and, Representative, I think the point of
the visual was actually it is going to need to be cheap, too.
Developing countries are likely not going to pay a big premium
for clean energy.
So the commercialization process that we do in the U.S.
just as we did for wind and solar to drive costs down is going
to go viral around the world, hopefully.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
And I will just end on this. The unspoken word, although it
was mentioned once or twice, is nuclear. It has to be a huge
part of the portfolio. You can't talk about France's
decarbonizing without its 80 percent portfolio of nuclear
generation.
So, we need to work on that from our side, too, because we
don't have a very consistent message to nuclear power in our
country right now.
With that, Madam Chairman, I will yield back.
Ms. Clarke [presiding]. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, full committee
chairman, for five minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
I wanted to talk a little bit about a technology neutral
approach and also about natural gas. So yesterday the committee
announced our intention, as you know, to chart a legislative a
path towards a 100 percent clean economy, defined as net zero
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and this is the target that
the science says we must achieve if we are to limit warming to
1.5 degrees Celsius, avoiding the worst effects of climate
change. And I know this is going to be a challenge but I think
we can do it.
So let me start out on the technology neutral approach.
Dr. Hausker, you covered this in your testimony. Could you
just explain why we should take a technology neutral approach
to comprehensive climate policy?
Mr. Hausker. Yes. I think I will contrast it to there are
some very serious people in the climate policy community who
would like us to commit to 100 percent renewable energy as the
solution, and then there is another group of equally serious
people that say we should take a technology neutral approach,
leaving the door open to things like nuclear and carbon capture
on fossil fuels.
And the reason that I am in the camp of a technology
neutral approach is that there are likely--we are likely to hit
some obstacles if we try to lock in just a narrow set of
technologies--renewables only.
It may be possible to supply all the world's needs with 100
percent renewable. One can't predict the future with certainty.
But it is much less risky to invest in multiple technologies
that can get us there as long as we manage all of the related
environmental issues.
There is not only just CO2 but there are other issues
related to fossil fuel extraction and combustion. With nuclear
we need to make sure the plants are safe and that we can safely
store the waste and control proliferation problems.
But, particularly, it will be very difficult to keep costs
affordable and go to 100 percent renewables. We can go deeper
into that if the committee wishes.
Mr. Pallone. All right. I wanted to ask some of the others
about this too but I have to get to natural gas. So if anyone
else wants to briefly comment and answer the question about the
technology neutral approach.
Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. Yes. May I just add a couple points to Karl's
comment?
First of all, as I set out in my testimony, I would go a
little farther and say the vast majority of studies that have
looked at the electricity sector have concluded that firm zero-
carbon energy, you know, nonweather dependent, whether it is
nuclear or carbon capture, is going to bring costs down and,
you know, there are some outlier studies that suggest it. But I
would say that that is a distinct minority of the studies out
there.
Second point is renewables are great for electricity. Not
entirely clear how you decarbonize cement, steel, or how you
decarbonize all heavy freight with renewable energy.
So there is some--even if you could do 100 percent
electricity--100 percent renewable on the electricity grid,
there are other sectors to worry about.
Mr. Pallone. All right. I am going to move on because I
want to ask about the role of natural gas.
Dr. Cleetus, in your testimony you discuss the near-term
challenge of avoiding an over reliance on natural gas. Could
you explain your concern with this scenario and why it should
be a problem--why it could be a problem for meeting our 100 by
'50 goal?
Dr. Cleetus. So the reality is right now in the U.S. we are
seeing a tremendous build out of natural gas infrastructure. It
is one of the drivers for the significant amounts of coal
retirements we have seen. It has helped integrate renewables
online. So there is definitely a role for natural gas.
The problem is that if we look ahead and we look at the
fact that natural gas is still a fossil fuel, comes with CO2
emissions, a coal-to-gas switch will just not be enough to meet
our climate goals.
And further compounding that problem is that we have these
methane emissions from natural gas that are leaking--very
potent greenhouse gas heat-trapping emission--and that could
mean that just by natural gas being built out in this way--
conventional natural gas--we could completely blow past our
climate goals. We have to get our arms around this problem and
limit this unmitigated build out of conventional natural gas.
Natural gas with CCS in our modelling shows up as it could
be a contributor to a net zero world. That is the way in which
we need to be leaning.
Mr. Pallone. All right. I appreciate it.
Mr. Cohen, you touch on this issue in your testimony and
you stress the importance of eliminating super pollutants such
as methane. Do you want to elaborate on the importance of
addressing the methane emissions in order to meet our 100 by
'50 target?
Mr. Cohen. As I set out in the testimony, the problem with
methane is that it is 87 times more powerful as a warming
pollutant per unit than a CO2.
So very important--if we use natural gas and we decarbonize
it with CCS but we leave the methane out there, we are not
doing ourselves any favors from a climate standpoint.
The agenda before us is pretty straightforward. First of
all, the EPA has regulated or has regulation in place to deal
with new sources of natural gas. But that is only about 20
percent of the total.
We need to extend those regulations to cover existing
wells. We also need a lot of RD&D to make--really button up
that system and make it zero methane leakage, and there are
many things we could talk about in future hearings that would
do that.
Mr. Pallone. I thank you. I thank all of our witnesses.
Ms. Clarke. Colleagues, I just wanted to bring to the
attention of the room that, unfortunately, we are having a
little difficulty with our clock system.
So we have come up with a solution. We are using
stopwatches back here. So, you are going to have to trust me
that your five minutes are up.
Having said that, I now recognize Mr. Long.
Mr. Long. Thank you. Yes, I was wondering about that clock
situation. We can watch it here and it will go up and it will
go down, and I didn't know what was possessing it.
But I am from Springfield, Missouri, and in Springfield,
Missouri, back in the 1950s there was a nationwide the first
country television show called ``Ozark Jubilee'' and on ``Ozark
Jubilee'' stars would come in from all around the country. Red
Foley made it big there, Porter Wagoner, on and on.
There is a little restaurant, Aunt Martha's Pancake House,
because Aunt Martha performed on the Jubilee so she opened a
pancake house, and this guy came to town and he couldn't make
it on the Jubilee and he said, well, I will prove to them I can
make it.
So he went over to Aunt Martha's, got a job washing dishes
for quite some time and every week he would go back and
audition, and they said, you have no talent.
So Willie Nelson left town and but Aunt Martha's remained,
and during the time when we went to no smoking in Springfield,
Missouri, the people that owned Aunt Martha's at that time
weren't real fond of the new no smoking policy.
And so you would go in there and you would sit at a
nonsmoking table, which most people like. The table next to you
was smoking. The next one was nonsmoking. The next one was
smoking. Nonsmoking. So it sort of defeated the purpose.
And I use that analogy to think--if you have travelled to
China, if you have travelled to India, those are the type of
things that complicate this whole climate change and trying to
clean up the environment, because if you are clean at your
table and not smoking it really doesn't do you much good when
the next table is allowed to smoke and put out those kind of
pollutants.
Mr. Cohen, I would like to focus on how we can reduce
carbon dioxide emissions while keep energy and commodity prices
low, particularly in rural and agricultural communities like
those I represent.
In my home state of Missouri, coal-fired power plants
provide 73 percent of our electricity--provided 73 percent of
our electricity in 2018. This is an improvement from 2017 where
coal produced 81 percent of our electricity, so going from 81
to 73 is moving in the right direction.
But as we talk about decarbonizing the whole economy while
electric generation seemingly gets most of the attention, it
only makes up, as has been mentioned here today, about 40
percent of the emissions we produce.
You say in your testimony that a carbon-free energy system
requires essentially zeroing out energy-related greenhouse
emissions from all sectors of the economy by 2050.
When you think about agriculture, do we currently have the
technology to decarbonize the agricultural industry while
continuing to produce and move goods to market without harming
consumers?
I can see electric cars. I can see Volts. I can see Teslas.
I can see electric cars moving up and down the interstate
system. But as I am driving down that interstate system and I
look out to the fields and the massive tractors and horsepower
required, is that practical and where are we on that?
Mr. Cohen. Let me just caveat and say--I probably should
have said at the outset--I am really much more expert on the
energy system and agricultural is not my field. But let me just
make one--give you one example.
So right now actually the agriculture uses ammonia fuel for
farm equipment on quite an extensive basis. That is quite
interesting because ammonia is potentially a zero-carbon or
zero emitting fuel.
It is made from hydrogen and, you know, combined with
nitrogen and you have got ammonia, and it is used for
fertilizer, obviously, but also for--so we actually have an
example of, essentially, a zero-carbon combusted zero-carbon
fuel in the agricultural sector. Expanding that would be a
really big step throughout the agricultural sector and actually
throughout the economy.
As far as other--I think other people on the panel are more
expert on soil management and cropping and low-carbon
agriculture and methane capture from livestock and so forth.
But I do think that there are certainly areas to go in but
I, honestly, am not deep on that. My focus is on energy.
Mr. Long. Let me ask Dr. Hausker--the same question as far
as the practicality of electrification of the agricultural
enterprise, you mentioned low carbon and zero carbon in your
opening comments. Can you kind of explain how--what that would
look like in the agricultural community?
Mr. Hausker. Sure. I think you are putting your finger on
some end uses--some sectors that will be the more difficult to
decarbonize.
Some agricultural applications of energy, heavy duty
transport, and jet fuel will all be more challenging to find
solutions to than the other examples you cite, like we know how
to have electric heat pumps for buildings, electric water
heaters, electric cars.
That is kind of the low-hanging fruit. That seems ready for
commercialization. But there are things--here is why we need an
innovation agenda, building off of some things that my
colleague, Armond said.
We know how to make synthetic methane, and one of the
feedstocks could be CO2 that we capture through other uses. We
know how to use ammonia potentially as a fuel. We ultimately
can make hydrogen as a fuel, and all of these have potential
applications in those more difficult to decarbonize end uses
like you cite.
Mr. Long. We have talked a lot about carbon capture on this
committee over the years and it looked like it was pretty slow
to get to first base. But now that it is starting to move, can
you kind of bring us up to date on where we are on carbon
capture and what that looks like, going forward?
Mr. Hausker. Yes. I will give a quick answer and then I
want to defer to my colleague, Shannon, who, I think, has
deeper knowledge on this.
But you have heard a couple of examples here of plants that
are already in operation. We know that the oil and gas industry
has injected CO2 into old oil and gas fields for decades and
safely stored that.
We know that we have plants being demonstrated now and we
know that we have a very promising demonstration of natural gas
with CCS at the 50 megawatt demonstration level in Texas, and
that is the Net Power example that I cited.
So we are, I think, at the cusp of really commercializing
CCS and let me----
Ms. Clarke. The gentleman's time has actually expired. We
will probably pick up on those questions as we move along.
And I know recognize myself, the gentle lady from New York,
for my questions for five minutes at this time.
And I want to thank Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member
Shimkus for convening this extremely important hearing on what
we can and must do across our entire economy to cut greenhouse
gas emissions and put an end to the environmental pollution
that is harming our communities and driving our climate crisis.
Thank you as well to you, our witnesses, for being here
today. The world right now is facing a climate emergency.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we
have until the year 2030 to make rapid, far-reaching, and
unprecedented changes to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to
avoid the worst effects of climate change by 2050.
But we don't need to wait until 2050 to feel the effects of
climate change. We don't even need to wait until 2030. The
climate crisis is happening right now and communities across
our nation are already suffering the consequences, especially
our low-income communities and communities of color, who are on
the front lines of this crisis.
In my home city of Brooklyn, New York, thousands of
families were displaced when Superstorm Sandy struck our
communities back in 2012, flooding entire neighborhoods and
critically damaging our subway systems and other critical
infrastructure.
Even today, many families still have been unable to come
back to their homes and just this weekend, like Chairman
Pallone in my district and neighboring communities in Brooklyn,
we faced blackouts due to the prolonged overheating, if you
will, extreme temperatures that have hit the Northeast region
of the United States, driving a number of communities to really
suffer as a result of these blackouts. Overwhelmed
infrastructure, overwhelmed energy grids, old infrastructure--
we know that if we really put our minds to it we can address.
The key to avoiding the greatest human and economic costs
of climate crisis, as my city has learned, is to take action
before it is too late.
Earlier this year, New York City passed its own Green New
Deal, if you will, committing $14 billion in clean investments
that will safeguard our communities and spur thousands of good-
paying jobs.
And New York City is not alone. Just last week, New York
State passed the most ambitious state-level climate legislation
in the nation with the goal of decreasing our economy-wide
greenhouse gas emissions by 85 percent by the year 2050. We are
trying to do our part.
So I applaud these recent achievements in New York City and
New York State, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues on this committee to accomplish similar climate
action on the Federal level.
Having said that, my first question is to Mr. Cohen.
According to the EPA, emissions from transportation have
actually been increasing since 2012. In fact, as of 2016, the
transportation sector has officially become the single largest
source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
I find this deeply concerning. Do you share my concern?
What do you believe are the greatest challenges and
opportunities for vehicle electrification in the United States
and what can Congress do to help encourage this transition?
Mr. Cohen. So yes, it is a concern and, in fact, as
electric power gets cleaner, obviously, the transportation
wedge will be comparatively larger.
So there are really two paths, right. There is
electrification and then clean up the grid, and then there is
some kind of fuel that you drop into a combustion engine, and I
think we are going to need both.
So my top line would be something like a low-carbon fuel
standard that requires increasing shares of zero-carbon fuel
for transportation throughout the country over time--give the
industry time to adapt--and then put in the necessary RD&D
dollars to make sure that those zero-carbon fuels are
available.
I think it could be technology neutral. It could be
electricity. It could be hydrogen. It could be ammonia. It
could be biofuels that are climate beneficial.
But we need a market driver to make that happen. We can't
conserve our way out of the transportation problem. Efficiency
is good but it is not going to get us to zero.
Ms. Clarke. It is my opinion that we don't simply need to
build a clean future. Instead, we need to build a clean
equitable future.
New York State recently signed climate legislation attempts
to move towards this goal by prioritizing new investments in
disadvantaged communities and also by ensuring that no
solutions are implemented which might increase the burden on
low-income communities or communities of color.
Dr. Cleetus, in your testimony today, you talked about the
need for just and equitable socioeconomic transition. Can you
speak a little more about what this means in terms of
decarbonizing the economy and how do we ensure this massive
transformation of the economy benefits all communities and does
not continue to negatively impact low income communities and
communities of color?
Dr. Cleetus. We have an opportunity here as we address the
climate crisis to make sure that we do it in a just and
equitable way. In fact, that is the best way to address the
climate crisis.
Just last week, there was an equitable and just national
climate platform that was released by a number of environmental
justice and national environmental groups.
It lays out some core principles that point out that as we
address climate change we can cut and we should cut pollution
directly in communities that have borne a disproportionate
burden of our dependence on fossil fuels.
Fence-line communities that are in the path of the
smokestacks are seeing vehicle emissions in their communities
that have led to high asthma rates and other cancers in their
communities.
So it is really, really fundamental and important that we
aren't just talking about cutting emissions and technology
changes but deep social economic changes that move us towards a
more just society and address longstanding inequities.
It is a big opportunity. There are lots of twofers. We can
build low-carbon and climate-resilient infrastructure in these
communities that will help protect people, clean up the air and
water and make sure that they are full participants in a clean
energy economy.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you. I yield back my time.
And now the Chair recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Walden, for five minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank all
of our witnesses. We have two hearings going on simultaneously.
So some of us have to bounce back and forth.
Ms. Angielski, Republicans have been briefed by the
Department of Energy on some of the exciting new technologies
that are there to extract carbon from the atmosphere including
one that would be a simple membrane to potentially remove
carbon dioxide from coal emissions.
What is necessary to accelerate development of those
technologies and what do you think the impact could be of them?
Ms. Angielski. So I think from an innovation standpoint I
think that we could look at increasing some of the budgets that
the Department of Energy currently receives for carbon capture.
That would be on the research side. I think we also need
larger budgets to accommodate and support the scale up and
testing of those technologies at a commercial scale.
We need to do some pilot work. We do have something called
the National Carbon Capture Center that is operated by Southern
Company and supported by DOE where we can test some of those
technologies at a smaller scale.
But we don't have that sort of mid-level scale testing
capability. And so a lot of these technologies that are
individual technologies are looking to partner at power plant
sites.
So if we were to have more test facilities and the Federal
investment going into those scale-up opportunities, I think
that we could really see some of these innovative technologies
being accelerated in terms of commercialization.
And I also just want to mention that there is one that is
already operating on natural gas right now called NetPower that
Karl Hausker referenced. But it is at that scale and size of
testing that we really need to understand how these
technologies are going to operate to be able to benefit from
them.
Mr. Walden. Can I ask each of you, and because of limited
time we'll try and keep this short, but do you all believe that
nuclear power is a key part of the solution here?
Just sort of yes or no, if you could.
Mr. Hausker. I will say yes. Both the existing plants have
a role to play and I think with sufficient RD&D we could
probably bring a new generation----
Mr. Walden. You reference NuScale. Yes.
Ms. Angielski. Members of CURC look at the diverse
generation portfolio so that includes nuclear.
Mr. Walden. Nuclear. And Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. Yes. But there is a lot of work to do.
Mr. Walden. Right. Dr. Cleetus?
Dr. Cleetus. Nuclear power can play a role but UCS has long
been a nuclear safety watchdog and safety must be central----
Mr. Walden. Of course.
Dr. Cleetus [continuing]. To how we deploy nuclear power.
Mr. Walden. Right. Of course.
I want to go, too, to the fleet because transportation is
such a big part of this. I think we are making gains on the
power generation side and I hope, you know, we are all hopeful
innovation will lead there.
We have manufacturing issues to deal with on emissions. But
what about the transportation fleet? And there are various
proposals out there. Some call for, you know, raising the costs
of driving, basically, with higher fuel taxes and all.
Do you all support that sort of concept and, if so, what do
you think that number needs to be on a per gallon cost?
Mr. Hausker. If I can take the question a slightly
different direction, which is, more broadly speaking, we need
some kind of price on carbon as a sort of foundational policy
to shift to the economy.
That can be done through fees and taxes. That can be done
through cap and trade. There is a very rich debate out there.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Hausker. But we need a price on carbon.
Mr. Walden. All right.
I just want to get each of you, briefly. I have got another
question after that.
Ms. Angielski. I won't comment on transportation fuels.
It's just not within the mission.
Mr. Walden. Not your deal. OK.
Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. I would take a much more innovation-focused
approach. I would sort of see if we can push technologies
through the pipeline like I discussed to get the costs down so
that the delta isn't as big.
I think some evidence is that even if you had a fairly high
carbon tax the economy probably wouldn't too much----
Mr. Walden. So, you are not advocating for that----
Mr. Cohen. Not----
Mr. Walden [continuing]. For the vehicle fleet.
Dr. Cleetus?
Dr. Cleetus. To decarbonize the transportation sector we
have got to address the vehicles, we have got to address the
fuels, and we have got to address the infrastructure, including
electrification infrastructure as well as building out mass
transit.
A carbon price alone will not help accomplish those goals.
So we do need fuel economy standards, greenhouse gas standards.
We need electric vehicle tax incentives. We need to be
investing in the kind of infrastructure that'll help electrify
as much of the electric fleet as possible.
Mr. Walden. I want to ask about the agricultural sector as
well. Some of the recommendations that have been put forth by
some groups basically call for the elimination of cattle
grazing because of cattle production.
Do you all support that concept? I have only got 22 seconds
for all of you so----
Mr. Hausker. I don't think we should be just eliminating
classes of food. There are other things we can do to be
smarter.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Ms. Angielski. I am with CURC so I am going to pass.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Mr. Cohen. I am going to pass on that. We haven't looked at
that deeply.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Dr. Cleetus. There are serious proposals for how we can cut
emissions and how the agricultural sector can play a big role
including through--for better soil management and agricultural
practices to store carbon better in soils.
Mr. Walden. What about cattle specific?
Dr. Cleetus. I don't think that is actually a serious
proposal. I think there are serious proposals out there and we
should certainly explore them to help limit these emissions if
we are serious about tackling climate change.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Doctor.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Clarke. The Chair recognizes Mr. Peters for five
minutes to ask his questions at this time.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to say, first of all, I am very happy to have this
hearing. I have been among a number of people who have been
frustrated with the dominance of politics and the lack of
solutions.
Today it looks like we are actually having a discussion
about a range of solutions to deal with this issue. I think it
couldn't come soon enough.
Also, I want to acknowledge that I think that the concerns
raised by my Republican colleagues about foreign policy in
India and China are 100 percent legitimate.
We ought to be working on what we can do as a matter of
foreign policy to discourage the implementation of the use of
coal, in particular, but to encourage the use of renewables so
that they come along with what we discover here.
And I want to talk about two things. I am emphasizing, just
briefly, on one is super pollutants. I mean, I think that one
of the things that we have talked about here is that we know
natural gas burns cleaner than coal.
That is seen as an advantage. But if we lose the benefit
because of methane emissions, I think, you know, we are hurting
ourselves.
And the opportunity in methane emissions and with all these
short-lived super pollutants is that they are short-lived so
that if you can keep them from getting into the atmosphere they
don't persist like carbon dioxide.
You can have a really quick impact--relatively quick impact
on the rate of climate change. And so I think that is something
that deserves a lot of emphasis here.
But I want to talk a little bit about negative emissions
technologies since I think almost all of you addressed that and
it hasn't gotten a lot of attention.
I address the first question to Mr. Cohen. One of the
concerns about carbon capture technologies is that it is too
expensive to implement on a large scale and, moreover, that the
technology as it exists today doesn't work as advertised.
Ms. Angielski talked about this a little bit. But can you
discuss what carbon capture activities are currently taking
place in the United States and what both industry and
government are doing to bring down the costs of those carbon
capture projects?
Mr. Cohen. All right. I have global numbers, which is that
globally there are now 18 fully commercial carbon capture units
on industry and power around the world. I believe five are
under construction and some 30 are--I am sorry, and then 20 are
in the various stages of development.
In the United States we have at least one very large-scale
power example, Petra Nova Project near Houston. I took my board
to see it. You know, you can see the CO2 pipe going in the
ground. It is actually very instructive to actually say it is
actually just a pipe and it's a bunch of--it is a bunch of
chemical towers.
So, clearly, we can do it. There are dozens of injection
projects around the country to prove that we can keep it under
ground.
So the technology--I don't think there is any debate about
that with currently technology we can do this and we can store
it underground, and there has been lots of monitoring projects.
The real challenge is bringing the costs down and that is
just a question of really scale up. It is the solar and wind
story, basically.
Can you get--can you keep driving numbers and numbers and
numbers to the point where, with the learning by doing, you get
to a better price point?
The company that did the project in Houston has said that
they believe that if they did a second unit they could bring
the cost down 30 percent just based on what they learned from
the first unit.
It is just a learning curve problem, in our view. So it is
going be a lot of continued support probably from the Federal
Government and from State Governments to just build that out
and get to a point where we are in mass production.
Mr. Peters. Ms. Angielski, I appreciate you mentioning the
USE IT Act, which actually has been passed by the Senate and we
could pass it--if we could pass it here in the House it would
be great.
Can you talk about the role of that in terms of advancing
this technology and how you think that might be helpful?
Ms. Angielski. So there is really two main components of
that bill that I think are really interesting. One is that you
are authorizing research at--for direct air capture as well as
for carbon, if you capture carbon and you convert it into some
other useful products.
And so that, to me, would really help to accelerate those
technologies, and as I said in my testimony, transform the way
that we are currently using carbon and create it into
marketable products, which is something that would really
contribute to the deep, deep carbonization objectives that we
are talking about.
The other aspect of that bill would be to streamline
permitting for projects and that would both for carbon capture
project infrastructure, also as well for the pipelines that are
needed to move around the CO2.
Mr. Peters. Just for those people who are, maybe, not
familiar with the technology, can you explain what the role of
pipelines is in this sector? These are carbon dioxide pipes?
Ms. Angielski. Sure. So once you--you need infrastructure
to capture carbon dioxide from the industrial flue gas stream
and once you capture it you have to do something with it.
Mr. Peters. Right.
Ms. Angielski. And so the most common way of moving CO2 is
you pressurize it and you put it into a super critical state.
So it is almost like a liquid fuel, and that typically is moved
through pipelines.
And as I mentioned in my testimony, we have about 4,500
miles of carbon dioxide pipelines currently operating in this
country. So we have existing infrastructure that we can tap
into and----
Mr. Peters. But it needs to be expanded, right? I am going
to run out of time.
Ms. Angielski. It does. Exactly.
Mr. Peters. I will just say I look forward to someday even
talking about what else we might do with that carbon. But for
the time being, I yield back.
Ms. Clarke. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Flores, for five minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the
panel for joining us today.
One of the things we don't celebrate is where the United
States actually is--where we come from and the point we have
achieved today, and we have done it through innovation and
through focus on conservation, resiliency, and preparation.
And one of the things where I think we have been deficient
is trying to figure out how to export that to the rest of the
world and I think we need to do that.
I will give you a personal example of where I am. I
commissioned a solar system on my home in late 2009. That
immediately reduced my net electricity usage by 40 percent, and
from--since then, from 2013 to 2018, I just did a quick--I was
looking at my power monitoring system--did a quick and dirty
spreadsheet and I produced my net electricity usage by another
42 percent and that is by switching to LED, tweaking the way
our home automation system works, also tweaking the way we use
our air conditioning and so forth.
So, I mean, this is very achievable to do this. But and I--
we did that without any sort of government mandates or taxes.
What we did it through was through conservation and innovation.
And I think we need to think about that as we pursue this
and I also agree we need to look at it on a technologically
neutral basis.
One of the things I didn't hear--I heard some about nuclear
but I didn't really get the impression that there is as much
enthusiasm about nuclear as I think we all need to look at.
We are not going to produce baseload power, and I think it
was, Mr. Cohen, you had the chart to show California's
examples. We are not going to produce enough power on a cost-
effective basis by using 100 percent renewables.
If we really want to have baseload power we need to look at
nuclear. Another thing we need to look at is the land use
impact of renewables.
For instance, for every acre it takes to produce nuclear
power it takes 3.5 acres to produce an equivalent amount of
solar and it takes 5.7 to produce--acres to produce the same
amount of wind and 25.3 acres to produce the same amount of
hydro, and the only one of those that is conceivably close to
being baseload is hydro.
So we need to look, I think, more broadly, at nuclear. That
is the reason we have the Advanced Nuclear Fuels Act to fuel
the next generation of reactors that passed the House in the
last Congress.
It has also passed this committee and, hopefully, it'll
pass the entire Congress to be signed by the president in this
Congress.
Mr. Walberg and Mr. Crenshaw and I introduced the LEADING
Act. It incentivizes R&D and carbon capture technologies, and
that allows us to fully harness the environmental benefits of
America's vast natural gas resources.
I do have some--you know, when we talk about the macro
situation, look at the NASA Earth observatory Web site and it
appears that total CO2 emissions from nature and man are--
humankind are 219 gigatons a year and the total sequestration
is about 250 gigatons a year, which means we are emitting about
4 gigatons a year into the atmosphere net that is not being
sequestered.
So when we talk about sequestration of that amount, I would
like to get an idea from you all as the cost of sequestration
today and where you think it'll be in 2050, if you are
qualified to--if you feel comfortable talking about that.
I would like to get the--get that answer in terms of trees
and nature, direct atmospheric or air removal, and then CCUS
from fossil fuels. Do you all have a feel for that cost today--
cost per ton for CO2 removal?
Mr. Cohen. I think we can--well, I think Shannon can
perhaps speak to the--for direct capture from flue gas. I
guess, Shannon, I think--my guess is something in the range of
$50 to $100 would be a fair--per ton would be a fair number.
Ms. Angielski. At least the testimony that I provided--my
written testimony refers to recent IEA analysis that looks at
some of those costs and it's the break even cost for capture
and storage application, and they range from--anywhere from $5
U.S. per ton of CO2 that is stored upwards of $60.
I would say that I think some people think that these
numbers are somewhat low from practical application. But there
is at least a range that you can look at and that is for carbon
capture.
And the gigaton scale that I mentioned in my testimony,
that will be needed or at least projected by IEA that is needed
to be captured and stored is--just for--from industrial uses is
100 gigatons.
That doesn't take into account other technologies that will
contribute to that gigatons reduction that is needed.
Mr. Flores. Yes. OK.
Mr. Hausker, you talked about direct removal from the
atmosphere or the air. What is the cost for that today and
where--I know this is pie in the sky stuff but we know that we
will--technology will bend the cost curve down. Where do you
think that could be in 2050?
Mr. Hausker. Some of the most recent engineering studies of
what we could do with direct air captures is in the range of
$200 per ton. I believe Professor David Keith recently issued a
study.
So yes, as we go to scale and learn on almost any
technology, costs tend to come down. So it is very promising.
Ms. Clarke. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Flores. Thank you.
Ms. Clarke. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Barragan of
California for five minutes to ask questions.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I want to start the witnesses by being here today and for
holding this hearing, which I think is so critically important.
I was glad to see the committee yesterday make its announcement
of moving forward on this--on this issue.
You know, I happen to represent a district that is very
working class, a district that is majority minority. It is the
type of district that has been on the front lines of
disproportionately being impacted by climate change and air
pollution.
And so to be able to see us address this in a way that is
just and fair I think is so critically important. I want to
start--my colleague started by saying he was concerned about
the cost of what we were going to move forward with and harmful
impacts of regulation, and I often tell people about the cost
on people's lives.
How do you put a price tag--how do you put a cost on the
public health impacts that are being--that our families and
that our communities are being negatively impacted on?
In my district, we see cancer rates go up. We see asthma
rates go up. As a matter of fact, the doctors' offices they
keep the boxes of asthma inhalers just waiting for children to
come by to give them out.
And so, so critically important. My first question is, you
know, my district is surrounded by three freeways and the Port
of Los Angeles.
Look at--Mr. Cohen, you provided some visual aids, and
thank you for that. I am a visual learner.
The emissions coming from the transportation sector--we had
a hearing here not long ago about the administration's rolling
back of the clean fuel standards.
Maybe we can start with you, Mr. Cohen. Do you think that
rolling these back is going to help us move in a positive
direction to try to get to decarbonizing the economy?
Mr. Cohen. Certainly not. It is moving us backwards. I
would even argue that we need to move a great deal more forward
and I suggested something like a low-carbon fuel standard that
would address the fuel as well as the efficiency.
But you mentioned the Port of Los Angeles and that is a
good example of what can be done. The Port of Los Angeles has
taken enormous efforts to electrify both the ships in berth as
well as the landside vehicles to reduce emissions and they are
also piloting hydrogen-powered freight at the Port.
So those are two examples of where you could very
concretely start to drive down local emissions from
transportation.
Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you.
Dr. Cleetus, maybe you can weigh in on the rollback of the
administration's clean fuel standards.
Dr. Cleetus. This administration's posture on climate
change is egregious, from denying the science to rolling back
all--pretty much all the important policies we had on the books
to address climate change.
It has been really deeply dismaying and does such a
disservice to people around the country today and to our
children and grandchildren.
The fuel economy and emission standards are key. No other
current federal policy is delivering greater global warming
emission reductions than these standards. So it is a huge
problem that the administration wants to roll those back.
We need to keep them on the books. We need to set strong
standards, going forward, to make sure that over time our
vehicles are getting cleaner and cleaner, and this will also
benefit consumers because it will save them money at the gas
pump.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
There was a lot of conversation about a carbon price--a
carbon fee. Environmental justice groups have had a lot of
concerns. I have some concerns about the impacts of that on
low-income communities and it being a regressive tax.
I am running low on time so I am not going to have an
opportunity to ask more about that. But I do hope to follow up
with you all about this because I often think that communities
of color, low-income communities are not at the table to
express their concerns on this and so would certainly like to
hear more about what we can do. Are there ways to avoid that to
get to where we need to get to.
But what I want to spend my last few seconds here on is my
district also has a lot of industrial areas. The Alameda
Corridor is there. As I mentioned, the Port is there.
I know one of you mentioned industrial areas at least in
your testimony. What suggestions do you have for industrial
areas like my district to get to decarbonize?
Mr. Cohen. There are two major--I don't know exactly what
the composition of your industries are but for cement, steel,
petrochemicals there are two major things you can do--two huge
levers.
One is the--substituting another fuel input for the heat
you need for these processes and, again, that can be zero-
carbon hydrogen or ammonia or other zero-carbon fuels. And then
on the back end we need carbon capture, which will actually
capture the other pollutants as well, not just carbon.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Clarke. The gentle lady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Carter of Georgia for five
minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Carter. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank all
of you for being here. Certainly, an important subject, one
that we all need to pay close attention to.
I want start with you, Ms. Angielski. I am sorry if I
butchered that. But nevertheless, carbon capture technology--we
talked about that today and it is certainly something that is
talked about quite often, and it certainly has a promising role
in what we are trying to do to reduce emissions.
I wanted to ask you, assuming that coal plants continue to
come offline, and I suspect they will, and we will see more gas
plants built not only because of the abundance but also because
it is less emissions, if you will.
Can the technology for carbon capture--can that be
retrofitted onto existing plants?
Ms. Angielski. It can. In fact, carbon capture technologies
and what you are referring to is really primarily going to be
called a post-combustion capture technology.
Many of those technologies, as I mentioned earlier, are
really agnostic to the source of the CO2. It is just the
concentration of the CO2 in that flue gas that needs to be
accommodated in that capture equipment.
So you are just going to modify slightly the sorbent or
solvent that is inside the equipment in order to capture it on
gas plants, for example, or coal plants. So there is a leverage
in investment opportunity. As importantly, they can be used in
other industries.
So as Armond mentioned, we are going to need it, carbon
capture in other industrial applications. So----
Mr. Carter. How much do you capture?
Ms. Angielski. It depends on the technology. Some of these
technologies can capture almost up to 99 to almost all of the
CO2 emissions that come out of a fuel gas stream.
It is really a question of what the cost is to capture that
must of the CO2 from just a process perspective. But the
capability is there to achieve sort of a net zero emission.
Mr. Carter. OK. Good.
In my district--in the 1st District of Georgia on the coast
of Georgia--we have got a large manufacturer, Mitsubishi
Hitachi Power Systems--and they manufacture gas turbines.
I have been out there visit them. Very impressive what they
do. It is an exceptional business and exceptional company, and
they are the most efficient gas turbines in the world that they
are building out there.
And as they continue their research and development and
they get even better, they'll become more efficient, and when
we are replacing older coal fire or gas fire boilers as well as
older gas turbines with these new more efficient gas turbines,
the ones that can cut CO2 emissions by nearly 70 percent, how
much carbon capture technology can we fit into the gas plant
model? Can we fit that in there?
Ms. Angielski. There are a variety of different approaches
that can be pursued with natural gas generation. Some of them
are process technologies where you would--the turbine would be
part of the overall energy conversion platform.
So we had mentioned earlier NetPower--something called the
alum cycle. That is one natural gas technology that would, in
its own right, be very highly efficient and then it just--a
byproduct of that process is carbon capture already at
pressure. So it just needs to be put into a pipeline and
stored.
There are other technologies like we just mentioned that
are post-combustion technology. So even with a very highly
efficient gas plant, like you said, you may have a 70 percent
emissions reduction from what you might be replacing that with.
But you are still going to be emitting some amount of CO2----
Mr. Carter. OK. All right. Great.
Ms. Angielski [continuing]. And you can still capture CO2
from those plants.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Cohen, I want to get to you very quickly
before my time runs out because I wanted to ask you, you made--
in your testimony you said the American grid is a third carbon
free between wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro.
And in the state of Georgia just north of my district we
are the only place in the country that is building two nuclear
reactors at this time. So I feel like nuclear is a big part of
what we--what our future holds in the way of clean energy.
And I just wanted to ask you, do you think we should be
placing more of an emphasis on nuclear power, especially when
you consider stability in its output?
Mr. Cohen. Yes, absolutely. I actually sit on the board of
an organization called the Nuclear Innovation Alliance that has
exactly that objective.
There is a lot of work to do in terms of cheaper, faster,
and more efficient reactors. We won't go into the Georgia
situation. There were some important lessons learned.
Mr. Carter. Right. Yes.
Mr. Cohen. Yes, that--we absolutely--having that in our
toolkit would be an enormous step forward.
Mr. Carter. And you are right, there is a lot of work left
to do. But I would submit that perhaps the biggest work left
for us to do and the largest obstacle and barrier for us to get
over is just public acceptance of it.
And how do we do that?
Mr. Cohen. Well, I think cost is going to be an issue, too.
I think we need to prove that we can bring these things on time
and at budget or anywhere close to budget.
But I do think public acceptance is important. I do think
that is changing, by the way. You know, my generation probably
was inclined against the technology.
I talk to younger people who think climate is way more
important than whatever concern they might have around the
nuclear technology. I think it is shifting very rapidly.
Mr. Carter. I hope you are right.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Clarke. The gentleman yields back.
The gentle lady from California is now recognized, Ms.
Matsui, for five minutes to ask questions.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I am
really pleased that this committee is holding this hearing to
explore the many areas in which we can make progress in
reducing emissions and combating the climate crisis.
And I must say, this was brought up before. But I think we
know that one primary contributor to greenhouse gas emissions
that is a particular concern and importance to all of us,
especially me, is the transportation sector.
It is all around us. We know it. It is the largest single
source of greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation emissions
from heavy duty vehicle, passenger cars, and shipping, aviation
will continue to rise and plague our cities with poor air
quality.
We have discussed it before. There are pragmatic and
achievable solutions to significantly reduce emissions across
the board, something I have consistently worked with.
For instance, my bills, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act
and the one that I am really concerned about now--the Clean and
Efficient Cars Act--which really does ensure that we keep the
standards in place as far as fuel economy and greenhouse gas
emissions, and I really think that those are sort of the low-
hanging fruit, and I think those are the kinds of things that
we ought to keep focusing on.
There are other things too that I want to talk about, too,
and buildings electrification. I think that we can--we need to
make real progress in reducing emissions and electrification of
buildings.
Net zero buildings--buildings that utilize a combination of
strategies to consume only as much energy as can be produced on
site through renewable resources--have tremendous potential in
solving the climate crisis.
My local utility, the Sacramento Municipal Utility
District, otherwise known as SMUD, is doing great works toward
greening our buildings by incentivizing the switch from gas to
electric to perform functions such as heating and drying.
We should be encouraging that type of transition across the
country and throughout the private sector.
Mr. Cohen, are there adequate policies and programs in
place at the Federal level to incentivize the electrification
of buildings, particularly within the private sector?
Mr. Cohen. I don't consider myself an expert in that area.
I am not aware of any broad policies. I know there is some R&D
focused on improving the technology, for example, for ground
source heat pumps and that sort of thing.
Ms. Matsui. Is anyone else aware of it?
Dr. Cleetus. At this point, most of building codes and
building standards stand to be at the local and state level. We
do not yet have strong uniform federal standards across the
board and the opportunity here is not just to make buildings
efficient and electrified, and the opportunity is also to make
them climate resilient in the process, especially in the way--
in the face of the extreme weather events that we have been
facing.
Huge opportunities are built here in private sector as well
as in public housing where communities of color and low-income
communities are particularly at risk when extreme weather
events affect these buildings.
Ms. Matsui. So this is an opportunity for housing advocates
to be involved in this too, you know, as far as climate
solutions and----
Dr. Cleetus. Absolutely. Climate change touches everything
in our economy and our society and there is a real opportunity
here to lean in on the building sector in terms of becoming
more efficient and low carbon.
Ms. Matsui. Right. I know we've been talk about carbon
capture an awful lot, and I think that seems to be the buzzword
now today.
I think the National Academies of Science has reported last
year that United States should launch a substantial research
initiative to advance carbon dioxide removal through a full
suite of approaches such as reforestation and soil management
as well as scalable approaches like direct air capture and
carbon mineralization.
Now, we are seeing states across the country launch carbon
capture programs. For instance, California Air Resources Board
last fall adopted amendments to our low-carbon fuel standard
program to include a new CSS protocol that enable a wider
deployment of CSS technology.
Mr. Hausker, how critical will a new research and
development program on carbon dioxide removal be to meeting our
climate objectives? Is this something we should be considering
down the road or is it time now for us to invest and develop
these technologies?
Mr. Hausker. It is time now to invest again, depending on
what stage a particular technology is at. There may be a role
for R&D at the Federal Government or for support through a tax
mechanism like 45Q.
But as I emphasize in my--in my testimony, we can't wait
until 2030 or 2040 to fully commercialize this. We need to act
aggressively now.
Ms. Matsui. So as you look at the future emissions
trajectories, how important are scalable carbon dioxide removal
approaches like direct air capture be to meeting our climate
objectives? Is this an approach that is gradual and we are
starting it now?
Mr. Hausker. We don't need to begin direct air capture now.
We simply need to put in motion the forces that will let us
begin to deploy it in the 2040-2050 range.
It is highly likely to be needed to remove carbon dioxide
from the air in the mid-century range.
Ms. Matsui. OK. That is fine. Thank you very much.
I just really feel also that we have things that we can do
today that we should keep doing and, you know, we can't just
wait for that.
Mr. Hausker. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Fine. Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Clarke. The gentle lady from California yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina,
Mr. Duncan, for five minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to put
our first slide up, please.
All right. So this is the picture, and if you will take a
look at it, it is just to make a point. But it shows a diesel-
powered van pulling a gasoline-powered generator plugged into
an electric vehicle that has run out of juice.
And the reason I put this up there is just to remind
everyone that electricity has to be produced somehow. If we
want to have more electrical vehicles on the road to lessen the
carbon footprint, that electricity has got to be produced
somehow.
So it can be produced through a lot of different methods.
Nuclear power that Mr. Cohen has talked about, and we are going
to go back to that, by the way. Hydroelectric power, but there
is a lot of Californians on this committee and good luck
building a hydroelectric dam in California under their
policies.
Good luck building another hydroelectric project in this
country under the current EPA rules and regulations. I think it
is going to be very difficult.
You have got coal-fired power plants. You have got natural
gas-fired power plants. You have got wind, solar. You have got
small-modular reactors that can come online.
There is a lot of different ways to produce electricity and
I truly am an all-of-the-above guy. I love wind and solar. I
think it is groovy technology. I love the prospect of
hydroelectric cars, hydrogen-powered cars. All these things.
But I also know that our economy demands a 24/7/365
baseload power supply, and let us just accept the understanding
that the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always
shine and that those renewables are intermittent.
And so because of the intermittency they have to be
supplemented by something that will provide the 24/7 baseload
power supply that Americans demand. Not just American
manufacturing but Americans.
They like their refrigerator to have cold drinks in it.
They like to have warm homes, cool homes, et cetera.
But we see, you know, the trend sort of shifting. There is
a city in California now that is banning natural gas. And so
they are not going to allow in new homes or new businesses to
have natural gas to power their HVAC units or possibly to power
their stoves to cook on.
So Berkeley is actually moving their constituents toward
more expensive and less efficient energy sources for their
homes. HVACs that are powered by electricity are less
efficient. Electricity is more expensive than natural gas and
the stoves are less efficient and electricity is more
expensive.
So thinking about electrical generation, let us shift gears
and put the second slide up. I want to talk about nuclear
energy and the important role it plays in the all-of-the-above
energy matrix.
Now, my home state of South Carolina has seven nuclear
power reactors. They produce 95 percent of the state's
emission-free electricity, 53 percent of our total electricity.
In my district, Oconee Nuclear Station has three nuclear
reactors. Let's just talk about one of those. Three nuclear
reactors provide 2,550 megawatts of carbon-free continuous
always-on power for South Carolina and North Carolina.
If we replace the Oconee Nuclear Station, which uses less
than two square miles, with solar it would require 107 square
miles of land, nearly four times the size of our largest city
in upstate Greenville.
If we replace Oconee Nuclear Station with wind power, that
will require over 854 square miles of land. That is more land
than the entire county of Anderson, my largest county in my
district.
So this slide shows how you would replace one nuclear
reactor that is 1,154 megawatts with wind. It would take 2,077
windmills and there are 2,077 windmills on this graph. Two
thousand seventy-seven windmills, 2 megawatt wind generators,
to replace one solar reactor.
Think about the land mass that that would take to provide
the wind power for that one reactor. Nuclear power is emission-
free.
Mr. Cohen, how can we further more nuclear power to lessen
our carbon emission as part of this energy matrix?
Mr. Cohen. Yes, that is probably a subject for another
hearing. I would just say there are three things. One is let us
get on with the RD&D demonstration of the next generation of
reactors that will be less expensive and faster to build.
Secondly, we need to address the U.S. waste problem and--
well, those two would be a good running start.
Mr. Duncan. You mentioned earlier some of the things that
are hampering nuclear power. In South Carolina, we were
building two more nuclear reactors and the company had to stop
because regulations by the government during the construction
process--not during the permit approval process, during the
construction process--changed so much that the cost went up,
and that had to be mothballed. So now we are not having that
nuclear power generation to meet our future electrical needs.
How do we overcome the regulatory environment within a
cost-benefit application that will support the growth of the
nuclear industry?
Mr. Cohen. We have been supporting, you know, much more
performance-based regulation. I do think the situation in South
Carolina is a little more complicated than that. It is probably
the subject of another hearing. There is a lot of blame to go
around on that. I think----
Mr. Duncan. In the five-minute we have to--you know, you
can't be that complicated in five minutes.
Ms. Clarke. The gentleman's time----
Mr. Cohen. I don't think the NRC--I don't think the NRC
bears all the blame in that situation.
Ms. Clarke. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
Ms. Clarke. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Soto, for five minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
We are here today--like with our press conference yesterday
we are here to act on climate and get to 100 percent clean
energy by 2050, and that is going to take reducing carbon
emissions to net zero.
So we know the goals. We have been told by various
scientific groups like the Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions there are four main elements to decarbonization.
One, transition to low-carbon electricity system; two,
reduce emissions from transportation, buildings, industrial
sectors; three, to deploy negative emissions measures; and
four, to reduce non-COT greenhouse gas emissions.
So I just want to ask all the panellists first do you all
agree with these basic elements? Is this the recipe to get us
to 100 percent clean energy by 2050?
And we will start from left to right.
Mr. Hausker. CCES is a great group and that's a great
report you cited. Their four strategies sort of overlap with
the four strategies I mention in my testimony. But it is not
inconsistent.
Everything I said was focused on the energy sector and CO2
but they highlight the need to reduce the non-CO2 emissions,
which are also sometimes called super pollutants, and Armond
has discussed those today.
Mr. Soto. So do you believe that's a basic recipe? We may
argue over which is more prioritized.
Mr. Hausker. It is a good recipe. It is an equally good
framing as the one that I set out.
Ms. Angielski. I can comment that yes, we can transition to
a low-carbon electric grid.
Mr. Soto. Would you say that this is a comprehensive list
of the four elements that we need to work on regardless of what
priority everybody may have of these elements?
Ms. Angielski. Yes, in looking at the sources of CO2,
absolutely.
Mr. Soto. Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. That's a complete solution, sir.
Mr. Soto. Dr. Cleetus, is this the four--is this the recipe
right here?
Dr. Cleetus. So that is the technological solutions--that
we have to address this as a deep socioeconomic change as well.
So we need just transition investments in communities that are
going to be affected as we transition away from fossil fuels.
We need policies that will center equity and how we deal
with climate change and we have a political challenge here in
the United States as well as globally.
So these are--this is not just a technological problem. But
yes, those are the core elements of decarbonizing the economy,
which needs a whole suite of other changes alongside.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Dr. Cleetus. And we will worry about
the political challenges right here on this committee. But I
appreciate you bringing them up.
I wanted to follow up on some line of questioning that
Representative Peters has already discussed with regard to
negative emissions, trying to reduce carbon in the atmosphere
already. Could each of you give me one strategy that you would
recommend since that seems to be one of the--one of the areas
that we aren't as aggressive on yet?
Mr. Hausker. I will just mention one and I am sure my
colleagues will mention the others is through improved
forestry, planting of trees, and agricultural changes, we can
store--we can enhance the sequestration of CO2 in forests. And
so----
Mr. Soto. So forestry and--sorry, my time is limited--
forestry and more trees. I totally agree. Next.
Ms. Angielski. I would say direct air capture is another
pathway.
Mr. Soto. Direct air capture. I think that covers it.
OK. Dr. Cleetus?
Dr. Cleetus. Yes. The natural solutions are ones that we
should prioritize, recognizing that climate change itself is
affecting our natural sync.
We have seen a record heat wave in Alaska this year, for
example, every time we have wildfires. If permafrost starts to
melt, that natural sync is getting eroded. So we need to keep
that in mind.
Mr. Soto. Thank you. I also wanted to correct a
misstatement that was made so far on the committee. There were
turbine graphics that were put up that were based upon two
megawatt wind turbines, and we now have 12 megawatt wind
turbines offshore. So I think it is important to correct the
record on that.
I want to end by talking about some of the themes that we
talked about yesterday in committee. First, we have to trust
the science as best we can and help it lead us to the
solutions. I think that is actually easier than the second
part, which is building consensus.
But it is absolutely critical that we build consensus. We
are getting tugged from every which way politically around
here, and we are not going to please every single person in the
Congress.
But we need a working majority of Democrats and Republicans
who are going to come together to get a bill that will--a slate
of bills that will get us to this 100 percent clean energy in
2050, and the only thing we can't afford to do is inaction.
We have to act on climate. And so thank you, Chairwoman,
for the opportunity and I yield back.
Mr. Tonko [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West
Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for five minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I agree with the panel and all of the people here about
the United States must do its part to decrease greenhouse gas
emissions.
But we have got to keep in mind this is a global issue and
not one confined to the United States. An MIT report that I
have a copy of here--MIT report came out that says it matters
little to the global environment what the United States does to
decarbonize its economy.
If emissions in China and India continue to go unabated,
coastal cities in the United States will still flood.
Wildfires, droughts, and storms will continue.
So it is not going to fall entirely on the United States. I
also appreciate the potential for renewables. But they are
currently limited. Even Secretary Moniz expressed his doubts in
remarks he made earlier this year.
He said as recently as February--he said 100 percent
renewables by 2015 is not realistic and certainly not cost
effective. Then followed with that, a study by Wood Mackenzie
calculated that for us to go to 100 percent renewables and have
the cleanest energy possible we would require 900 gigawatts of
battery storage. Nine hundred gigawatts of battery storage.
Now, what do we have now? Totally around the globe we only
have 5\1/2\ gigawatts battery storage. But we need just in
America alone 900.
So meanwhile, the rest of the world still has this
voracious appetite for coal because it's cheap and easy to
make. IEA says that they are still going to mount--by 2040 they
are still--75 percent of the power is going to come from fossil
fuels.
So I think I go back to remarks that were made earlier.
America has the capacity and the wherewithal to innovate, to
lead in innovation, and that means putting significantly more
money into carbon capture--significantly more money.
And I would include too on that, Dr. Hausker, I think they
need to look at how we are going to spend biologically in
phytoplankton as part of that. So I want to come back to you on
that.
So in so doing, if we can capture--if we can lead again on
this, we can then export this technology to the other nations
and help them out.
So if I could go to Ms. Angielski, I have given you some
quotes from Secretary Moniz. Was he right?
Ms. Angielski. With respect to renewables--is that what
you're referring to?
Mr. McKinley. Yes.
Ms. Angielski. You know, I don't want to comment on the
capability of renewables technology but I will say that I do--I
think there are issues that haven't been discussed with respect
to going to 100 percent renewables, and you touched on them,
which is the capability of storage technologies and the
environmental sustainability as well.
Mr. McKinley. Do you agree with MIT's assessment?
Ms. Angielski. Yes.
Mr. McKinley. That the--that the reliance of India and
China is putting the globe at risk? It is not the United States
because we are already decreasing our CO2 emissions.
Ms. Angielski. Correct.
Mr. McKinley. Would you agree?
Ms. Angielski. So I would agree.
Mr. McKinley. And do you--what about Wood Mackenzie's
report about the--so you have a concern too then about the
amount of battery storage and batter capabilities?
Ms. Angielski. Battery storage. Right.
Well, one thing that we don't talk about is where we get
the materials for those batteries and how we have to mine them
and develop them, and the greenhouse gas profile or the
environmental sustainability of those.
So, potentially, the subject of another hearing but
certainly that in and of itself could present a geopolitical
challenge as well.
Mr. McKinley. There was a question--I think it was Mr.
Carter, perhaps, asked it or someone down on my left--asked
about whether we could retrofit. And so the question I was
hoping someone would speak up on this--so let me--I will ask
the question a slightly different way.
How would the New Source Review reform--New Source Review
reform--how would it impact retrofitting for carbon capture
technology? What do we--do we need some New Source Review
reform?
Ms. Angielski. So I will refer really to the Petra Nova
project, which really had to face that potential challenge when
they were retrofitting their existing coal plants with this
carbon capture system.
They decided in order to not open up their existing permit
which would then trigger New Source Review they decided to
build a separate power plant to power that facility.
That model is not likely something that can be replicated
by every coal-fire power plant or natural gas-fired power plant
in this country. So potentially that could be a deterrent for
retrofitting with carbon capture.
Mr. McKinley. I have got one quick question back to Dr.
Hausker.
Are we spending enough money biologically to try to do some
engineering work in phytoplankton?
Mr. Hausker. Are you referring to algae-based biofuels,
sir?
Mr. McKinley. No, just in the oceans. The phytoplankton--
you understand its role, right?
Mr. Hausker. I am sorry. I am not sure if you are talking
about the production of biofuels or if you are talking about--
--
Mr. McKinley. No, I am talking about phytoplankton in the
oceans.
Mr. Hausker. As a--as a sequestration option?
Mr. McKinley. It is the--sorry. Fifty percent of the oxygen
through the sink process--the photosynthesis process comes
through phytoplankton as much as trees, shrubs, grass, and
everything else.
So I was a little surprised--we need to be focusing more on
what we are going to do in the oceans to be able to increase
the phytoplankton content so that we can increase their CO2
capture.
I yield back.
Mr. Hausker. Yes. I am not an expert on that so I don't
know the potential for increase in ocean sequestration as you
describe. But I would be happy to get back to you if I can find
some expert----
Mr. McKinley. Please, if you could. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Colorado, Ms.
DeGette, for five minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
This is a really important hearing and I have been watching
the testimony and the questioning of the witnesses.
We have all talked about the fact that climate science
indicates we need to cut net global greenhouse gas emissions in
half in 10 years and then reduce the net emissions to zero in
30 years or we will expose our children, grandchildren, and
their children to great risk.
I think all of us agree that the science is important and
we need to do this. But it's not going to be easy.
So I want to ask some questions to you about the science.
First of all, for everybody, do you agree that many of the
technologies that we are going to need for these emission cuts
are either commercially available or approaching commercial
availability?
Mr. Hausker?
Mr. Hausker. Yes, I think there is a wide range of
technologies. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. OK. How about you, Dr. Cleetus?
Dr. Cleetus. Absolutely yes.
Ms. DeGette. OK. And how about you, Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. And how about you, Ms. Angielski?
Ms. Angielski. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. OK. So all of you agree that we have those
technologies available and they are becoming more cost
effective, I think.
I wanted to ask you something that is kind of looming out
there for people like me who are trying to work in a bipartisan
way on climate legislation and that's this. We have all been
talking about this goal of zero by 2050. Could we do zero
technologically and economically within 10 years?
And I will start with you, Mr. Hausker.
Mr. Hausker. I think it would be extremely difficult and
expensive to go to net zero in 10 years.
Ms. DeGette. And would it have severe societal
ramifications?
Mr. Hausker. I think it would--it would be very costly and
I think there would be push back.
Ms. DeGette. What about you, Ms. Angielski? What is your
view?
Ms. Angielski. What I would say is that the capability
exists to get to net zero, which I think was your first
question.
Ms. DeGette. In 10 years?
Ms. Angielski. But the time frame is questionable, as I
think Dr. Hausker said. I mean, what we really need to do is
innovate more to help improve the technology and reduce costs,
instead of putting a time frame of 10 years on it might not be
practical.
Ms. DeGette. OK. And what is your view, Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Cohen. Technically possible, economically challenging.
Ms. DeGette. And are you aware of any studies that would
show the cost?
Mr. Cohen. Of the accelerations of moving the----
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Mr. Cohen. I am not but I can look into that.
Ms. DeGette. If you can I would appreciate that.
Dr. Cleetus, what is your view on this?
Dr. Cleetus. Ten years will be deeply challenging. But what
we have to get moving right away and get as far as we can in
that 10 years because the science is really sobering.
Ms. DeGette. I totally agree with you and, in fact, you
know, in my state of Colorado, some of you probably know we did
this renewable energy standard and the power companies totally
opposed it and so we had to do it by ballot initiative and then
we were able to achieve the goals in just a few years.
And so we actually went back in and increased it
legislatively with the support of all of the energy companies.
So it is the kind of thing if we get started now we may be able
to increase it.
But what we are trying to think about is what kind of
reasonable legislation can we pass to make that happen and I am
wondering when you all say it would be technologically feasible
but very expensive what kinds of things would we have to do to
reach that in 10 years?
Dr. Hausker?
Mr. Hausker. I think I can throw some light on that. A lot
of it is related to capital stock turnover and different
things--different important pieces of energy-using equipment
have different lifetimes. A car may have a lifetime of 15
years.
A water heater may have a life of 10 years. A building may
have a life of a hundred years. An industrial plant. So the way
to decarbonize effectively but not incur really huge costs is
to try to use our existing capital stock and when it turns over
that's when you go with the very efficient zero-carbon----
Ms. DeGette. I got you. I have no idea how much time I have
left. So I have one more question, if I may, Madam Chair.
Is my time up?
Ms. Clarke [presiding]. Your time has expired.
Ms. DeGette. OK. Well, the question I have, which I'd like
a written answer, to everybody is a lot of people talk about
natural gas as a bridge fuel to get to zero carbon.
The question I'd like you to give me an answer in writing
is that's only a bridge fuel if we deal with the methane, as
near as I can understand, because if you don't deal with the
methane then you're not going to be able to get carbon capture.
With that, I will yield back. And I apologize. I don't know
what's going on with the----
Ms. Clarke. The gentle lady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
McNerney, for five minutes to ask questions.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chair and I thank the panelists
for testifying this morning.
The warming of the planet is accelerating and I am
convinced that we are going to blow past the two degrees
Celsius increase, exceeding the limits that the IPCC is calling
for no matter what we do in terms of carbon emission
reductions.
Consequently, we need to be looking at all the potential
tools in our climate solution toolbox including funding
research for climate intervention and geoengineering. Given the
complexity of the climate system and the risks that are
associated with interfering in it, how do you think the U.S.
Government should field a research on climate intervention,
starting with Dr. Hausker and going down?
Mr. Hausker. It merits some--it merits some research. It is
a very controversial area, however.
Ms. Angielski. This is not something that I have studied so
I can't comment on this. I'll defer to my colleagues.
Mr. Cohen. Research in two areas is required. One is the
physical systems and also we need to think really about
governance--what would you do if you actually had these
technologies to deploy.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Dr. Cleetus. Cutting emissions and investing in climate
resilience have to be our first line solutions here. But given
where we are from a climate perspective, it is appropriate for
us to have a better understanding of the risks and potential of
things like geoengineering.
However, we oppose any deployment of the technology at this
point. There are too many risks associated with it, too many
unknowns.
We think there is a role for small-scale experiments but
only if accompanied by very strong governance regimes to make
sure that all of the risks are being appropriately accounted
for.
At this point, the U.S. government has stepped so far away
from its responsibilities in terms of resilience and cutting
emissions that we do not think that under the current
administration it would be a responsible move to deflect
attention towards this type of a technology development right
now.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, and I agree. We don't know enough
about the science to decide one way or the other right now if
geoengineering is appropriate and we need to invest to make the
science available so that we will understand what the
consequences and risks are.
Mr. Cohen, direct emissions, which are from industry, make
the industrial sector the third largest source of greenhouse
gas emissions. It is also one of the hardest to decarbonize.
Currently, the greatest impediments to commercializing,
deploying, and eventually what are the biggest impediments to
moving to decarbonizing the industrial sector?
Mr. Cohen. Well, it is--let me start with the solutions. I
mean, really, there are two main problems or two main sources
of CO2 from industry. There is the process heat on the front
end and that is provided by fossil fuels today--unabated fossil
fuels--and then there is inherent CO2 coming out the back end
for things like steel and cement production.
So, as I said earlier, the two major solution pathways
would be to substitute a high-temperature source of heat for
the fossil fuels and that could be from nuclear--from high-
temperature nuclear. It could be from a hydrogen manufactured
from a number of sources, and then on the back end, carbon
capture.
The impediment right now to implementing those are actually
not technical. We have got demonstrations of both of those
technologies in place on large industrial facilities around the
world.
It's going to be driving the costs down and making them
really a feasible--economically feasible solution for those big
heavy industries.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I spent a career developing wind energy
technology and I see renewables being significant in the sense
that you can overproduce energy and renewables and then you
have periods where there is no production, and the
overproduction you could create hydrogen by breaking water.
There is things that we can do. I think the efficiency--the
round trip efficiency of breaking water and then burning
hydrogen is not what we need it to be. But there is----
Mr. Cohen. That is one pathway. The only caution I would
put on that is that you have maybe some of the same issues with
intermittence on the grid that you would have with
electrolysis. That is, you build an electrolysis plant if
you're running it at very low capacity because you are relying
only on variable sources of energy might have some issues. But
in principle, yes, renewable energy can be a hydrogen source.
Mr. McNerney. Ms. Angielski, is there a economic method to
create carbon fiber from carbon dioxide?
Ms. Angielski. I am not intimately familiar with carbon
fiber production but, certainly, there are research programs
underway at DOE at looking at novel markets like carbon fibers,
for example, and converting that CO2 into marketable products.
So I am aware of companies are investing in the development of
that but at the scale that would be needed to really store CO2
in those fibers I am not on exactly where they are with that
right now.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Clarke. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Michigan,
Mrs. Dingell, for five minutes to ask questions.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I want to
thank Chairman Tonko for holding this hearing. I want to thank
all the witnesses for being here because I do think we really
are at a critical moment in our human history.
The planet is warming. The ice is melting. The seas are
rising. We are seeing the heat waves. I really felt it with 111
degrees and no air conditioning this weekend.
The droughts, floods, and wildfires are ravaging our
communities and nobody can deny we are seeing the hurricanes.
And the one thing we do have agreement on all of our best and
brightest scientists agree the climate is changing with every
amount of carbon that is being emitted across the economy.
So I just want to say we have got to find the will and we
have got to do it together. So it means all the stakeholders,
all the industry, and there are a lot of complicated issues.
I am a car girl and I will always be proud of being a car
girl, and transportation industry is a part of this not only in
the United States but in it worldwide, and I am not--don't have
enough time even to ask questions about what is happening here
versus other countries who are really taking that on.
But I think every great human achievement begins with a
goal and the goal for the moment, I think, is 100 by '50,
meaning we set a course to achieve--it's a goal to set 100
percent clean energy economy by 2050.
I am working on a bill with my colleague, Mr. McEachin, and
others that will establish 100 percent clean energy economy
goal by 2050 and we hope to introduce the legislation soon.
But I want to ask some questions because everybody says
it's ambitious, and then I do have young people that are in my
district office and everyplace I am going telling me we are not
being ambitious enough soon enough.
And it is--you know, we need to have the vision, a goal,
and how do we get there as fast as we can.
First, a quick question to all of you. A quick yes or no
from the panel. Do you believe with American ingenuity and
spirit we can find the collective will to get there?
Dr. Hausker?
Mr. Hausker. Absolutely, yes.
Ms. Angielski. Yes.
Mr. Cohen. Yes.
Dr. Cleetus. We can and we must.
Mrs. Dingell. That is great. OK.
Dr. Cleetus, I am going to ask you some questions. Can you
reiterate why it's so critical, as you just had in your passion
again set a 100 by '50 goal today and why it is so urgent?
Dr. Cleetus. It's urgent because of the climate impacts we
are already feeling at one degree Celsius right now. As you
pointed out, the terrible heat waves that we are seeing, the
wildfires, the flooding, the intensified storms--this points
out to us that we are already paying the costs of climate
change.
We have heard several Congress people today point out that
making a clean energy transition will come with some investment
costs. But those costs pale in comparison to runaway climate
change.
We need to address this problem because we owe it to our
children and grandchildren. Those young people who are urging
us to be ambitious, this is about the world we are leaving
them.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
Mr. Cohen, I am going to ask you these questions. I am
going to--because I do come from Michigan, I am going to do
electric vehicles. With the rollout of more and more electric
vehicles, how would electrifying the transportation sector help
us achieve a net zero carbon pollution by 2050?
Mr. Cohen. Well, clearly, if we are decarbonizing the grid
at the same time we are doing that we are going to be reducing
net carbon. That is, obviously, a great step forward.
Mrs. Dingell. How do we accelerate the rollout of electric
vehicles and the need for the infrastructure? I have heard all
of you--not all of you but some--express concern about the
battery capability.
There is no consumer confidence in the electric vehicles
and we are not building the grid we need to do to build it.
It's a chicken and egg. What do we need to do?
Mr. Cohen. So, well, the first thing I think we need to do
is think about increasing the penetration of both electric
vehicle take-up and the charging infrastructure.
But as I said earlier, I think we also need some other
pathways. And so I think these zero-carbon fuels could provide,
particularly for heavy freight, could provide a backstop or a
complement.
I think we have to be going both ways at once. A zero--a
technology-neutral low-carbon fuel standard analogous to what
people have proposed on the electricity side would probably
provide a really good market signal.
Mrs. Dingell. I am going to--because I am almost out of
time I am going to ask Dr. Cleetus this question because fuel
economy standards came up earlier.
And how do they fit into the range of tools we have
discussed today to decarbonize our economy? Would they help us
get to 100 by '50? And I do think they need to--personally,
believe we need year to year increases.
How do we do it in a real--part of the challenge for all of
us is how we do all of this in the fastest way but the real
way.
Dr. Cleetus. So the interesting thing about it is doing it
together is actually the cost effective way to do it. We can
clean up the economy better if we are simultaneously building
out the infrastructure in the transportation sector to
electrify as much as we can even as we decarbonize the grid. We
need to do those together.
The fuel economy standards are critical. Right now, as we
all said, the transportation sector is the biggest contributor
to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions are rising in this
sector.
Those fuel economy standards are going to deliver a huge
benefit in terms of emission reductions as well as consumer
benefits, public health, and lowering their bills for fuel.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Clarke. The gentle lady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
McEachin, for five minutes to ask questions.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to start off by thanking both Chairman Pallone and
Chairman Tonko for their leadership in this area and for having
this hearing.
I am honored to serve with them as we work to preserve and
protect our planet. There is no issue more important than
preventing and mitigating climate change and speeding our
transition to a clean energy economy.
Their leadership is helping to ensure that we create a
healthy sustainable planet for future generations and I am
humbled to be their partner in that work.
The best science says we need to completely stop adding
climate pollution to the atmosphere by 2050 if not sooner. That
is why I am fighting for bold action now.
That is why I will be introducing legislation along with
Congresswoman Haaland, Congresswoman Dingell, Congresswoman
Blumenauer, and Chairman Tonko to transition the United States
to 100 percent clean energy economy.
A hundred percent clean will protect public health and our
environment, create well-paying clean jobs, and strengthen our
economy. It will mitigate the impacts of climate change for all
communities and all generations, especially those
disproportionately impacted by its worst effects.
As we engage in this important policy work, we must break
the decades-long cycle of environmental injustice. For much of
our history, unjust policies have caused many of our most
vulnerable friends and neighbors to lead sicker, shorter, and
more difficult lives.
So we desperately need climate action and we desperately
need climate justice, and we cannot have one without the other.
Dr. Cleetus--did I pronounce that correctly?
Dr. Cleetus. Yes.
Mr. McEachin. OK. Thank you.
A just cause and a fighting spirit do not guarantee success
and we have only one chance for climate change. We have to hit
our marks.
When it comes to reducing emissions, can you speak to what
kind of processes as distinct from technologies or policy
choices are most apt to move the needle?
End goals are crucially important but is there a value in
interim goals and in regularly scheduled checkups and progress
reports?
Dr. Cleetus. Thank you, Congressman McEachin, and I just
want to thank you and Congressman Grijalva for the way in which
you have centered environmental justice in addressing this
problem of climate change.
In terms of the processes, I would say two things.
Absolutely we do need interim goals. This is not just about
2050. This is about where we get in the next decade as well,
because in that time we have the opportunity to get very far in
cutting emission reduction emissions and we have the
opportunity also to make sure that we are protecting people
from the climate impacts already underway.
We need to engage directly with stakeholders in communities
that have often been left on the sidelines of this challenge.
Environmental justice communities have solutions to this
problem and they must have a seat at the table as we go about
solving this problem.
Just last week, there was a national platform released by
environmental justice groups and national environmental
groups--an equitable and just national climate platform which
has many elements in it of what that process could look like
and the vision for an equitable-centered climate platform.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
Doctor, once we make a formal commitment to act, how do we
make real-time adjustments and keep ourselves on a path to
success?
Dr. Cleetus. The opportunity we have here is if we get
going in an ambitious way the costs of technologies are falling
all the time. Folks on the panel have pointed out wind, solar.
We have seen double-digit cost declines year over year. We
have seen battery storage costs come down. Just in the last
decade over a 70 percent reduction in wind and solar costs.
So if we get started in an ambitious way the opportunity we
will have is that when we get five years out or 10 years out,
we know we can ratchet up ambition because the costs of these
technologies will have fallen.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
You have said that, done right, an economy wide low-carbon
energy transition can also help address longstanding inequities
of low income communities and communities of color.
I need you to expound upon that. Is there a danger that we
end up with climate action in the absence of climate justice or
vice versa, and if so, how can we best avoid those dangers?
Dr. Cleetus. Solving climate change in an equitable way
won't happen by accident. We have to have that intentionality
from the beginning to center equity.
We know that as we cut CO2 emissions we have the
opportunity to cut other co-pollutants that are causing near-
term public health burdens in these communities from mercury,
from particulate matter, from sulfur dioxide emissions, NOX
emissions.
So the opportunity we have is making sure that we are
making emission cuts and prioritizing emission cuts in
communities that are overburdened by these other kinds of co-
pollutants even as we cut carbon dioxide pollutants.
The other opportunity we have is to make sure that the
benefits of clean energy are accruing directly to these
communities--that they have access to these modern clean
technologies, the efficient technologies that can save people
money as well as make sure that they too will clean up the air
and water in their communities.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you. I thank the witnesses and I thank
you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Clarke. The gentleman yields back.
I request unanimous consent to enter the following
documents into the record: a letter from the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Nuclear Energy
Institute, three facts sheets from the Nuclear Energy
Institute, and a report from the BlueGreen Alliance on its
platform for climate action.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Ms. Clarke. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for
joining us here at today's hearing. I remind Members that
pursuant to committee rules, they have 10 business days to
submit additional questions for the record to be answered by
our witnesses.
I ask each witness to respond promptly to any such
questions that you may receive.
At this time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]