    [Senate Hearing 115-456]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-456

      LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 2602, THE UTILIZING SIGNIFICANT EMISSIONS
                WITH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES ACT, OR USE IT ACT

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   ----------

                                 APRIL 11, 2018

                                   ----------

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-456

      LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 2602, THE UTILIZING SIGNIFICANT EMISSIONS
                WITH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES ACT, OR USE IT ACT

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 11, 2018

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    34-174PDF                WASHINGTON : 2019

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION

                        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia      Ranking Member
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
                                         CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

                  Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
                   Gabrielle Batkin, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 APRIL 11, 2018
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming......     1
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     6
    Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
      Virginia.......................................................     8
    Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
      Island.........................................................     8
    Duckworth, Hon. Tammy, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois,
      prepared statement.............................................   108

                                   WITNESSES

    Heitkamp, Hon. Heidi, U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota    10
    Northam, Mark A., Executive Director, School of Energy Resources,
      University of Wyoming..........................................    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    20
        Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso.....    29
    Friedmann, S. Julio, Chief Executive Officer, Carbon Wrangler,
      LLC............................................................    30
        Prepared statement...........................................    32
        Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso.....    39
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................    39
            Senator Duckworth........................................    43
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................    45
    Deich, Noah, Executive Director, Center for Carbon Removal.......    51
        Prepared statement...........................................    53
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................    60
            Senator Duckworth........................................    62
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................    64
    Jiao, Feng, Associate Professor of Chemical & Biomolecular
      Engineering and Associate Director for the Center for Catalytic
      Science & Technology, University of Delaware...................    69
        Prepared statement...........................................    71
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    91

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Bipartisan Group of Senators Introduce Bill to Promote Carbon
      Capture Research and Development, March 22, 2018...............   109
    Letters:
        Algae Biomass Organization to Senators Barrasso and Carper,
          April 10, 2018.............................................   113
        ALLETE to Senators Barrasso and Whitehouse, April 9, 2018....   114
        Arizona State University Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering
          to Senators Barrasso and Carper, April 8, 2018.............   116
        Basin Electric Power Cooperative to Senators Barrasso and
          Whitehouse, March 22, 2018.................................   118
        Bio-Thermal-Energy, Inc. to Senators Barrasso and Carper,
          April 9, 2018..............................................   119
        Carbon Capture Coalition to Senators Barrasso and Carper,
          April 11, 2018.............................................   130
        ClearPath Action to Senators Barrasso and Whitehouse, March
          22, 2018...................................................   132
        Cloud Peak Energy to Senator Barrasso, April 10, 2018........   133
        CO2 Sciences, Inc.................................   134
        Colorado School of Mines to Senators Barrasso and Carper,
          April 17, 2018.............................................   135
        Energy & Environmental Research Center to Senators Barrasso
          and Whitehouse, April 10, 2018.............................   136
        Global Thermostat to Senators Barrasso and Whitehouse, April
          5, 2018....................................................   137
        Great River Energy to Senators Barrasso and Whitehouse, April
          9, 2018....................................................   139
        Lignite Energy Council to Senators Barrasso and Whitehouse,
          April 10, 2018.............................................   140
        National Mining Association to Senator Barrasso, May 7, 2018.   141
        North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives to
          Senators Barrasso and Whitehouse, April 5, 2018............   142
        Third Way to Senators Barrasso and Carper, April 10, 2018....   143
        Matt Mead, Governor of Wyoming, et al. to Representative Ryan
          et al. and Senator McConnell et al., February 6, 2018......   144
        Matthew H. Mead, Governor of Wyoming, to Hon. Steve Bullock,
          Governor of Montana, et al., February 16, 2018.............   146
        Matthew H. Mead, Governor of Wyoming, to Senators Barrasso
          and Whitehouse, April 10, 2018.............................   149
        Western Governors' Association to Senators Hatch and Wyden,
          August 3, 2017.............................................   150
        Western Governors' Association to Senators Barrasso and
          Carper, April 24, 2018.....................................   155
    Quadrennial Energy Review: Energy Transmission, Storage, and
      Distribution Infrastructure, April 2015........................   156
    Global Roadmap for Implementing CO2 Utilization,
      CO2 Sciences and The Global CO2
      Initiative, November 2016......................................   162
    21st Century Energy Infrastructure: Policy Recommendations for
      Development of American CO2 Pipeline Networks. White
      paper prepared by the State CO2-EOR Deployment Work
      Group, February 2017...........................................   224
    Siting Carbon Dioxide Pipelines. Tara K. Righetti, Oil and Gas,
      Natural Resources, and Energy Journal, November 2017...........   251
    Ten Teams From Five Countries Advance To Finals Of $20M NRG COSIA
      Carbon XPRIZE, Finalists Reimagine Carbon and Will Demonstrate
      CO2 Conversion Tech Under Real-World Conditions,
      April 9, 2018..................................................   321
    Amy's notebook: one bipartisan thing.............................   325

      LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 2602, THE UTILIZING SIGNIFICANT EMISSIONS
                WITH INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES ACT, OR USE IT ACT

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2018

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:21 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito,
    Fischer, Ernst, Sullivan, Cardin, Whitehouse, Gillibrand,
    Booker, Markey, and Van Hollen.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
    order.
        Today we are here to discuss promising bipartisan
    legislation recently introduced by the Chairman, along with
    Senators Whitehouse, Capito, and Heitkamp.
        The bill is called the Utilizing Significant Emissions with
    Innovative Technologies Act, or simply the USE IT Act. It is
    called the USE IT Act because the bill would encourage the
    commercial use of manmade carbon dioxide emissions. The bill
    supports the use of carbon capture technology and innovative
    research at sites with the captured CO2. The
    legislation also facilitates permitting for carbon dioxide
    pipelines in order to move the carbon dioxide from where it is
    captured to where it is either stored or used.
        The USE IT Act complements and builds off of recently
    passed legislation that was introduced by the same bipartisan
    group of Senators. That one was called the FUTURE Act, the
    Furthering Carbon Capture, Utilization, Technology, Underground
    Storage, and Reduced Emissions Act, simply, the FUTURE Act. It
    expanded and extended the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture.
    Carbon capture can and does work.
        The Committee heard testimony from David Greeson of NRG
    Energy last year. Their Petra Nova project outside of Houston
    is the largest carbon capture project of its kind in the world.
    That project has now captured and used more than a million tons
    of carbon. The FUTURE Act is going to spur investment in more
    additional carbon capture projects like Petra Nova.
        In developing both the FUTURE Act and the USE IT Act,
    Senators on both sides of the aisle have found areas of common
    ground. I appreciate Senator Whitehouse's leadership as we work
    together to develop the USE IT Act. I am going to continue to
    work with Senator Whitehouse to ensure any amendments to this
    bill are built on bipartisan consensus as we work to move it
    through the Committee and ultimately to the President's desk.
        In my home State of Wyoming, we are blessed with an
    abundant supply of coal, oil, uranium, and natural gas. These
    tremendous resources fuel our State economy and employ people
    in well paying jobs; they provide affordable and reliable power
    to our Nation.
        Coal, oil, uranium, and natural gas also make the United
    States more secure by making us less dependent on energy
    resources from other countries. We cannot afford to leave our
    resources stranded in the ground. That is why America must lead
    through innovation--and not regulation--as we continue to
    reduce emissions. This is the approach we take in the USE IT
    Act.
        The bill will also allow coal plants in my home State of
    Wyoming to capture their CO2 emissions and turn them
    into valuable products. It will encourage the use and permanent
    sequestration of CO2. Greater use of these
    technologies, coupled with research support from the EPA, could
    lead to additional innovative technologies that will use
    CO2 emissions.
        This is a market driven approach. We are encouraging the
    development of markets for CO2. All of these actions
    will result in less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
        The USE IT Act is important for Wyoming. The Sheridan Press
    recently published a front page article titled Senate Bill
    Could Stimulate State Carbon Capture Projects. In the article
    Jason Begger, who is the Executive Director of the Wyoming
    Infrastructure Authority, who has testified before this
    Committee, endorsed the USE IT Act. He explained how the
    legislation will allow Wyoming to diversify the use of its
    energy resources, and I ask that this article be entered into
    the record.
        Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. The USE IT Act has two sections, one that
    promotes research and the other to facilitate development of
    carbon capture products and CO2 pipelines.
        The first title of the bill directs the EPA to conduct
    carbon dioxide research activities under existing authority in
    the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the EPA would provide
    technical and financial assistance to carbon dioxide
    utilization projects that use CO2 generated from
    industrial facilities. EPA would also administer a competitive
    prize program to promote another innovative technology: direct
    air capture.
        The second title is all about creating a favorable
    environment for the permitting and development of the
    infrastructure needed to make carbon capture successful. In
    this title, the bill clarifies that carbon capture utilization
    and sequestration projects, as well as carbon dioxide
    pipelines, should be permitted in a timely and coordinated
    manner.
        The bill will send an important signal to project
    developers that the Federal Government is committed to be a
    partner in the project development and in exploring new
    commercial uses for carbon dioxide.
        The bill also establishes a process for stakeholders to
    work together to identify and develop models that facilitate
    the permitting and development of carbon capture projects and
    carbon dioxide pipelines.
        So, I look forward to working with members of the Committee
    to advance this critical legislation.
        I will now turn to the Ranking Member, my friend, Tom
    Carper, for his opening statement.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Delighted to see our witness, our first witness, our lead-
    off hitter, who is actually quite a good hitter, as I recall,
    and to welcome our other witnesses who will follow Senator
    Heitkamp.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for this hearing today,
    and I want to thank you, Senator Whitehouse, and others who
    have worked, along with our staffs, to craft this legislation
    for our consideration. It is really a pleasure to participate
    in a hearing that focuses on solutions to climate change, as
    opposed to a hearing that focuses and fuels the debate over the
    science of climate change.
        Since the founding of our Union, our country has faced
    daunting challenges that at first seem impossible to overcome.
    With support from Federal, State, and local governments,
    Americans have found ways to innovate and craft solutions to
    overcome these challenges.
        I believe the same can and must be true when it comes to
    addressing climate change. Smart policies at the Federal,
    State, and local levels have spurred a clean energy revolution
    in this country, and we have achieved real results. $507
    billion have been invested in the clean energy sector over the
    past 10 years, and our country is the leader in exporting clean
    air and clean energy technology----a leader.
        Thanks in part to these investments in clean energy and
    energy efficiency, American consumers are paying less for
    energy today, not more; jobs--some 3 million of them, in fact--
    have been created here at home to produce these clean energy
    technologies.
        However, if our country, and quite frankly, all countries,
    are going to address the challenge of climate change, we must
    do more to spur clean energy technology. That is why I have
    long believed that the Federal Government should foster and
    support the deployment of carbon capture, sequestration, and
    utilization technologies, and I have been, as a Congressman, as
    a Governor, and as a United States Senator, a strong advocate
    of doing just that.
        Wide deployment of carbon capture, sequestration, and
    utilization could significantly reduce climate pollution
    emissions in this country and abroad, and could be a real win-
    win for coal communities, for manufacturing, and for our
    climate.
        But just as with other coal related technologies, the
    barriers to carbon capture, utilization, and storage are
    largely financial--largely financial, not environmental. The
    reluctance of investors to invest in CCUS is not because we
    require these operations to meet other basic and important
    environmental requirements. Instead, investors have shied away
    from expensive, large scale carbon capture projects because
    energy prices are low. This country has struggled to put a
    price on carbon usage, and as a result, we are well on our way
    to ceding the economic opportunities of carbon capture
    technology to other countries, like China, which only hurt the
    very coal communities that our President says he wants to help.
    And a couple of us actually grew up in those coal communities.
        American ingenuity has always been our best tool in meeting
    the challenges our country has faced, so it just makes sense
    that we would harness the same innovative spirit in order to
    find smart ways to spur CCUS in America.
        Today we will hear, beginning with our lead-off witness,
    Senator Heitkamp, much about such innovative efforts occurring
    at the University of Delaware that, if successful, would make
    carbon capture a no-brainer--no-brainer--for businesses in the
    future.
        This legislation before us, as the Chairman has said, is
    intended to spur more innovation in projects in CCUS like the
    one at the University of Delaware that we will hear about in
    just a moment. So, for that, I applaud the underlying effort
    and the Chairman and co-sponsors for your work.
        Having said that, however, I do have one concern that I
    want to mention with the legislation which explains why I am
    not yet a co-sponsor. For one, I am concerned that the
    legislation may be handing over a program to an already
    burdened EPA to oversee what may be better suited for the
    Department of Energy to administer.
        I am also a bit weary of discussing any additional
    streamlining provisions for this technology, when in the past
    two transportation bills we have established streamlining
    provisions to help these types of projects move through the
    permitting process more easily. I believe that before we
    consider a lot more streamlining measures, we ought to
    prioritize implementing the ones we have already put in place.
    Most importantly, I want to make sure that this effort is not
    connected with other efforts that may weaken the Clean Air Act.
        In closing, let me reiterate that we don't need to scrap
    our environmental standards to provide a nurturing environment
    for American innovation and economic investment in carbon
    sequestration technologies; they are not mutually exclusive.
        With that, we look forward to hearing from our lead-off
    witness and our other witnesses. Thank you all for being here
    with us today.
        Thank you.
        And for your leadership, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Senator Capito.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
    I am glad to see Senator Heitkamp here and Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Barrasso and I are the major authors of this bill.
    I said it is good to have the team back because we had a major
    victory at the end of last year with everybody's help; we
    passed the FUTURE Act, which Senator Barrasso referenced in his
    opening statement, which reauthorized and really improved the
    45Q tax credit for CCUS. It was a huge milestone for all of us
    because we had a bipartisan group of Senators, a diverse
    coalition of coal and oil industry, environmental groups, and
    the labor organizations that were supporting us, so we are now
    looking to the second phase and making sure that this
    technology can make it out into the field.
        Beyond the economics, we need to have adequate R&D into
    CCUS, some of that is being done at Nettle in Morgantown and at
    our universities, and that our regulatory structures aren't so
    onerous so as to prevent CCUS projects and carbon dioxide
    pipelines from being permitted.
        I think there is an issue that we try to address in here,
    and that is on the carbon dioxide portion of the pipelining,
    which brings a different flavor to pipeline regulating than we
    have seen in the past. So, we are in the process of bringing
    together another coalition of stakeholders like the one that
    supported the FUTURE Act, and today's hearing is part of that
    process.
        So, with all of us pulling together, I hope we can get
    another pro-CCUS bill. It is a win-win; it is an energy bill;
    it is a carbon emission reduction bill; and it will benefit all
    of us economically.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Senator Whitehouse.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
        It is good to be working on this bill again and trying to
    advance the cause of carbon capture, utilization, and
    sequestration. Obviously, if you are going to capture and
    utilize carbon dioxide, it is helpful to have a way to
    distribute it to the ultimate users, and that is where the
    pipeline piece comes in; it is a very sensible adjunct to the
    bill that we got passed.
        I would like to make two points. One is that pretty much
    everybody on the Republican side of the aisle who has thought
    the climate change problem through to a solution, whether it is
    former Senators, former Representatives, former Treasury
    secretaries, former EPA administrators, former presidential
    economic advisors, they all more or less come to the same
    place, which is that there needs to be a market price on carbon
    dioxide emissions.
        I think we agree with that. There is usually the view that
    it ought to be revenue-neutral, it shouldn't be revenues used
    to build more government, we don't need to have that fight on
    this issue; and it needs to be border adjustable so a cement
    plant in Texas doesn't face unfair competition from the same
    cement plant across the border in Mexico.
        All of that is very doable, but it is going to take a
    little bit more leadership from our friends in the fossil fuel
    industry before we get there.
        I want to make it clear that, from my experience here in
    the Senate, when our oil majors say they understand that
    climate change is real, they understand that their product is
    causing it, and they support a price on carbon emissions, that
    that is not a truthful statement. At the end of the day, their
    entire political and electioneering apparatus remains fully
    dedicated to making sure that there is no price on carbon.
        How they are going to explain to the future and to their
    shareholders why they say one thing publicly and direct their
    political and electioneering efforts in a completely different
    direction I leave up to them, but I am here as witness to the
    fact that there is zero political and electioneering support
    from those industries for the serious price on carbon they
    claim to support. So, in the meantime, we can do things to move
    things forward, and this is one of those ways to move things
    forward.
        The second point I would like to make is that we need to be
    very careful about making sure that when we are talking about
    regulatory efficiencies, we are really talking about regulatory
    efficiencies. When that becomes a code for undoing
    environmental protections, I am out.
        We have seen regulatory efficiencies pay off in big ways.
    Rhode Island has steel in the water and electrons flowing into
    the grid from the first offshore wind turbines in the United
    States because we designed a better regulatory process than
    Massachusetts did. Cape Wind in Massachusetts died over more
    than a decade of regulatory process. We did it faster, smarter,
    and right in Rhode Island, and the payoff is we got the first
    offshore wind in the country.
        So, there in fact are ways to make regulation achieve its
    purpose in the most efficient way. We have to guard against
    that being a screen for undoing the underlying protections, and
    that is a principle that I am going to bring into this bill and
    into all of my oversight efforts on this Committee.
        I appreciate the opportunity I have had to work with so
    many friends on this Committee on this and on the previous
    bill, and I am delighted to see my distinguished Dakotan
    colleague here.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse.
        Now to the distinguished Dakotan colleague, Senator
    Heitkamp.
        Welcome to the Committee. Thank you for joining us and for
    your support of the bill.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. HEIDI HEITKAMP,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

        Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and hello to all
    my friends on the Environment and Public Works Committee.
        I think Sheldon occasionally says that because he can't
    remember if it is North or South Dakota.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Whitehouse. It is not East or West?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Heitkamp. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso: If it is a road or if it is an island,
    yes.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Heitkamp. Or soon to be.
        Good morning, Chairman Barrasso.
        Senator Whitehouse. No fair, all you westerners ganging up
    on me.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Heitkamp. I am going to start over now.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Heitkamp. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking
    Member Carper, and all of my friends and colleagues on this
    Committee. I want to thank you so much for the invitation to
    testify on this USE IT Act, Utilizing Significant Emissions
    with Innovative Technologies Act.
        I just want to make a point that for generation after
    generation we have seen CO2 as a pollutant, and the
    efforts that this Committee, in a very bipartisan way and our
    group of four have really tried to turn the page and start
    looking at CO2 as an opportunity and as a legitimate
    and valuable by-product.
        So, Senator Barrasso, I want to thank you so much, and your
    staff, for your incredible work on this and making it a
    priority of your office, and inviting me and allowing me to be
    part of that work.
        Senators Whitehouse and Capito, your continued work and
    partnership in these efforts on carbon capture, utilization,
    and storage initiatives, that leadership continues beyond the
    work that we did on our FUTURE Act, and we know that these new
    policies can create an environment in which innovation and
    implementation of CCUS technologies and processes are allowed
    to thrive and grow.
        Much has already been said about the FUTURE Act. It was one
    cog in that wheel, and we know that we need to make sure that
    we can commercialize the work that is being done that we can
    continue to drive the technology in ways that will amaze and
    astonish people out in the country.
        When we talk about the challenges of how to implement the
    policies that would encourage CCUS in this country, it was
    clear that closing the financing gap through the FUTURE Act was
    critical, but merely doing that one piece wasn't enough.
        It was before this very same Committee last year where the
    FUTURE Act was being discussed during a hearing on expanding
    and accelerating the deployment and use of CCUS, and questions
    were posed to the witnesses about what additional challenges
    existed and what further policies we needed to promote CCUS.
    The response was clear: there needed to be a comprehensive
    approach that looked across the entire Federal and State
    regulatory policies to better coordinate and establish an
    environment where CCUS projects are not burdened by long lead
    times or duplicative and unnecessary regulations, and that we
    needed to build out the infrastructure necessary to move the
    CO2 from the source to those areas that are best
    able to utilize it as a by-product.
        As a result of that hearing, Chairman Barrasso took the
    lead on addressing some of those very concerns, and I happily
    joined him and my colleagues, Senators Whitehouse and Capito,
    in that effort.
        The USE IT Act directs EPA and CEQ to prioritize and take
    lead roles at the Federal level in supporting CCUS and direct
    air capture research, and establishing guidance for project
    developers and operators that will allow better coordination
    and facilitation of these projects. It also clarified that
    existing policies facilitating the build out of infrastructure
    projects are applicable to CCUS projects and CO2
    pipelines.
        While I will admit I am biased when it comes to advancing
    this bill and these policies, North Dakota is at the forefront
    of developing CCUS projects if the right conditions are met. As
    of yesterday, we are the first State in the country that has
    been authorized by EPA to regulate Class 5 injection wells. We
    have three CCUS projects at various stages of planning. Red
    Trail Energy in Richardton is looking to capture and store
    CO2 from an ethanol plant. Project Tundra is looking
    to add carbon capture equipment to the back end of an existing
    coal fired power plant in the Allam cycle project that could be
    fueled by synthetic gas produced at our great lignite coal
    resource in our State. It is really quite amazing.
        All of these projects are not what we called in the old
    days vaporware. They are real, they are being developed every
    day, they are being invested in by the State and by private
    entities in the State of North Dakota, so we are ready to go.
    We are ready to go if the conditions are right.
        To that point, I would like to submit several records or
    several letters in support of the USE IT Act. I want to make
    this point because I think sometimes we talk a lot about saving
    jobs and doing what we can to make sure people stay working.
    These employers represent thousands of jobs in my State, and
    even more jobs if we look at the indirect benefit of this
    value-added industry to my State. So, I would like to submit
    these letters in support.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        Senator Heitkamp. Thank you.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Heitkamp. The impressive panel of witnesses that
    you have assembled to follow me are in a much better position
    to get further into the details of why this bill addresses some
    of those challenges laid out in the September hearing. What I
    can tell you is that I am certain that these efforts will lead
    to breakthroughs that provide for economic and employment
    benefits to our country and provide long term technological
    solutions that will allow for the continuation of an all of the
    above energy policy, all while addressing climate challenges by
    greatly reducing carbon emissions.
        I want to make one final statement. I think that when we
    are looking back at our legislative careers, and we are
    thinking how did we do, did we just stand in our corners and
    shout across the void and across the divide? Occasionally
    something will come up where we will say we walked across, we
    sat down, we figured it out, and we did something that actually
    made a difference in the U.S. Congress.
        I think this effort is exactly that, and I think all of us
    who have worked on this, especially the four of us who have
    been particularly engaged, will have something to talk about.
    We will have an example of the kind of leadership that we have
    exhibited while we are here, and I think this not only has been
    a wonderful piece of policy, it has been a wonderful example of
    how friends and colleagues can get together to actually move
    important policy for the people of this country.
        So, I proudly join and support all of my co-sponsors, and I
    encourage a quick resolution out of this Committee and hard
    work on the floor of the Senate to get this thing passed in the
    U.S. Senate.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Heitkamp.
    Glad you could join us today. Appreciate it.
        Senator Heitkamp. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. At this time, I would like to call our
    four witnesses to the table.
        We will now hear from our witnesses, and I am pleased to
    introduce Dr. Mark Northam, who is the Director of the
    University of Wyoming's School of Energy Resources. Prior to
    his service at the university, he has had extensive research
    experience in the private sector. Additionally, he has worked
    as a research science consultant in the areas of carbon
    management and technical intelligence at the Research and
    Development Center at Saudi Aramco. Dr. Northam also worked at
    Mobil and ExxonMobil for over 20 years, where he held a variety
    of research operations and managerial positions.
        I want to thank you for your willingness to testify today.
        Additionally to Dr. Northam we have Dr. Julio Friedmann,
    who is the CEO of Carbon Wrangler, LLC.
        It is good to see you again. Welcome back to the Committee.
    We appreciate your insightful testimony at the hearing last
    September on carbon capture, and we look forward to hearing
    your insights today.
        Next is Noah Deich, who is the Executive Director of the
    Center for Carbon Removal; and Dr. Feng Jiao from Senator
    Carper's home State of Delaware.
        Senator Carper, would you like to add any few words of
    introduction?
        Senator Carper. Isn't that a great name, Feng Jiao? It
    means common sense. No, it doesn't really, but it could,
    because this is very much a common sense approach, I think.
        After finishing his post-doctoral research at the Lawrence
    Berkeley National Laboratory, Dr. Jiao joined the faculty at
    the University of Delaware, I think in 2010. Was it 2010?
        Mr. Jiao. Yes, 2010.
        Senator Carper. Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering
    Department. Today he is still at that department at the
    University of Delaware, serves as an Associate Professor. He is
    also the Associate Director for the Center for Catalytic
    Science & Technology. His current research focuses primarily on
    converting carbon dioxide into valuable chemicals.
        Dr. Jiao has published more than 50 articles.
        Is that true?
        Mr. Jiao. Yes, that is true.
        Senator Carper. OK. More than 50 articles in leading
    scientific journals, such as the Journal of American Chemical
    Society, regarding his work in electrochemistry and
    nanomaterials. Just last year he was awarded $1 million by the
    Department of Energy to further his work on carbon capture and
    utilization. In addition, Dr. Jiao started a company called
    CO2 Energy LLC specializing in carbon capture and
    utilization.
        We welcome you, Dr. Jiao. It is great to see you. Happy
    that the First State is represented on both sides of the dais.
    Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. I want to remind the witnesses that your
    full testimony will be made part of the record of the official
    hearing today, so we please ask you to keep your statements to
    5 minutes so that we have time for questions. Look forward to
    hearing your testimony.
        Dr. Northam, please begin.

      STATEMENT OF MARK A. NORTHAM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF
                ENERGY RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING

        Mr. Northam. Thank you.
        Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of
    the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, thank you
    for inviting me to testify on the Utilizing Significant
    Emissions with Innovative Technologies Act, or USE IT Act.
        Senator Barrasso, thank you for the introduction. You took
    away the first 10 minutes of my testimony.
        For those of you who are here to see the other Mark, I
    think he was here today, and he is over in the House today, so
    sorry if you are disappointed.
        I came to the university following 26 years in the oil and
    gas industry. I have had the privilege of working on carbon
    dioxide utilization and storage issues, technologies and
    policies for the bulk of my career.
        For example, I was a technology leader with the Sleipner
    CO2 Storage Project in the Norwegian offshore from
    its inception. Sleipner CO2 Storage Facility was the
    first in the world to inject CO2 into a dedicated
    subsurface reservoir for the purpose of storage. The Sleipner
    facility has captured CO2 at the Sleipner area gas
    development since 1996. The captured CO2 is directly
    injected into the offshore sandstone reservoir. Nearly a
    million tons of CO2 is injected per annum, and over
    17 million tons has been injected since inception.
        My work with carbon capture, utilization, and storage
    continues through the present day at SER, the School of Energy
    Resources. We continue to conduct important research related to
    the geologic storage of CO2 in saline aquifers, and
    to improve carbon dioxide-motivated enhanced oil recovery
    operations.
        The State of Wyoming is an ideal jurisdiction to advance
    research and projects related to capturing and utilizing
    emissions of CO2. For example, the Wyoming
    legislature provided for the development of an integrated test
    center to serve as an operational test site for CO2
    capture and utilization technology developers. The Wyoming
    Infrastructure Authority led the development of the site with
    the support of many private and public sector entities in
    Wyoming.
        The ITC will soon host five semifinalists of the coal track
    of the $20 million NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE, a global
    competition to develop breakthrough technologies that convert
    CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion into
    products with the highest net value. Competitors in this
    program are developing processes that utilize CO2 in
    the production of, for example, enhanced concrete, biofuels,
    nanotubes, and fertilizers. In fact, the Carbon XPRIZE
    finalists were announced Monday evening in New York City, and
    five of these finalists will be operating by the end of this
    calendar year in Wyoming.
        Wyoming is also one of a handful of States with existing
    CO2 pipeline infrastructure to serve an active
    enhanced oil recovery industry. The State has also planned for
    future expansion of the network through ongoing efforts of the
    Wyoming Pipeline Corridor Initiative, primarily for providing
    CO2 to parts of the State with significant demand
    for supply.
        I am pleased to testify today in support of the USE IT Act.
    My testimony focuses on carbon dioxide utilization section of
    Title I, which amends section 103 of the Clean Air Act to
    authorize the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to support
    certain CCUS related research and development activities by the
    States, institutions of higher education, and others.
        Title I of the USE IT Act, in part, authorizes the EPA to
    carry out a research and development program for carbon dioxide
    utilization to promote technologies that transform carbon
    dioxide generated by industrial processes into a product of
    commercial value, or as an input to products of commercial
    value. The bill defines carbon dioxide utilization as
    technologies or approaches that lead to the use of carbon
    dioxide through fixation of CO2 through
    photosynthesis or chemosynthesis, such as through the growing
    of algae or bacteria; the chemical conversion of CO2
    to a material or chemical compound in which the CO2
    is securely stored; and the use of CO2 for any other
    purpose for which a commercial market exists.
        The EPA is to provide technical and financial assistance to
    certain eligible CO2 utilization projects, with the
    eligibility criteria including access to an emissions stream
    from a U.S. based stationary source that is capable of
    providing not less than 250 metric tons of CO2 per
    day.
        I support these provisions. Not only do they create another
    source of critically needed funding for the CCUS related
    research and technologies, but also they apply to a broad swath
    of potential CCUS technologies. Eligible technologies include
    the use of CO2 for any other purpose for which
    commercial markets exist, which I interpret to include
    CO2-EOR.
        Moving to Title II, the USE IT Act first explicitly makes
    certain CCUS related projects, including CO2
    pipelines, subject to the 2015 Fixing America's Surface
    Transportation Act, or FAST Act. The FAST Act seeks to
    streamline Federal environmental review and permitting,
    reducing bureaucratic redundancies for certain large
    infrastructure projects, and second, directs the Chair of the
    White House Council on Environmental Quality, in consultation
    with EPA, DOE, and others, to prepare guidance to facilitate
    reviews associated with the deployment of CCUS projects and
    CO2 pipelines.
        I support these provisions as well. In addition to
    financial challenges, CCUS projects face unfortunate headwinds
    caused by well intended, but nonetheless, arguably,
    counterproductive Federal policies. These policies include time
    consuming reviews under NEPA, which is a specific challenge for
    States such as Wyoming that have significant areas of Federal
    lands. The Underground Injection Code under the Safe Drinking
    Water Act also arguably stands as an impediment to CCUS
    projects due to aspects of the Class VI CO2
    injection storage regulations that are difficult, if not
    impossible, for the private sector to utilize. Title II of the
    USE IT Act should go some way toward ameliorating these and
    related challenges facing CCUS projects and technologies.
        This concludes my testimony. I am pleased to testify today
    in support of the USE IT Act. The ongoing Federal role in
    supporting CCUS research at institutions of higher education is
    imperative.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the
    Committee, I would be pleased to answer any questions that you
    may have. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Northam follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you so much, Dr. Northam, for being
    here today.
        Dr. Friedmann.

                   STATEMENT OF S. JULIO FRIEDMANN,
             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CARBON WRANGLER, LLC

        Mr. Friedmann. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, all the
    distinguished members of the Committee, thank you so much for
    inviting my testimony. I am honored to return. I believe last
    time I was here I was pleased and proud to serve as a minority
    witness. Today I am pleased and proud to serve as a majority
    witness.
        My name is Julio. Until recently, I served as the Senior
    Advisor for Energy Innovation at the Lawrence Livermore
    National Laboratory. Prior to that, for about 2 and a half
    years, I was the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary at the
    Office of Fossil Energy and happy to serve under Secretary
    Moniz there. I have spent 17 years working on clean energy
    technology and development, most of that focused on CCUS, and
    mostly from Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
        My testimony last September focused on CCUS as a technology
    set. Since then, a sea change has occurred regarding this
    critical and important technology. Much of this is the result
    of the passage of the FUTURE Act. In my own travels around the
    world, we are the talk of the town, and carbon is the new
    black.
        The Act will greatly enhance the ability of commercial CCUS
    projects. It will attract financing, and it has already
    reaffirmed the United States unambiguously as the leader
    worldwide in CCUS development, deployment, and policy.
        Because of that financial support for the FUTURE Act, the
    rate of CCUS deployment is now limited by a different set of
    issues. Some of those issues are associated with the cost of
    technology; some of them are associated with the use of carbon
    dioxide itself; some of them are associated with regulatory
    issues and permitting issues.
        As such, I am pleased to see the USE IT Act bill. I am
    pleased to testify in support of it. I believe that the USE IT
    Act will ultimately lower hurdles to investment; it will lower
    barriers to deployment; and ultimately it will serve the
    development, deployment, and export of this important clean
    energy technology.
        I just want to speak very briefly about direct air capture.
    This is something I have spent a lot of time working on and
    believe that this is an underserved and important technology
    option.
        There are simply some sources of carbon dioxide that
    mankind emits that are hard to manage, and in doing so, dealing
    with those will prove to be very expensive. Direct air capture
    technology today already beats the cost of many of those
    options, and those costs are coming down fast. There are at
    least three companies that are developing and deploying this
    technology worldwide, and I have been very impressed by the
    rate of progress. That said, there remains substantial
    technical challenges, which is part of the reason to have
    substantial focus on the research and development of them.
        The same thing can be said about the use of carbon dioxide
    and conversion to valuable products. We are seeing, again, a
    lot of interesting technologies developed and a lot of
    interesting companies out there. The venture community, the
    equity companies, the banks that are looking at these companies
    have uniformly said, gosh, these are cool; wish we had 100 more
    like them behind it. There are simply not enough shots on net,
    there are not enough companies being fielded and deployed, and
    there needs to be a larger innovation thrust in order to get
    those technologies to market.
        In that context, Title I of this bill I think provides a
    pathway to doing so. In my own experience at the Department of
    Energy, we fielded a solicitation in this arena. We would love
    to see more work of that kind. It would be my hope that if the
    EPA has this research program and begins it, that they would
    actually partner with the Department of Energy in thinking
    about a good way to structure and execute such a program.
        With respect to CO2 infrastructure otherwise, in
    many ways the United States has already demonstrated its
    prowess in fielding and managing CCUS infrastructure. The
    current network of about 5,000 miles of CO2
    pipelines, the creation of class II and class VI statutes under
    the EPA and under the Safe Water Drinking Act, and in fact,
    programs like the long lived regional Carbon Sequestration
    Partnerships have all been important to actually get this
    infrastructure up and running.
        However, there are still shortcomings to these programs.
    The infrastructure elements that are out there limit deployment
    in the market in many ways. These are in my written testimony,
    and I ask for you to review those.
        Many groups have acknowledged that there is a shortage in
    this infrastructure and that they prevent a limitation. These
    pipelines, these storage sites are going to be anchors for
    commercial development; they are going to be anchors for future
    manufacturing in a new carbon economy; they are going to be
    anchors for communities who want to preserve jobs or have
    growth.
        Among other things, the Department of Energy's Quadrennial
    Energy Review volume 1.1, the work from the Global
    CO2 Initiative, the State CO2-EOR Working
    Group have all identified the critical issue of pipeline
    permitting and pipeline deployment in order to get this
    technology up and running. The most important of these
    pipelines will actually have to be built in States that don't
    have an EOR opportunity, which are unused to the permitting and
    deployment of these. So, having pathways that will make it
    faster and easier for investors to look at the risks and say,
    yes, we understand that we want to build this thing and that
    the risks and the costs associated with it are realistic and
    manageable is an important outcome of a bill like the USE IT
    Act.
        I could go on, but the punchline here is if we want to get
    beyond 10 million or 20 million tons of deployment, if we want
    to get to 50 million to 100 million tons of deployment of CCUS,
    we will need to get this kind of infrastructure up and running.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Friedmann follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Dr. Friedmann.
    Always a pleasure to have you here.
        Mr. Deich.

                       STATEMENT OF NOAH DEICH,
             EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR CARBON REMOVAL

        Mr. Deich. Good morning to the members of the Committee,
    and thank you for your invitation to testify.
        I am the Executive Director of the Center for Carbon
    Removal, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization based in the Bay
    Area of California. Our mission at the Center is to build what
    we call a new carbon economy. The essential feature of the new
    carbon economy is the pursuit of strong economic growth fueled
    by innovative strategies for cleaning up carbon from the air in
    a way that protects the environment. The essential strategies
    for achieving a new carbon economy include the carbon capture
    technologies advanced in the USE IT Act, as well as other
    forestry, agriculture, and industrial approaches for
    transforming carbon pollution back into a valuable resource.
        In my testimony today, I will share why I believe the goals
    of the USE IT Act and other Federal policy efforts to advance a
    new carbon economy are so valuable and why bipartisan
    improvements to the USE IT Act could help it achieve greater
    positive economic and environmental impact.
        To begin, the co-sponsors of the USE IT Act, Chairman
    Barrasso and Senators Capito, Heitkamp, and Whitehouse, deserve
    immense credit for designing this bill to support innovative
    carbon capture technologies that will be essential for future
    American economic competitiveness and climate leadership.
        In my work, I see businesses, investors, and climate
    champions alike increasingly embrace both the direct air
    capture technologies, which use clean energy to filter carbon
    from ambient air, and the carbon use systems, which harness
    CO2 to produce valuable products like building
    materials or clean fuels that are supported by this Act. We
    need these technologies to halt climate change.
        And if we support research development and demonstration of
    these technologies domestically today, exactly like the USE IT
    Act does, we can ensure that the U.S. exports, not imports,
    direct air capture and carbon use systems in the decades to
    come, creating good jobs and wealth creation in geographies
    across America.
        In addition, the USE IT Act is highly complementary to the
    45Q tax credit, which was reformed earlier this year to include
    both direct air capture and carbon use systems.
        Just as Julio has mentioned, I have seen 45Q improve the
    investment outlook for carbon capture technologies nearly
    overnight. But for this policy to advance, the full suite of
    carbon capture solutions, additional Federal investment in R&D
    across agencies is needed to make new solutions like direct air
    capture and carbon use more economically competitive.
        The bipartisan nature of 45Q also provides an important
    model for advancing this legislation. I see bipartisanship as
    essential, as the investors and companies that we work with
    need to have confidence that any legislation will endure
    through routine political transitions.
        The main concerns that I have heard about this legislation
    come from environmental groups, who primarily worry that
    components of this bill could lead to the erosion of
    foundational environmental loss. Ensuring that the amendment
    process for the USE IT Act is done in a bipartisan manner and
    that the language in the bill is bolstered to ensure that it
    will not be used to weaken valuable environmental laws will be
    essential for building support for this bill from those
    environmental constituencies.
        I am actually very hopeful that the bipartisan process
    exemplified by 45Q can be a model for addressing concerns about
    the USE IT Act swiftly. Congressional legislation aimed at
    building a new carbon economy can steer us toward a future
    where we solve climate and economic challenges hand in hand.
        I applaud this Committee for its leadership in pioneering
    the next generation of these carbon capture technologies, and I
    would also like to use this opportunity to invite the members
    of the Committee to join us at the Center for any future events
    related to building a new carbon economy, and I hope that we
    can be a resource to you all moving forward.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Deich follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you so much for your thoughtful
    testimony.
        Dr. Jiao.

       STATEMENT OF FENG JIAO, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF CHEMICAL &
    BIOMOLECULAR ENGINEERING AND ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR THE CENTER
       FOR CATALYTIC SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE

        Mr. Jiao. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator
    Carper, and the rest of the Committee.
        My name is Feng Jiao. I am Associate Professor of Chemical
    and Biomolecular Engineering at the University of Delaware. I
    also serve as the Associate Director for the Center for
    Catalytic Science and Technology.
        My research group currently raised support from NASA and
    Department of Energy, as well as the National Science
    Foundation to develop new CO2 utilization
    technologies.
        As a critical component in CCUS, carbon utilization holds
    the key to generate revenues which can offset the capture cost,
    as well as the initial investment. An example is CO2
    enhanced oil recovery technology, a most successful approach to
    utilize CO2 and generate revenues. To fully utilize
    this kind of technology, additional capital investment in
    CO2 pipelines and infrastructure are often required.
    In principle, the carbon capture facility could be built right
    next to the utilization site.
        A good example is a Swiss company called Climeworks, who
    built the first commercial plant to capture carbon dioxide
    directly from air and sells locally to greenhouse for profit.
    The facility actually can capture up to 900 tons of
    CO2 per year. The concept is very appealing, of
    course. There are some technical challenges for these kinds of
    technologies. One of them is the capture cost is still high
    compared to other carbon capture technologies.
        At the University of Delaware, we are actively developing
    alternative approaches to utilize CO2. Thanks to the
    recent award from the Department of Energy National Energy
    Technology Laboratory, we are able to develop an
    electrochemical system which can convert carbon dioxide into
    useful chemicals. The so called CO2 electrolyzer can
    produce useful chemicals, such as ethanol, ethylene, and
    syngas, from CO2 and water.
        The technology is intrinsically scalable and ideal for
    distributed systems at CO2 point sources. If powered
    by low cost renewable electricity, the CO2
    electrolysis technology could provide a profitable approach to
    use CO2 as the carbon source for commodity chemical
    production.
        At Delaware, we also established a startup company called
    CO2 Energy LLC to commercialize the CO2
    electrolyzer technology. Large international energy companies,
    such as Shell and TOTAL, are also actively involved in
    developing this kind of technology. Because of these efforts,
    the performance of CO2 electrolyzers have been
    rapidly improved recently. Of course, the technology itself is
    still premature for commercial deployment, so more R&D efforts
    and more investment is urgently required in the United States
    to further this technology so that we can be the global leader
    in this clean air technology.
        Again, innovations in CO2 utilization are much
    needed because this is the only way to generate revenue streams
    for CCUS. Any CCUS operation fully relying on government
    subsidies is not sustainable. I fully support further
    investment in advanced CCUS technologies, and I will be happy
    to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jiao follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. We are very grateful for your testimony.
    Thank you for joining us today from Delaware.
        We will start with rounds of questions for 5 minutes, and I
    will start with Dr. Northam, if I could.
        The State of Wyoming's leadership in carbon capture and
    utilization is very impressive. Through the university's work
    and initiatives like the Integrated Test Center in Gillette,
    Wyoming has already established itself as an innovative hub.
    The recent passage of the FUTURE Act has spurred interest in
    investment in carbon capture projects.
        Do you think the USE IT Act's focus on permitting capture
    projects and pipelines is going to increase the interest that
    you are seeing, and can you explain why?
        Mr. Northam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is a large
    demand for carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery in the
    State of Wyoming, a demand that cannot be met by traditional
    supply. For example, in the Big Horn Basin, where there is no
    supply of CO2 today, there is easily a billion
    barrels of incrementally recoverable oil if we had access to
    CO2.
        Infrastructure is certainly a large obstacle. The FUTURE
    Act has great potential for incentivizing anthropogenic
    CO2 availability. The USE IT Act's impact on easing
    the development of infrastructure----
        Senator Carper. What is anthropogenic?
        Mr. Northam. I am sorry. Anthropogenic CO2 is
    carbon dioxide that has been captured from some source that is
    created by man, combustion of coal, fossil fuels, or some
    industrial process, as opposed to natural CO2 which
    we use today, which is carbon dioxide that is stripped from
    natural gas where the two are comingled in the reservoir.
        Senator Carper. The Chairman and I knew this. We just
    wanted to make sure our colleagues did, so thank you very much
    for your clarification.
        Mr. Northam. Yes, I assumed that you knew that.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Northam. But I apologize. I will be more careful.
        Senator Barrasso. That was for the record only. Everybody
    here knew it. Everyone here on the panel knew it.
        Mr. Northam. It comes from the Latin. No, never mind.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Northam. The USE IT Act's impact on easing the
    development of infrastructure is the next step in the process
    of developing infrastructure, so I would say that, absolutely,
    yes, the USE IT Act has a great potential for not only spurring
    the carbon capture and utilization side of the process, but
    will have an economic impact on the State of Wyoming.
        Senator Barrasso. Dr. Friedmann, if I could go to you. What
    I want to point out is you mention in your written testimony
    the current scale of CO2 pipelines is inadequate,
    inadequate to support widespread carbon capture projects.
        Don't we need a coordinated and rapid buildout of
    CO2 infrastructure in the country to meet the
    projected needs, and would the USE IT Act address that need?
        Mr. Friedmann. Thank you. Yes, this is not the first time
    this question has been asked or studied. Back in 2008 Pacific
    Northwest National Lab did a fairly comprehensive study to
    figure out how much CO2 pipeline network we needed
    in this country, and their estimate was, to hit our goals by
    2030, we needed something on the order of 20,000 to 30,000
    miles of CO2 pipelines, and we also needed them in
    areas that are not traditional EOR provinces.
        We needed them in places where they could provide access to
    sale and formation storage, and a lot of those are actually in
    the Midwest, in particular, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West
    Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan. These are States that
    currently lack CO2 infrastructure, but would benefit
    from the ability to store CO2.
        As I said earlier, and I want to underscore this point,
    that infrastructure, like any other substantial shared
    infrastructure, becomes a magnet for industry; becomes a magnet
    for development; becomes an opportunity for economic growth, so
    I see these things as highly complementary and positive.
        Senator Barrasso. Dr. Northam, you talked about carbon
    dioxide being used in enhanced oil recovery. Part of the
    purpose of the bill is also to promote research in additional
    uses of carbon. It is going to allow carbon dioxide to have
    commercial purposes even in areas across the country that
    aren't blessed, like we are in Wyoming, with oil resources.
        Can you talk a little bit about how this bill could
    encourage research in those other areas as well?
        Mr. Northam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, yes. Wyoming's
    Integrated Test Center is an example of how this bill will
    encourage research into other uses. It provides a facility with
    adequate space for research and access to significant emission
    stream; it provides space for scale up of successful projects,
    which I would say is our most critical need at this time; and
    it provides for competitive funding to be put to work.
        All of these elements, especially the stated support for
    scale up, are critical to the success of CO2
    utilization schemes. The ITC went from concept to reality
    rapidly, but there is still a need for additional programs like
    the ITC to expand and sustain this effort, and I believe that
    that is a critical deliverable from the USE IT Act.
        Senator Barrasso. Dr. Friedmann, section 202 of the bill I
    think is critical. This section brings stakeholders together to
    promote the development of capture projects in CO2
    pipelines across the country. How would this part of the USE IT
    Act address the need for better State and Federal coordination,
    a point that you raised in your written testimony?
        Mr. Friedmann. Thank you for asking, and happy to discuss.
    One of the things that is the case is that we haven't actually
    deployed a lot of CO2 storage wells. We haven't
    deployed a lot of carbon capture facilities in this country. As
    a consequence, we haven't actually tested or coordinated the
    existing regulatory base that is out there, and in many cases
    what we have there we recognize can be an impediment.
        Just as one example, there has only been one class VI well
    permitted in this country. There haven't been a whole bunch of
    people asking to permit them, but there has been one request
    and one permitted. It took 54 months. It took a very, very long
    time, and that is a hurdle to investors.
        If people are looking at this and say it is going to take 6
    years to get the pipeline built, while it is going to take 5
    years to get the well permitted, then it makes it much harder
    for them to make the investment decision to build whatever
    needs to be built, including this kind of infrastructure.
        And I mention this specifically because the wise
    individuals who put together the FUTURE Act also put together a
    fuse on it. You have to have projects begin construction by
    January 1st, 2024, and that timeline is actually a very good
    one; it creates an incentive for people to get busy and get
    moving.
        However, if people can overcome the financial hurdle and
    then see a regulatory hurdle behind it that they think will
    limit the chance for them to take advantage of those tax
    credits or take advantage of the opportunities that CCUS
    projects and technologies provide, then it will just limit the
    pool of applicants, it will limit the projects, and it will
    limit deployment.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Again, our thanks to all of you. Every now and then we ask
    unanimous consent to enter for the record a question or series
    of questions, and I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman,
    a letter from 14 environmental groups that have some concerns
    about Title II of the legislation.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        Senator Carper. Thanks very much.
        [The referenced information was not received at time of
    print.]
        Senator Carper. Let me start off, if I could, with Dr.
    Jiao.
        Thank you so much for your work at the University of
    Delaware. You make us proud every day. Is anybody here with you
    from the University of Delaware, like anybody from Angie's List
    over your left shoulder? Angie, welcome. And for others who
    might be here who are also part of Blue Hen Nation. Thank you.
        Dr. Jiao, in your opinion, what is the smartest way we
    could be investing Federal dollars to ensure that carbon
    capture and utilization become mainstream? And why is your work
    at the University of Delaware so important for a carbon-free
    future?
        Mr. Jiao. Thank you, Senator. So, I think the key to get
    people onboard, particularly the people from industry, is to
    make CCUS profitable. So, I think I concur with some of the
    earlier points by made by Senator Whitehouse, as well. In the
    past, the investment in CCUS was mostly on the capture side and
    storage. Although such technology is fantastic, and we
    definitely need it, I don't think it can generate any revenue,
    which becomes the problem because this is not a sustainable
    business by itself.
        So, I believe we should pay more attention to the
    utilization side, particularly I think the USE IT Act actually
    creates a lot of efforts in moving toward that direction, which
    I am really glad to see.
        We work on universal data which is actually kind of
    motivated by this motion. We are trying to make the utilization
    more favorable or economically more favorable compared to other
    technologies on the market, and if we can find a way to make
    CO2 into some valuable chemicals, that will
    potentially disrupt the current chemical production process.
    Mostly, we use derived carbon source, but now we can move away
    from that using CO2 instead, and I think that will
    actually help us to reduce the CO2 emissions.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
        I want each of you to answer this question very briefly,
    and if you say no way, that would be OK too.
        Almost every piece of legislation I have introduced, and
    sometimes with colleagues that are here today on this
    Committee, it is rare that I introduce legislation that is
    perfect. Maybe never. I would just say, Dr. Jiao, if you had to
    pick maybe one area that we could improve this legislation,
    very briefly, what might that be? Then I am going to ask our
    other witnesses to do the same. Just one area where you think
    we can actually make an improvement, please. Just briefly.
        Mr. Jiao. I think my work quite recently is mostly funded
    by DOE, so I think DOE has a lot of experience investing in
    these carbon capture utilization technologies, so the bill
    actually is going to ask EPA to administer these efforts, so I
    think probably they should coordinate across the agency somehow
    so they then will make the investment more efficient.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        Mr. Deich.
        Mr. Deich. Thank you, yes. I think section 202, with the
    Task Force, can be strengthened, both to build on what Dr.
    Friedmann said, around the environmental integrity for storing
    carbon long term, as well as for understanding really what the
    frontier of the regulations need to look like, especially
    around carbon use and the carbon accounting there. I think the
    National Academies are a great resource, so coordinating with
    them for implementing this task force would be very valuable.
        Senator Carper. Good. Thank you.
        Dr. Friedmann. Do you pronounce your name Julio?
        Mr. Friedmann. Yes, sir, Julio.
        Senator Carper. Good, the right way.
        Mr. Friedmann. Super quickly, a different variant on what
    Dr. Jiao said, it would be great to have DOE engagement in this
    process because they understand how to do this, and it has been
    a while since the EPA has executed research of this type. They
    would be strengthened by having that joint partnership.
        I would also agree with Mr. Deich about the opportunity to
    try to strengthen and clarify the purpose of section 202, that
    you want to ensure that you do in fact find ways to amend and
    improve the permitting and the regulatory aspects of this
    without actually endangering key environmental provisions. And
    if there is some way to add language that would strengthen and
    clarify those goals, I think that would probably be valuable.
        The last point I would just make is there is in fact a need
    to have improved lifecycle analyses and understanding of the
    true carbon emissions associated with all of this work. Having
    that maybe under NIST, maybe some other organization, maybe the
    EPA, but trying to find a way to formalize the standards around
    these kinds of technologies would be helpful.
        Senator Carper. OK, good. Thanks.
        Same question, Dr. Northam.
        Mr. Northam. Thank you very much. So, I would cite two
    simple ways that I think this could be improved. Title 101 that
    focuses on air capture, I would love to see it expanded to
    focus on any type of capture of CO2. Capture from
    point sources is critically important. The technologies are
    farther along in terms of their development, so supporting the
    deployment of that I think would be an important improvement.
        The second would be to not only focus on research, but one
    of the most critical needs for technology developers is funding
    for the development and scale up process, and that is the
    valley of death that tends to be very difficult for inventors
    and innovators to overcome, so some addressing that part of the
    process would also, I think, improve this Act.
        Senator Carper. Great. Thank you all for those responses.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me just make an observation here that I don't think
    anyone has made yet, and it has to do with fossil fuels. I can
    remember 9 years ago, when President Obama first came in, he
    had this commitment to do away with fossil fuels, and I can
    remember going back to Oklahoma. I remember it so well because
    it was Shattuck, Oklahoma. I doubt any of you have ever been to
    Shattuck, Oklahoma.
        Someone said, Senator Inhofe, I don't quite understand. We
    have a President who is against fossil fuels, coal, oil, and
    gas, and yet that is accountable for 80 percent of the energy
    it takes to run this machine called America. He said, now, if
    he is successful in doing away with it, how do we run the
    machine called America?
        That was a logical question, and we dealt with that for a
    long period of time. Now, today, we have an answer, and I think
    this is really exciting. This is something that is a
    recognition that we will have to continue to use fossil fuels
    as a major part of our energy supply in a way that satisfies
    everyone. So, it is one of these rare cases where you have a
    lot of agreement from people who have disagreed in the past.
        Dr. Friedmann, I was here for the opening statements. We go
    back and forth because we have nine members in common between
    this Committee and the Commerce Committee, so you are seeing
    people come and go. But I remember you made reference in your
    opening statement to the FAST Act permitting reform, and I
    think more people need to talk about that, because we can get
    things done. The FAST Act is a good example. We did the FAST
    Act primarily because of that permitting reform. We are able to
    do things on a timeline that can be enjoyed by all Americans,
    so I appreciate your bringing that up.
        Dr. Friedmann, your testimony illustrates a problem that
    exists regarding the need for CO2 pipeline
    infrastructure and its effect in deploying the CCUS in the
    United States. Now, specifically, I will read the quote that is
    the basis of my question: ``Ambiguities in the process or
    delays in permitting directly affect the financial viability of
    projects and their ability to attract investors.''
        What are the roadblocks that you see out there that are in
    the development of the CO2 pipeline?
        Mr. Friedmann. Thank you for asking.
        Senator Inhofe. You know, I think about it, it might have
    been----
        Mr. Friedmann. Dr. Northam.
        Senator Inhofe [continuing]. Northam who brought up the
    question on permitting, so I am sorry. Either one of you guys.
        Mr. Friedmann. You want to talk about section 201?
        Mr. Northam. You go ahead.
        Mr. Friedmann. All right, I will go.
        It is sad, but true, pipelines are orphaned in this whole
    discussion. A lot of people are happy to run storage projects,
    EOR projects, even capture projects on industrial plants, power
    plants. Not a lot of people want to build or operate the
    pipelines, so it is hard to gather the financing to build them.
    So, it is born problematic; it is just one of those parts of
    the system that is hard to get done.
        So, if people look at the setup and say, wait a second, I
    am not sure if the permit will go through, or I think it will
    take a very long time, and I am going to be paying interest on
    capital before anything gets built, it just chills the
    investment environment. It is just that simple. It is hard to
    pull together an investment of that scale and size. Many of
    these pipelines will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to
    build, and that is not easy to pull together.
        Senator Inhofe. Yes, good.
        Dr. Northam, the Integrated Test Center in Wyoming will be
    used to test different ways to repurpose carbon dioxide from a
    coal fired power plant. I am really interested in the
    repurposing element of this, and I would like to have you
    elaborate on your feelings how successful this could be and
    what we need to do to give you the resources you need to make
    this happen.
        Mr. Northam. Thank you for the question. So, the chemistry
    of converting carbon dioxide into anything else is very
    difficult. It is a very energetically stable molecule, so we
    need research to understand how to go from an energetically
    stable molecule into other products. A lot of what we use today
    is carbon based products, plastics, petrochemicals, fuels, so
    it is entirely doable. The question is can we do it efficiently
    and at a cost that competes with other sources of carbon.
        Integrated Test Center has overcome some of the big hurdles
    for people who are working in this arena by providing not only
    an emission stream, but space for them to work. And then
    enterprises like the XPRIZE and some of the competitions that
    are promised in the USE IT Act are going to spur people to take
    on these difficult problems because the prize at the end of the
    pipeline, if you will, is significant.
        Senator Inhofe. My time has expired, but I would be
    interested, for the record, in any of the rest of you who have
    ideas and thoughts on the repurposing element of this, and I
    would like very much to have the benefit of that, if you don't
    mind doing it. Any comments right now, but my time has expired.
        Mr. Deich. I will volunteer quickly that I think there is
    an important role of sequestering carbon in building materials,
    whether that is cements, roads, et cetera; and that the Federal
    Government can play a large role in being a first customer and
    a driver of those markets. So, the extent to which we can build
    on the first title of this bill to support those utilization
    technologies in our built environment will be very valuable.
        Senator Inhofe. Good.
        Any other comments for the record.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Friedmann. I would agree that building materials, in
    particular concrete and cement, is very important. We move 55
    billion tons of concrete every year around the world. That is a
    big sink; and actually adding CO2 to it improves the
    performance and makes it heavier and makes it more durable.
    There are a lot of good things that come from it.
        Eventually, we will also reach a day when we will directly
    convert carbon dioxide into fuels. Right now that costs about
    twice or three times what a conventional liquid fuel would
    cost, but if in fact you can pull carbon dioxide out of the
    air, and you can upgrade it to a fuel, then you have a circular
    economy.
        What I do believe is every major oil and gas company is
    looking at that. They are not going to deploy it anytime in the
    next 5 or 10 years, but they all see that that is something
    that they need to track and would like to figure out a way to
    offer something like that to their customers. CCUS technology
    is helpful.
        Senator Inhofe. That is fascinating.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate being
    here today on a matter where, to quote Senator Inhofe, we have
    agreement from people who have disagreed in the past; and
    indeed disagree in the present; and indeed will continue to
    disagree in the future about many things.
        Senator Inhofe. But every time we have agreed it has been
    very successful. You look at the chemical act, the FAST Act.
        Senator Whitehouse. I have learned that when we agree,
    Senator Inhofe is perhaps the most effective legislator in the
    Senate. Certainly, I have seen nobody produce more. So, we just
    need to find out how to agree on more. But I really appreciate
    this and look forward to working with my colleagues.
        I guess what I would ask in my time is the record be clear
    what the sort of baseline proposition is here, why it matters
    to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide, our anthropogenic
    emissions of carbon dioxide, starting with Dr. Northam.
        Why are we doing this? Why does it matter? What does this
    help?
        Mr. Northam. Senator Whitehouse, thank you very much. On
    Saturday I was on a panel with the Ambassador from the EU to
    the United States, and one of the statements he made was Europe
    got over the hurdle of recognizing that carbon dioxide was
    contributing to global warming 20 years ago and has a very
    effective set of policies and procedures for reducing the
    CO2.
        I think it is important because time is ticking. Most of
    the scientific community recognizes that CO2 is
    contributing to global warming; we are starting to see the
    impacts of it. These solutions are extremely technically
    difficult and expensive, and if we don't start actually making
    some progress, the progress we do make could be too late for
    staving off these major impacts.
        Senator Whitehouse. Plus, other countries might steal a
    march on us technologically.
        Mr. Northam. Absolutely.
        Senator Whitehouse. Same question, Dr. Friedmann.
        Mr. Friedmann. Thank you, Senator. All of this actually
    flows back in a real politic context; not in a scientific
    context, but in a real practical politics concept back to the
    Paris Agreement, and this is completely independent of whether
    or not the United States remains in it, although I personally
    think that would be a lovely thing.
        First of all, the punchline is that greenhouse gases
    emissions represent a threat to national security of the United
    States; they represent a threat to our----
        Senator Whitehouse. And carbon dioxide.
        Mr. Friedmann. Sorry?
        Senator Whitehouse. Carbon dioxide is one of those
    greenhouse gases?
        Mr. Friedmann. Carbon dioxide is the most important of
    those.
        Senator Whitehouse. Got it.
        Mr. Friedmann. We emit 38 billion tons over the year, and
    that is an issue; ``we'' meaning the globe, not the United
    States.
        It represents an environmental threat. We have extinctions,
    we are losing species, we have sea level rise, coral bleaching,
    all those other sorts of things, which are directly
    attributable to greenhouse gas emissions.
        In addition to that, we are starting to have economic
    impacts that are associated with that that are rather grim and
    problematic.
        That, however, as important as that is and as much as I
    spend my time on it, it is not the most important thing. The
    most important thing is actually 197 countries have all said
    that they care about it, which means the entire global market
    is organized now. The entire global market is organized now to
    figure out ways to reduce emissions and to turn carbon dioxide
    into value.
        Senator Whitehouse. And putting aside everything else,
    participating in that global market has economic value for the
    United States.
        Mr. Friedmann. Indeed. As export technologies to the United
    States, both in terms of product and in terms of heavy
    equipment.
        Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Deich. Did I pronounce your name
    right? If I didn't, I apologize.
        Mr. Deich. You did. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. Great. Thank you.
        Mr. Deich. So, I think the bottom line here is this is
    going to be the economy of the future, figuring out how to take
    the carbon that is already in the air and pulling it back in a
    way that improves the economy and the environment.
        Senator Whitehouse. And we need to get the carbon dioxide
    out of the atmosphere because of what?
        Mr. Deich. Because of both the environmental harm that
    could come from climate change, as well as all of the other
    changes to our society. But I really see this as an
    opportunity. There are 2 trillion tons of CO2--
    trillion with a T--that have been put into the atmosphere. All
    of that can come back out as a valuable resource, and that is
    the biggest business opportunity that we have ever seen. So, if
    we can figure out how to do that across the economy, that is a
    huge opportunity that simultaneously solves these massive
    global challenges on hand.
        Senator Whitehouse. Hard to do any of that if there is no
    price on carbon, though, because then there is no revenue
    stream, correct?
        Mr. Deich. I would actually argue that there is now a price
    on carbon in not a clean way, as an economist like myself would
    want, but we do have, both with 45Q, a price on sequestering
    carbon----
        Senator Whitehouse. Precisely.
        Mr. Deich [continuing]. And through a series of other----
        Senator Whitehouse. Precisely. That is what we did in that
    bill, was to create a very narrow specific version of it,
    correct?
        Mr. Deich. The extent to which we can expand on that and
    make sure that there is a robust market, and that that market
    happens here first is essential.
        Senator Whitehouse. Dr. Jiao, the reason we want to or
    benefit from reducing carbon dioxide anthropogenic emissions
    into the atmosphere is?
        Mr. Jiao. So, I think much has been said about the
    potential climate impact when we emit tremendous amount of
    CO2 into the atmosphere. I also concur with some of
    the points made before. I see this as an opportunity to
    generate profitable pathways to utilize CO2. We
    definitely have an abundant source of CO2. If we can
    figure out a way how we can make CO2 into valuable
    chemicals or fuels, probably, and in an efficient way, then
    this will solve our issue, I think.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Capito, again, thank you so much for your co-
    sponsorship and your hard work on this piece of legislation.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. I want to thank everybody on the
    panel, too, and I want to start out talking again on the
    pipeline issue because I think this is a concern if we are
    going to move forward. In the answers you gave to the previous
    question, obviously, this is a stumbling block.
        I have a figure here that says 4,500 miles of
    CO2 pipelines are in this country now, but are any
    of those interstate; do any of them cross State lines, as far
    as you know?
        Mr. Northam. Yes. The quick answer is yes. There are
    pipelines that deliver CO2 that is produced in
    Colorado to west Texas for enhanced oil recovery. There are
    others as well, but yes, there are interstate.
        Senator Capito. OK. My point being there, obviously, is the
    permitting interstate obviously is a part of this bill, it is
    critically important.
        The next question I have is on what we were talking about
    just a few minutes ago. I think you all have done a really nice
    job talking about why CCUS is important for the environment,
    for our economy, and for job creation and others. I come from,
    obviously, a heavy coal State. This is very important to us in
    terms of being able to have the longevity in the coal industry,
    but also the environmental benefits are important to us, as
    well.
        So, in our experts' opinion, would you say that the United
    States is a leader now in CCUS technologies? I think you have
    already mentioned--I am just going to throw this up to
    anybody--what other countries are really forward thinking here?
    I know you mentioned the European Union. Are there other
    countries that we should be looking at who are developing this
    technology at a more rapid and more advanced state?
        Dr. Friedmann.
        Mr. Friedmann. So, I am pleased to say that the United
    States is now the unambiguous leader in carbon capture and
    storage technology, and in no small part, again, because of the
    passage of the FUTURE Act.
        I would say that there are many countries that are working
    to catch up. Canada is most notable in this regard. Also,
    Norway has been an international class leader. In the context
    of both carbon capture, but even more importantly for
    CO2 conversion and use, China is coming on strong,
    for real.
        I would point, among other things, to the Strategic Applied
    Research Institute, SARI, in Shanghai Technical University.
    They have built a building there that has 100 scientists; they
    are gearing up to 1,000 scientists. It is underwritten by the
    Chinese Academy of Sciences. All of that is focused on carbon
    capture and utilization.
        The same thing can be said about Japan. Again, the same
    thing can be said about Canada. Out of the 10 finalists for the
    NRG COSIA XPRIZE, four of them are Canadian. Not a knock on
    Canada, we love Canada, but it would be lovely to see America's
    unambiguous leadership in this arena.
        Senator Capito. Well, obviously, there would be tremendous
    economic benefits to us, and I would like to see that as well.
        Do the two of you have anything to add on that?
        Mr. Deich. Thank you, Senator. I think one of the things
    where we have not seen a leader emerge yet is in the direct air
    capture field. I think there are many places that are
    positioned to do that, and the United States is one of them,
    but unless there is action from policymakers, that leadership
    could easily go somewhere else right now. So, I think that
    figuring out how to be that leader is essential today.
        Senator Capito. Dr. Jiao.
        Mr. Jiao. Regarding the technology I am working on,
    actually, Canada, Europe, and even China, they are actually
    very aggressive in this area, so if we don't act now, I think
    we will lose the leadership.
        Senator Capito. We just had a discussion in your answers
    about global warming and the threat that you all perceive
    there. Is there any realistic way for the world to stay below
    the commonly identified 2 degree Celsius global mean
    temperature in increase target this century without broad CCUS?
    Can we do it as a Nation without this development of this
    technology and utilization of the technology?
        Mr. Northam. My opinion, but the simple answer is no, we
    cannot.
        Senator Capito. Dr. Friedmann.
        Mr. Friedmann. Doubling down on that, actually, we are,
    instead, poised to massive overshoot, and every credible
    scenario not only has large scale CCUS deployment in the next
    20 years, but also large scale carbon removal after 2050, which
    requires carbon capture and storage and things like direct air
    capture.
        Senator Capito. Did you have a comment?
        Mr. Deich. I would agree.
        Senator Capito. Right.
        Mr. Jiao. Yes, I agree.
        Senator Capito. All right. Thank you all very much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Senator Van Hollen.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank all of you. Sorry I missed the testimony; I was in
    another committee, but I have had a chance to look it over, and
    I strongly support this legislation. I should mention that in
    Maryland we have a company called AES. It is the Warrior Run
    power plant in Cumberland, Maryland, where they capture 4
    percent of the carbon dioxide generated and sell 150 tons per
    day to beverage grade carbon dioxide in the food and beverage
    industry. So, I support this legislation.
        But I do want to pick up on some of the comments Senator
    Whitehouse made and responses that you all made, which is that
    the reason we are doing this, the reason we are actually
    spending taxpayer dollars to do this is that there is a public
    good to be had from reducing carbon, and therefore, trying to
    address the problem of climate change.
        Just a yes or no from each of you.
        Mr. Northam. Yes.
        Mr. Friedmann. Oh, yes.
        Mr. Deich. Yes.
        Mr. Jiao. Yes.
        Senator Van Hollen. So, I am looking at a lot of the
    projects that have been funded by DOE, and all of these
    projects for carbon capture, at least at this point in time,
    have required some public financing in order to be economically
    viable, right?
        Mr. Northam. Yes.
        Mr. Friedmann. Yes. Happy to talk more about that, too.
        Mr. Deich. Yes.
        Mr. Jiao. Yes.
        Senator Van Hollen. And the FUTURE Act that was just passed
    is another tax incentive, right? So, I just want to be clear
    with my colleagues; we are spending taxpayer money to reduce
    carbon dioxide, and the only reason I can see for spending
    taxpayer money on doing that is if we have a benefit from
    reducing carbon dioxide. That benefit, as the witnesses have
    said, is trying to address climate change and making sure we
    are well positioned in a global economy where the rest of the
    world recognizes we need to head in that direction.
        As of today, as of today, we are trying to change that;
    what is the cost per ton in terms of the public subsidy to make
    carbon removal economically viable?
        Mr. Friedmann. To ask a clarifying question, are you asking
    what is required or what is it today?
        Senator Van Hollen. What is required today, in terms of a
    public subsidy, to make a carbon capture enterprise
    economically feasible? I mean, the FUTURE Act was part of that,
    right?
        Mr. Friedmann. Yes. So, when I was working in the
    Department of Energy, I worked with the White House and the
    Treasury, and we put forward a specific proposal for something
    about the order of $60 per ton as essentially like a production
    tax credit, along the lines of the FUTURE Act, and we also
    suggested a 30 percent investment tax credit. You need some
    capital treatment as well as some operating treatment.
        Senator Van Hollen. So, you need a public subsidy on both
    pieces there.
        Mr. Friedmann. It is worth noting that that incentive on
    the order of $60 a ton is about the same as the wind production
    tax credit. It is along the lines of other incentives we have
    made for other kinds of clean energy.
        Senator Van Hollen. And you made the important point, Dr.
    Friedmann, all of you said that carbon capture needs to be part
    of the solution to climate change, but Dr. Friedmann, you
    mentioned all the scenarios there. Those scenarios, to make
    sure we are under the 2 percent Celsius, they also require
    reduction in carbon emissions, do they not?
        Mr. Friedmann. That is in fact their primary constraint.
    The scenarios all say we have to stay to a 2 degree world, so
    we have to deeply reduce our carbon dioxide and other
    greenhouse gas emissions.
        Senator Van Hollen. Right. So, I am glad that we are
    spending some public dollars for this public good, to sequester
    carbon and to reduce carbon that is generated, but when you
    look at those models, how much of the reduction has to come,
    Dr. Friedmann, from actually reducing the overall emissions?
        Mr. Friedmann. So, in order to hit a 2 degree target by
    2020, you have to have something on the order of 85 percent
    reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. There are many pathways
    to do that; it requires efficiency improvements, deep
    deployment of renewable power, as well as carbon capture and
    storage.
        Senator Van Hollen. Appreciate it.
        I would just say, Mr. Chairman, to all my colleagues, and
    this is an appeal, what we are doing here is using taxpayer
    dollars for the purpose of helping the market toward carbon
    sequestration, and that is putting a price implicitly on this
    project, and as of today, for quite a smaller price, you can
    actually generate some reductions today. So, I would just hope,
    if we are going to be taking this public policy direction as a
    Committee, that we not look at just this very important piece,
    and it is an important piece, but that we look at everything
    else at the same time.
        I appreciate all of you for being here today, and thank you
    for your efforts in this particular area.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
        Senator Markey.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
        I would just note this at the top. I see that this is a
    bill ultimately that is $25 million that would be going to the
    EPA administrator for Direct Air Capture Technology Advisory
    Board and then another $50 million for the USE IT Act, and I
    just want to stipulate this once again, that back in 2009, in
    the House of Representatives, we passed the Waxman-Markey bill,
    and Henry Waxman and I put in $200 billion for carbon capture
    and sequestration, $200 billion. And the coal industry turned
    it down cold, $200 billion they turned down.
        So here we are now, and they are asking for this money, and
    I step back, and I keep saying to myself you missed your shot;
    it was there. The $200 billion would have done the research,
    would have had the advisory boards, could have given the money
    to each one of the utilities or to oil companies or coal
    companies to be able to do the job, and they said they didn't
    want it. And that is fine, OK, that is a decision they made.
        And again, I am looking at this now, and I am saying, OK, I
    believe in research and I believe in advisory committees, but I
    just think it is important to understand that, again, a vision
    without funding is a hallucination. So, I just don't want
    anyone to get false hope from this, that the magnitude of this
    funding in any way affects the trajectory of this technology;
    it is just not real. We put in a real number based upon what
    all the experts told us in the utility industry to deal with
    it, it was $200 billion, and it was turned down, just
    absolutely, we don't want that money, 2009-2010, by the way, in
    this Committee. No, don't want it.
        So, that is where we are, and again I definitely want to
    make sure that we do the research, but I also want everyone
    here to understand that there is another vision which is taking
    place. There are 109,000 new clean energy jobs in Massachusetts
    that have been created, most of them over the last decade,
    109,000.
        The United States installed 10,000 new megawatts of solar
    last year and 7,000 new megawatts of wind. That is 17,000 new
    megawatts. We now have 89,000 megawatts of wind capacity and
    53,000 megawatts of solar installed in the United States, so
    that is about 140,000 wind and solar megawatts now installed in
    our country and globally, in 2016--in 1 year--globally, 74,000
    new megawatts of solar and 52,000 new megawatts of wind
    capacity were installed. Overall, renewables now represent 55
    percent of all new electrical generating capacity over the past
    10 years, 55 percent, just so we get it all out here on the
    table.
        And again, the $200 billion in the Waxman-Markey bill that
    passed the House of Representatives was turned down over here
    in the Senate. Didn't want the money.
        So, again, I believe in research and am happy to work in a
    bipartisan fashion to support new technologies for our future
    low carbon economy, but I also want to have everyone understand
    where this whole thing is headed. It is all heading in the
    direction that now they realize they need the money.
        Now they say, oh, is there any way you can help us? We
    turned that down, and now what is left over that you can help
    us with that is kind of a penny on the dollar of what was being
    offered just 6 or 7 years ago. And as long as we understand
    that, then I feel better about it.
        So, I guess my concern is, and I would ask you this
    question, Mr. Deich, is they need financing, but we are opening
    up the Clean Air Act here. What is the fear that you might have
    if we open up the Clean Air Act in terms of other changes that
    might take place? On this, I would support it. I just want to
    make that clear, I do support the bill. I just want to put it
    in its total context. But I do have some apprehension about
    whether or not the Clean Air Act then becomes vulnerable for
    other purposes in the course of deliberation.
        Can you give me that answer?
        Mr. Deich. Thank you, Senator. That is something that we
    are very sensitive to. We work closely with environmental
    groups, as well as startups and other investors in this space,
    and recognize that the Clean Air Act has not been amended in
    nearly 30 years at this point.
        And what I think the environmental groups are looking for
    from this Committee is insurance that the bill will move
    forward in a bipartisan way to achieve the spirit that we have
    heard here at this hearing, and not to use it as a way to
    weaken or otherwise erode the foundational environmental law.
        Senator Markey. That is good.
        Do we have that commitment, Mr. Chairman?
        Senator Barrasso. That was in my opening statement.
        Senator Markey. Oh, I am sorry.
        Senator Barrasso. I referred to that, that we are going to
    move forward, Senator Whitehouse and I, in a bipartisan way on
    not allowing----
        Senator Markey. As Senator Inhofe mentioned over in the
    Commerce Committee, there are nine of us on two committees, the
    Commerce Committee and this simultaneously, so he and I have
    been running back and forth.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Markey. So, thank you for that statement, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Appreciate your questions.
        Senator Markey. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Before turning to Senator Inhofe, I would
    point out that the Clean Air Task Force is writing in support
    of this piece of legislation. I am going to introduce that as
    part of the permanent record. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. I just want, now that this hearing is about
    to be over, to repeat something that I said in my questioning,
    that it is a relief to know that we have come to the point not
    where we were 9 years ago, when the solution was you have to do
    away with fossil fuels, but now we recognize fossil fuels is
    going to be a part of our energy mix, a very important part,
    most likely, at least for the next few years, the same
    percentage as it has been in the past.
        Now, I know that you folks, the response that you gave on
    the science. I know it is still mixed. You guys know it too. I
    always enjoy using the quote from Richard Lindzen, when he
    said, ``Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you
    control carbon, you control life.'' So I would just like to
    hope that we can get beyond this discussion, because it is no
    longer necessary; we now are going to have this as a part of
    our energy mix. For the record, OK?
        Senator Barrasso. For the record, absolutely.
        And to follow up on your statement about the percentage
    being the same, what I have been reading is that 20 years from
    now, with the overall need of increased energy--and we need it
    all--that 20 years from now we will be using a significant more
    amount of coal than we are right now, planet-wise, so that we
    need to come to the solutions involved here.
        I have a number of letters in support of the legislation I
    am going to ask to be made part of the record, but I do want to
    thank all the witnesses for being here. I appreciate your time
    and your testimony. The record is going to be open for a couple
    weeks so that you may get some written questions from some
    other members who weren't able to be here, because there are a
    number of members on multiple committees, and everybody can't
    be at all committees at all times. But I appreciate all of you
    being here.
        With that, the hearing is ended. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
        [An additional statement submitted for the record follows:]

                      Statement of Hon. Tammy Duckworth,
                    U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois

        Climate change is a grave threat to our national security,
    economic security, and environmental health. Across Illinois,
    across our country, and across the globe, we are already
    experiencing the harmful effects of climate change. Growing
    seasons are lengthening, heat waves are increasing, and extreme
    floods are becoming more frequent and severe.
        The United States must act to prioritize cutting carbon
    pollution. Fortunately, reducing carbon emissions will not only
    combat climate change, it holds the potential to strengthen our
    economy, advance new industries, and create new American jobs.
    For example, emerging technological capabilities, such as
    carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), will play a
    critical role in helping our Nation limit carbon emissions in a
    cost effective manner.
        The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's
    foremost authority on climate change research, noted the cost
    of reducing carbon emissions will be approximately 140 percent
    higher without CCUS. The bottom line is that failing to embrace
    emerging technologies that facilitate net negative emissions
    will endanger the world's ability to limit temperature
    increases to below 2 degrees Celsius per year.
        The bipartisan USE IT Act will help to make sure this does
    not happen. This important legislation will bolster States such
    as Illinois, which are leading in CCUS research and
    development. In addition, the bill promotes investment in low
    carbon technology infrastructure, which is necessary to
    facilitate full adoption of CCUS. I look forward to working
    with my colleagues on this Committee to advance and further
    improve this promising legislation.
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]