[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                 BUILDING AMERICA'S CLEAN FUTURE: PATHWAYS 
                          TO DECARBONIZE THE ECONOMY

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 24, 2019

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-55


      Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
      
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
43-928 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                         

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
             Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change

                          PAUL TONKO, New York
                                 Chairman
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
SCOTT H. PETERS, California            Ranking Member
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 BILLY LONG, Missouri
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL FLORES, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JERRY McNERNEY, California           JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California, Vice Chair    GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                             
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  New York, opening statement....................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Illinois, opening statement....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, opening statement......................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    10

                               Witnesses

Karl Hausker, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Climate Program, World 
  Resources Institute............................................    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   171
Shannon Angielski, Executive Director, Carbon Utilization 
  Research Council...............................................    44
    Prepared statement...........................................    47
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   172
Armond Cohen, Executive Director, Clean Air Task Force...........    73
    Prepared statement...........................................    76
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   175
Rachel Cleetus, Ph.D., Policy Director, Climate and Energy 
  Program, Union of Concerned Scientists.........................   105
    Prepared statement...........................................   107
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   177

                           Submitted Material

Letter of July 24, 2019, from Mike Williams, Interim Co-Executive 
  Director, BlueGreen Alliance, to Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, 
  submitted by Mr. Tonko.........................................   154
Letter of July 24, 2019, from Lonnie R. Stephenson, International 
  President, Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Maria 
  Korsnick, President and CEO, Nuclear Energy Institute, to Mr. 
  Tonko and Mr. Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Tonko..................   163
Fact sheets from Nuclear Energy Institute, submitted by Mr. Tonko   166

 
  BUILDING AMERICA'S CLEAN FUTURE: PATHWAYS TO DECARBONIZE THE ECONOMY

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2019

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
Hon. Paul Tonko (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Tonko, Clarke, Peters, 
Barragan, McEachin, Blunt Rochester, Soto, DeGette, Matsui, 
McNerney, Ruiz, Dingell, Pallone (ex officio), Shimkus 
(subcommittee ranking member), Rodgers, McKinley, Johnson, 
Long, Flores, Mullin, Carter, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
    Staff present: Adam Fischer, Policy Analyst; Jean Fruci, 
Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Caitlin Haberman, 
Professional Staff Member; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and 
Staff Director, Energy and Environment; Brendan Larkin, Policy 
Coordinator; Dustin Maghamfar, Air and Climate Counsel; Mike 
Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director; Adam Buckalew, Minority 
Director of Coalitions and Deputy Chief Counsel, Health; Jordan 
Davis, Minority Senior Advisor; Mary Martin, Minority Chief 
Counsel, Energy and Environment and Climate Change; Brandon 
Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Brannon Rains, 
Minority Staff Assistant; and Peter Spencer, Minority Senior 
Professional Staff Member, Environment and Climate Change.
    Mr. Tonko. The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate 
Change will now come to order.
    Today, we are proceeding in a slightly different order. 
Chairman Pallone and I will each speak for no more than four 
minutes so that we can yield to the gentleman from Virginia, 
Mr. McEachin, two minutes after Chairman Pallone has spoken. I 
recognize myself for four minutes for the purpose of an opening 
statement.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

    Yesterday, I joined Chairman Pallone, Energy Subcommittee 
Chairman Rush, and other members of the committee to announce 
support for a 100 percent clean economy by no later than 2050.
    Congress is looking to this committee to take a leading 
role in developing the policies to achieve a net zero 
greenhouse gas emissions result.
    This must include significant direct emissions reductions 
in every community, and the just and equitable transition for 
every American including adversely impacted individuals and 
communities.
    This is the first in a series of hearings to study the 
challenges and potential solutions before us. One thing is 
clear. We cannot afford to wait until 2050 or even 2030 to act.
    We must be prepared for the earliest opportunity with a 
plan that can garner support from a very broad coalition. After 
10 years of congressional inaction, today no consensus exists 
on the best policies to achieve this scientifically necessary 
target.
    But we have the benefit of a panel of expert witnesses who 
can discuss effective pathways for decarbonization. I believe 
there is a broad agreement that our decarbonization strategy 
should seek to improve energy efficiency, deploy new and 
preserve existing clean electricity resources, enable 
electrification across all sectors of our economy, and utilize 
carbon dioxide removal through natural and technological 
methods.
    This core strategy will not capture all greenhouse gas 
emissions. We will also need development of cleaner fuels for 
heavy duty transportation and new materials and processes for 
industrial applications.
    We also acknowledge that any meaningful climate action will 
require significant federal investments; particularly in rural, 
deindustrialized, and environmental justice communities, which 
will create new economic opportunities and accelerate the 
transition to a clean energy future for all.
    Despite apparent agreement on this overall strategy of 
decarbonization, there is little consensus on which specific 
policy mechanisms would be most effective and fair to achieve 
it.
    No single policy will deliver America's transition to a 100 
percent clean economy on its own. Congress must develop economy 
wide and sector-specific solutions, and we should be clear. 
This target requires nothing short of transforming the United 
States economy.
    If we can limit economic disruptions and expand 
opportunities in the process we should do so. Throughout this 
process, we will consider how deep decarbonization may impact 
communities and workers, equity and environmental justice, 
energy affordability and United States competitiveness, and 
processes that are difficult to decarbonize.
    But we must also keep this simple fact in mind. 
Comprehensive climate action will create millions of good-
paying jobs, building a clean energy and climate resilient 
economy while reducing harmful pollution.
    Efforts to rebuild and modernize our infrastructure, 
research and deploy clean technologies, promote workforce 
development, and ensure safe and healthy communities will 
strengthen American global competitiveness and economic 
leadership throughout the 21st century.
    The work we do here will impact millions of Americans for 
generations to come. We have committed to ensuring this process 
will be open to all ideas and thoughtful in its response.
    We have already engaged with numerous stakeholders and 
committed to them that they have a seat at this table. A 
collaborative open approach is the only way to ensure America's 
climate transition is not only possible but also just and 
equitable.
    I look forward to today's discussion as well as a rigorous, 
open, and honest exploration of the potential solutions in the 
months ahead to put America on the pathway to a clean economy.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul Tonko

    Yesterday I joined Chairman Pallone, Energy Subcommittee 
Chairman Rush, and other Members of the Committee to announce 
support for a 100% Clean Economy by no later than 2050.
    Congress is looking to this Committee to take a leading 
role in developing the policies to achieve net-zero greenhouse 
gas emissions. This must include significant direct emissions 
reductions in every community, and a just and equitable 
transition for every American, including adversely impacted 
individuals and communities.
    This is the first in a series of hearings to study the 
challenges and potential solutions before us. One thing is 
clear, we cannot afford to wait until 2050, or even 2030, to 
act. We must be prepared for the earliest opportunity with a 
plan that can garner support from a broad coalition.
    After 10 years of Congressional inaction, today no 
consensus exists on the best policies to achieve this 
scientifically necessary target.
    But we have the benefit of a panel of expert witnesses who 
can discuss effective pathways for decarbonization. I believe 
there is broad agreement that our decarbonization strategy 
should seek to improve energy efficiency; deploy new and 
preserve existing clean electricity resources; enable 
electrification across all sectors of the economy; and utilize 
carbon dioxide removal through natural and technological 
methods.
    This core strategy will not capture all greenhouse gas 
emissions. We will also need development of cleaner fuels for 
heavy-duty transportation and new materials and processes for 
industrial applications.
    We also acknowledge that any meaningful climate action will 
require significant federal investments, particularly in rural, 
deindustrialized, and environmental justice communities, which 
will create new economic opportunities and accelerate the 
transition to a clean energy future for all.
    Despite apparent agreement on this overall strategy of 
decarbonization, there is little consensus on which specific 
policy mechanisms would be most effective and fair to achieve 
it.
    No single policy will deliver America's transition to a 
100% clean economy on its own. Congress must develop economy-
wide and sector-specific solutions.
    And we should be clear--this target requires nothing short 
of transforming the U.S. economy. If we can limit economic 
disruptions and expand opportunities in the process, we should 
do so.
    Throughout this process, we will consider how deep 
decarbonization may impact communities and workers, equity and 
environmental justice, energy affordability and U.S. 
competitiveness, and processes that are difficult to 
decarbonize.
    But we must also keep this simple fact in mind: 
Comprehensive climate action will create millions of good 
paying jobs building a clean energy and climate-resilient 
economy while reducing harmful pollution.
    Efforts to rebuild and modernize our infrastructure, 
research and deploy clean technologies, promote workforce 
development, and ensure safe and healthy communities will 
strengthen American global competitiveness and economic 
leadership throughout the 21st century.
    The work we do here will impact millions of Americans and 
generations to come. We have committed to ensuring this process 
will be open to all ideas and thoughtful in its response.
    We have already engaged with numerous stakeholders and 
committed to them that they have a seat at this table.A 
collaborative, open approach is the only way to ensure 
America's climate transition is not only possible, but also 
just and equitable.
    I look forward to today's discussion as well as a rigorous, 
open, and honest exploration of the potential solutions in the 
months ahead to put America on the pathway to a clean economy.

    Mr. Tonko. With that, I now recognize Mr. Shimkus, our 
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Environment and Climate 
Change, for five minutes for his opening statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This hearing kicks off the subcommittee's review of 
policies that would aim to substantially reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions across the United States economy.
    The goals of what is called deep decarbonization are bold 
and would sweep across every aspect of our society. The most 
aggressive of them call for regulatory schemes to achieve net 
zero emissions by 2050 and would change how we generate 
electricity, fuel our vehicles, grow our food, and make the 
steel and cement and other ingredients of modern 
infrastructure, cities, and industry.
    As we examine deep decarbonization policies, I hope we can 
keep appropriate perspectives. For example, we should be clear 
that some of these goals are not possible to achieve with 
current technology or through renewable energy alone.
    Some are too expensive to implement in any way that would 
preserve affordable energy and the goods and services we rely 
upon in our daily lives.
    We have to take a hard look at the full costs of domestic 
policies that would transform our electric infrastructure, our 
energy systems, and our mobility.
    Hearings like this can help start to shine the light on all 
of these. We also should recognize that we are talking about a 
global issue. As noted in the previous hearings, there has been 
unrelenting growth in global carbon emissions-even as the U.S. 
emissions have declined.
    While projections show global emissions growth may level 
off, they will not decline very much as nations continue to 
seek the tremendous benefits of energy, power, and 
transportation in their societies as they continue to acquire 
the steel, cement, and other infrastructure needed for building 
and expanding.
    This is particularly true for China, India, and the rest of 
the developing world. Affordable energy and industrial output 
are key ingredients for these growing economies.
    The plain fact is: the world, according to projections by 
the International Energy Agency, will continue to rely 
primarily on fossil forms of energy for the foreseeable future 
and the developing world will continue to dominate global 
emissions in the years to come.
    The policies we consider in the United States should be 
considered against this global energy and economic reality. We 
should not put the United States at a competitive disadvantage 
to other nations or deprive our nation important opportunities 
to innovate and develop the new fossil, or nuclear technologies 
or industrial technologies that promise clean future energy 
systems.
    Focusing on global energy and economic realities will help 
us focus on where the real gains can be achieved in reducing 
future emissions and maintaining the prosperity necessary for 
addressing future climate risks.
    Let me suggest that these gains will come less from 
radically and expensively transforming a mature $20 trillion 
U.S. economy than providing the modern, clean, and low-emission 
technologies to nations still putting their modern economies 
into place.
    In recent months, we have been building a record that 
underscores the critical need for technological breakthroughs 
to develop cleaner energy and economic systems.
    This morning, we will hear from witnesses who can speak to 
what is necessary to move these technological breakthroughs 
forward, and we welcome you.
    I am particularly looking forward to hearing from Shannon 
Angielski of the Carbon Utilization Council. She will speak to 
the contribution of fossil fuel technologies to decarbonization 
objectives and she can outline how bipartisan work in Congress 
has helped create new markets and what more is needed to ensure 
that these policies are effective.
    The bottom line is there are practical policies we can 
pursue in a bipartisan fashion that will help incentivize the 
development of innovative technologies for coal and natural gas 
as well as nuclear energy that will strengthen American 
leadership in these critical sectors.
    We should avoid complex, regulatory, and command and 
control schemes that the majority sometimes seeks to impose. 
These would foreclose the potential for innovations that will 
enable full use of our nation's tremendous energy and economic 
resources----
    Our goals should be to perfect the bipartisan policies that 
will allow innovation in the private sector to provide the new 
technologies that will provide the path to lower emissions, 
especially where this is needed most.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, that ends my opening 
statement. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follow:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. John Shimkus

    This hearing kicks off the Subcommittee's review of 
policies that would aim to substantially reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions across the United States economy.
    The goals of what is called ``deep" decarbonization are 
bold and would sweep across every aspect of our society. The 
most aggressive of them call for regulatory schemes to achieve 
net-zero emissions by 2050 and would change how we generate 
electrical power, fuel our vehicles, grow our food, and make 
the steel and cement and the other ingredients of modern 
infrastructure, cities, and industry.
    As we examine decarbonization policies, I hope we can keep 
appropriate perspective.
    For example, we should be clear that some of these goals 
are not possible to achieve with current technology-or through 
renewable energy alone. Some are too expensive to implement in 
any way that would preserve affordable energy and the goods and 
services we rely upon in our daily lives.
    We have to take a hard look at the full costs of domestic 
policies that would transform our electric infrastructure, our 
energy systems, our mobility. Hearings like this can help start 
to shine a light on this.
    We also should recognize that we are talking about a global 
issue. As noted in previous hearings, there has been 
unrelenting growth in global carbon emissions--even as the U.S. 
emissions have declined.
    While projections show global emissions growth may level 
off, they will not decline very much as nations continue to 
seek the tremendous benefits of energy, power, and 
transportation in their societies and as they continue to 
acquire the steel, cement, and other infrastructure needed for 
building and expanding. This is particularly true for China, 
India and the rest of the developing world.
    Affordable energy and industrial output are key ingredients 
for these growing economies. The plain fact is: the world, 
according to projections by the International Energy Agency, 
will continue to rely primarily on fossil forms of energy for 
the foreseeable future. And the developing world will continue 
to dominate global emissions in the years to come.
    The policies we consider in the United States should be 
considered against this global energy and economic reality.
    We should not put the United States at a competitive 
disadvantage to other nations or deprive our nation important 
opportunities to innovate and develop the new fossil or nuclear 
technologies or industrial technologies that promise cleaner 
future energy systems.
    Focusing on global energy and economic realities will help 
us focus on where the real gains can be achieved in reducing 
future emissions and maintaining the prosperity necessary for 
addressing future climate risks.
    Let me suggest that these gains will come less from 
radically and expensively transforming a mature, 20-trillion-
dollar U.S. economy than from providing the modern, clean and 
low emissions technologies to nations still putting their 
modern economies in place.
    In recent months we have been building a record that 
underscores the critical need for technological breakthroughs 
to develop cleaner energy and economic systems.
    This morning we will hear from witnesses who can speak to 
what is necessary to move these technological breakthroughs 
forward.
    I am particularly looking forward to hearing from Shannon 
Angielski of the Carbon Utilization Council, or CURC. She will 
speak to the contribution of fossil fuel technologies to 
decarbonization objectives. And she can outline how bipartisan 
work of Congress has helped create new markets and what more is 
needed to ensure these policies are effective.
    The bottom line is, there are practical policies we can 
pursue in a bi-partisan fashion that will help incentivize the 
development of innovative technologies for coal and natural 
gas, as well as nuclear energy and that will strengthen 
American leadership in these critical sectors.
    We should avoid complex regulatory and command and control 
schemes that the Majority seeks to impose. These would 
foreclose the potential for innovations that will enable full 
use of our nation's tremendous energy and economic resources.
    Our goal should be to perfect the bi-partisan polices that 
allow innovation and private sector to provide the new 
technologies that will provide the paths to lower emissions, 
especially where this is needed most.

    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full 
committee, for four minutes for his opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Tonko.
    One of this committee's top priorities is combating climate 
change. Yesterday, I joined Chairmen Tonko and Rush and other 
committee Democrats in announcing a bold plan to address the 
climate crisis by achieving 100 percent clean economy by 2050.
    Our plan is based on the science. International scientific 
experts tell us we must invest in clean technologies and 
initiate an aggressive economy wide effort now to achieve this 
goal.
    So yesterday we outlined a process for reaching the goal 
and that process begins today with this hearing where we will 
examine the challenges and opportunities that exist for 
reducing greenhouse gas pollution from the major sectors of our 
economy.
    Recent reports by U.S. scientists and the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change paint a grim picture if we do not get 
carbon pollution under control.
    We are already experiencing record flooding, sea level 
rise, intense wildfires, extended drought, and severe weather 
events that experts projected would come with increased 
warming, and I don't have to tell anybody that.
    Anybody knows over the weekend the temperature in my 
district got to 103. We lost power for about 30 to 40 percent 
of the homes in my home county including my own home, and my 
wife called me this morning to say the power finally came on at 
2:30 a.m.
    You know, this is what we are all facing. These events are 
taking a terrible toll on our communities and we must act. 
Transforming our economy is no easy task. There will be costs 
associated with the transformation and the scope. But the costs 
of inaction are extremely high and rising.
    Fortunately, the calls for action continue to grow. This 
week, 28 global companies representing a combined market 
capitalization of $1.2 trillion responded to the U.N. call to 
action by committing to the goal of net zero emissions by 2050, 
and we will hear from our witnesses this transformation is 
challenging but not impossible.
    We have many technologies available today that with wider 
deployment can lower carbon and other harmful pollutants in the 
near term.
    Some sectors will present greater challenges and will 
require new technologies and significant investment to reach 
net zero. But we want to reward innovation and the businesses 
that invest in clean technologies.
    However, we cannot only focus on business and technologies 
and hope that individual workers and communities automatically 
benefit by their adoption. We know that doesn't always happen 
and that economic transformations can leave people and 
communities behind.
    Workers displaced from lucrative jobs in fossil fuel-
dependent industries must be able to find equally profitable 
jobs in their communities and in new clean industries, and we 
must reinvest in communities that currently are more exposed to 
harmful pollution and climate change.
    We can use this opportunity to ensure that the economy 
works for everyone and supports a safe healthy environment.
    United States is a leader in innovation but we cannot stay 
competitive without data technology and infrastructure. We must 
get ahead in the race to a clean economy. We need to grow now.
    Clean industries here employ our workers to deliver modern 
high-quality products to the world. We have the talent and 
resources. All we need now is determination to act.
    So as we begin this process and, you know, we think of 
ourselves and we are the innovation committee, I invite 
everyone to share their ideas with us about how to modernize 
our infrastructure and transform our economy to reduce carbon 
pollution, create family-sustaining jobs and lead the world in 
growing new clean industries, and I look forward to working 
with all of you as our effort to develop legislation to achieve 
100 by '50 moves forward.
    And, again, I particularly want to thank our two 
subcommittee chairs, Mr. Tonko and Mr. Rush. Basically, the 100 
by '50 was Mr. Tonko's idea and he has been working for some 
time, not only the last six months since we have been in the 
majority but for many years, on this goal and best ways to 
achieve it.
    And so we will see how we develop that over the next few 
months when we return from the August recess.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    One of this Committee's top priorities is combating climate 
change. Yesterday I joined Chairmen Tonko and Rush, and other 
Committee Democrats in announcing a bold plan to address the 
climate crisis by achieving a 100 percent clean economy by 
2050.
    Our plan is based on the science. International scientific 
experts tell us we must invest in clean technologies and 
initiate an aggressive, economy-wide effort now to achieve this 
goal. So, yesterday we outlined a process for reaching that 
goal--and that process begins today with this hearing where we 
will examine the challenges and opportunities that exist for 
reducing greenhouse gas pollution from the major sectors of our 
economy.
    Recent reports by U.S. scientists and the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change paint a grim picture if we do not get 
carbon pollution under control.
    We are already experiencing record flooding, sea level 
rise, intense wildfires, extended drought and severe weather 
events that experts projected would come with increased 
warming. These events are taking a terrible toll on our 
communities, and we must act.
    Transforming our economy is no easy task. There will be 
costs associated with a transformation of this scope, but, the 
costs of inaction are extremely high and rising.
    Fortunately, the calls for action continue to grow. This 
week, 28 global companies, representing a combined market 
capitalization of $1.2 trillion, responded to the United 
Nations call to action by committing to the goal of net zero 
emissions by 2050.
    As we will hear from our witnesses, this transformation is 
challenging, but not impossible. We have many technologies 
available today that, with wider deployment, can lower carbon 
and other harmful pollutants in the near term. Some sectors 
will present greater challenges and will require new 
technologies and significant investment to reach net zero. We 
want to reward innovation and the businesses that invest in 
clean technologies.
    However, we cannot only focus on businesses and 
technologies and hope that individual workers and communities 
automatically benefit by their adoption. We know that doesn't 
always happen and that economic transformations can leave 
people and communities behind.
    Workers displaced from lucrative jobs in fossil-fuel 
dependent industries must be able to find equally profitable 
jobs in their communities and in new clean industries. And, we 
must reinvest in communities that currently are more exposed to 
harmful pollution and climate change. We can use this 
opportunity to ensure that the economy works for everyone and 
supports a safe, healthy environment.
    The United States is a leader in innovation, but we cannot 
stay competitive with outdated technology and infrastructure. 
We must get ahead in the race to a clean economy. We need to 
grow new, clean industries here and employ our workers to 
deliver modern, high quality products to the world. We have the 
talent and resources. All we need now is the determination to 
act.
    As we begin this process, I invite everyone to share their 
ideas with us about how to modernize our infrastructure and 
transform our economy to reduce carbon pollution, create 
family-sustaining jobs, and lead the world in growing new, 
clean industries. I look forward to working with all of you as 
our effort to develop legislation to achieve 100-by-50 moves 
forward.

    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. The gentleman yields back and thank 
you for your kind words, Chairman.
    And the Chair now recognizes Mr. Walden, the ranking member 
of the full committee, for five minutes for his opening 
statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. Walden. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning. Thanks for having this hearing. As you all 
pointed out yesterday, the Democrats held a press conference to 
outline their plans for decarbonizing the United States by 2050 
and today we are reviewing some potential paths to achieve that 
goal, and that is important.
    We need to fully understand what decarbonization means for 
consumers and for American workers. Republicans support 
innovation, conservation, adaptation, and preparation.
    We support prudent steps to reduce emissions and to address 
current and future climate risks. These steps require we 
examine the costs, the effectiveness, and the economic impacts 
of various solutions proposed to address the risks.
    They require we do not undermine the economic priorities of 
communities and states around the nation. For this reason, we 
have urged our majority colleagues to avoid resurrecting top-
down policies that are costly and harmful.
    Taxation and regulation can lead to economic stagnation and 
hurts consumers and workers. But instead, we'd like them to 
work with us on bipartisan solutions like those that we have 
pursued over the last several Congresses with great success.
    Those policies have continued America's leadership in 
developing innovative technologies to produce energy with 
little or no emissions, and our record on this front is clear 
and positive for the climate.
    Republicans have been working with Democrats over the past 
several Congresses to remove regulatory barriers to new 
technological advances in power generation from hydroelectric 
power to small modular nuclear, from carbon capture and storage 
incentives to power grid reforms.
    As innovation is where the long-term solutions to climate 
change are, we want America to lead. We want America to lead 
the world in innovation, as we always have, especially on clean 
energy and environmental cleanup as well.
    Instead of focusing solely on regulations and taxation that 
mandate emissions reductions in the U.S., we need to put more 
emphasis on the parts of the world with some of the greatest 
CO2 emissions like China and India.
    Our most effective policies are the ones that encourage and 
support development of clean energy here at home and abroad by 
American workers and by innovators.
    We can develop these new technologies and we can market 
them to the world. We support realistic solutions that will 
have meaningful impact on global emissions while growing the 
U.S. economy and protecting American workers.
    That is why we pursued policies like the 45Q Carbon 
Sequester tax credit the Republicans enacted last Congress. 
They offer much in the potential for cleaner fossil fuels and 
sequester of carbon.
    We will hear this morning about the promises carbon capture 
holds and what might be done to improve its prospects, and we 
are excited to learn about that. We know there is more 
innovation just over the horizon in these areas.
    We should talk about what it takes to ensure the United 
States can lead on clean fossil energy technology, and on 
nuclear technology, and not cede our dominance to our 
adversarial competitors globally.
    We already risk that in the nuclear technology space and we 
need to make sure that doesn't continue. Closer to home, we 
have to pursue practical policies that strengthen local 
economies and make our communities safe.
    In my part of the world in the Northwest, we have 
benefitted from clean hydropower, from wind generation and 
geothermal and solar power.
    We have suffered greatly, though, from the lack of 
management of our federal forest lands, which are burning up 
every summer, choking our citizens and polluting our 
atmosphere.
    Actively managing our forests not only reduces the risks of 
fire, it also reduces carbon emissions, as proven out by the 
IPCC itself.
    It promotes healthy younger strands of trees, maximizes our 
forests' ability to actively sequester carbon; all this while 
creating jobs and wood products that store carbon.
    Unfortunately, we have got about 80 million acres in need 
of treatment and need it now. The federal forests lag behind.
    We need to pass legislation like the Resilient Federal 
Forests Act, which I have introduced with others to address 
this; and whether that is considered decarbonization or not it 
is the right kind of bipartisan policy to pursue and we can do 
it right here in America.
    So let us talk about that as well and let us talk about the 
needs for our communities in the fossil-energy-rich cities and 
counties in Texas and Pennsylvania that have been pursuing the 
economic benefits fostered by the technological revolution in 
oil and natural gas production to the New England communities 
that do not have the energy infrastructure to ensure even heat 
and power on the coldest or hottest nights or warmest days.
    So, let us talk about these policies too, in terms of what 
matters to people every day, and then together we should be 
able to find bipartisan solutions, moving forward, as we have 
in the past.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Yesterday, our Majority leadership held a press conference 
to outline their plans for decarbonizing the United States by 
2050. And today we are reviewing some potential paths to 
achieve this goal.
    What decarbonization really means for consumers and workers 
in terms of policy prescriptions remains to be seen, but we 
should look very carefully before we leap back into the failed 
regulatory approaches the Majority appears to be contemplating.
    Republicans believe that prudent steps should be taken to 
reduce emissions and address current and future climate risks. 
These steps require we examine the costs, effectiveness, and 
economic impacts of solutions proposed to address these risks. 
And they require we do not undermine the economic priorities of 
communities and states around the nation.
    For this reason, we have urged our Majority colleagues to 
avoid resurrecting top-down policies that have been shown to be 
costly and harmful to consumer and worker interests; and 
instead, work with Republicans on the bi-partisan policies we 
have been pursuing over the past several Congresses.
    These policies aim to continue America's leadership role in 
developing innovative technologies to produce energy with 
little or no emissions.
    And our record on this front is clear and positive for the 
climate. Republicans have been working with Democrats over the 
past several Congresses to remove regulatory barriers to new 
technological advances in power generation, from hydroelectric 
power to small modular nuclear, from carbon capture and storage 
incentives to power grid reforms.
    Because innovation is where the long-term solutions to 
climate change are, we want America to lead the world in 
innovation, as we always have, especially on clean energy and 
environmental cleanup.
    Instead of focusing solely on regulations that mandate 
emissions reductions here in the U.S., we need to put more 
emphasis on the parts of the world with some of the greatest 
CO2 emissions, like China and India.
    Our most effective policies will be the ones that encourage 
and support development of clean energy technologies here in 
the U.S. by American workers, which then can be sold to those 
countries and around the world. These may not be the splashy 
promises--however unrealistic--that drive news coverage and 
they may not be the ones that are popular with the 
environmental lobby; but they are the ones that can have 
meaningful impact on global emissions while growing the U.S. 
economy and protecting the American worker.
    This is why pursuit of policies like 45Q carbon 
sequestration tax credits enacted last Congress offer so much 
potential for cleaner fossil energy.
    We will hear this morning about the promises carbon capture 
holds and what might be done to improve its prospects. And we 
know there is more innovation over the horizon.
    We should talk about what it takes to ensure the United 
States can lead on clean fossil energy technology, on nuclear 
technology and not cede our dominance to our adversarial 
competitors globally. We already risk that in the nuclear 
technology space and we need to make sure that doesn't 
continue.
    Closer to home, we have to pursue practical policies that 
strengthen local economies and make our communities safer.
    In the Northwest, while we've benefited from clean 
hydropower, wind, geothermal and solar power, we've suffered 
greatly from the lack of management of our federal forest 
lands, which are burning up every summer, choking our citizens 
and polluting our atmosphere.
    Actively managing our forests not only reduces the risk of 
fire, it also reduces carbon emissions. It promotes healthy 
younger stands of trees, maximizing our forest's ability to 
actively sequester carbon. All this while creating jobs and 
wood products that store carbon. Unfortunately, with around 80 
million acres in need of treatment, our federal forests lag 
behind. We need to pass legislation--like the Resilient Federal 
Forests Act which I have introduced--to address this, and 
whether that is considered decarbonization or not, it is the 
right kind of bi-partisan policy to pursue.
    Let's talk about that. And lets talk about the needs of 
other communities-from the fossil-energy-rich cities and 
counties in Texas and Pennsylvania that have been pursuing the 
economic benefits fostered by the technological revolution in 
oil and natural gas production to the New England communities 
that do not have the energy infrastructure to assure heat and 
power on the coldest nights or warmest days.
    Let's talk about these policies in terms that matter to 
people every day. And find bi-partisan solutions that work for 
families and consumers.

    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair would 
like to remind Members that pursuant to committee rules all 
Members' written opening statement shall be made part of the 
record.
    With that, I now introduce our witnesses for today's 
hearing.
    We have Dr. Karl Hausker, senior fellow, climate program at 
the World Resources Institute. Next, we have Ms. Shannon 
Angielski, executive director of the Carbon Utilization 
Research Council.
    Then Mr. Armond Cohen, executive director of the Clean Air 
Task Force. And finally, Dr. Cleetus, who is a policy--the 
policy director of Climate and Energy Program at the Union of 
Concerned Scientists.
    Before we begin, I would like to explain the lighting 
system. In front of you are a series of lights. The light will 
initially be green at the start of your opening statement. The 
light will turn yellow when you have one minute remaining.
    Please begin to wrap up your testimony at that point. The 
light will turn red when your time has expired. At this time, 
the Chair will now recognize Dr. Hausker for five minutes to 
provide his opening statement, welcome to you and all of our 
panelists, and thank you for your time and the intellect that 
you will share with us.

   STATEMENTS OF KARL HAUSKER, Ph.D., SENIOR FELLOW, CLIMATE 
    PROGRAM, WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE; SHANNON ANGIELSKI, 
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CARBON UTILIZATION RESEARCH COUNCIL; ARMOND 
  COHEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE; AND RACHEL 
 CLEETUS, Ph.D., POLICY DIRECTOR, CLIMATE AND ENERGY PROGRAM, 
                 UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

                STATEMENT OF MR. HAUSKER, Ph.D.

    Dr. Hausker. Members of the committee, thank you for this 
opportunity to testify on America's clean energy future, and 
Chairman Tonko, Chairman Pallone, and colleagues, I really 
thank you for your leadership on launching a plan for 
developing climate legislation.
    Let me focus on the four main takeaway messages in my 
testimony and I will refer to figures in that testimony as I 
go.
    First, what does science tell us about emission pathways 
that can limit warming to 1.5 degrees? In Figure 1, you will 
see that global emissions need to reach net zero by mid-century 
and then actually turn negative. We need to achieve negative 
emissions later in the century.
    Why negative? Because we are likely to overshoot safe 
concentrations of greenhouse gases that would keep us at 1.5 
degrees. So we need sharp declines in emissions beginning in 
the 2020s and we will need, as you noted, major transformations 
in electricity generation, buildings, transport, and industry; 
then we will have to move to creating negative emissions 
through carbon dioxide removal. We can do that through natural 
means, planting trees and improving soil health, and we can 
also do it through technical means, and the two leading 
candidates are bioenergy plants with carbon capture and 
sequestration and the direct capture of CO2 from air, its 
concentration and safe storage underground.
    We will likely need carbon dioxide removal at a large 
scale, up to 10 billion tons of CO2 per year by around mid-
century, and this amount will exceed the capacity of those 
natural means and perhaps exceed what we can do with bioenergy 
with CCS.
    And that is why I really want to emphasize that we are 
likely to need CCS with direct air capture by mid-century at 
the scale of billions of tons per year; and this leads me 
directly to my second major takeaway.
    We must further develop CCS technology. Regardless of 
whether you think we need it on power plants, we will need it 
for that job of carbon dioxide removal.
    Similarly, CCS will be needed for various industrial 
sources that have process emissions--iron, steel, chemicals, 
and cement. So we must take key steps in the coming decade. 
Improve the technology, scale up CCS, bring costs down, build 
pipelines and injection sites, refine our policy and governance 
frameworks, and build public acceptance. We can't wait until 
2030 or 2040 to decide what to do on CCS.
    My third takeaway--the transformations needed to get to net 
zero emissions are technologically feasible and affordable.
    We can do it with current technology and near-commercial 
technology in the pipeline. But we should also innovate, as 
several of you have said, to keep being able to do it better 
and do it cheaper.
    The strategies for transformation are depicted in Figure 2 
in my testimony. It is quite simple at one level. First, be as 
energy efficient as possible across all sectors of the economy.
    Second, electrification--switch everywhere possible from 
the direct combustion of fossil fuels to the direct use of 
electricity. Where you can't do that, develop the low-carbon 
zero-carbon fuels for those end uses.
    Third, we are going to build a lot of electricity with zero 
carbon. That electrification process will make this a huge 
growth industry. So we will electrify the economy and then we 
need to go to zero-carbon generation.
    And fourth, the fourth key strategy, of course, is carbon 
capture, which I just described.
    Takeaway number four--my last takeaway--to produce all that 
carbon-free electricity, we can build out solar and wind very 
aggressively in the coming years. But we also need to 
commercialize--fully commercialize the other zero-carbon 
options.
    So in Figure 3 in my testimony, I depict the great, 
wonderful jaw-dropping decrease in solar and wind costs over 
the last 10 years.
    Many models suggest that we could move to 60, 70, 80, maybe 
even 90 percent renewable generation from solar and wind over 
the next decades, especially if we support it with 
transmission--expanded transmission, demand management, and 
storage.
    However, most modelers and analysts understand that we need 
to complement any wind and solar with other dispatchable and 
firm power sources.
    Sometimes you can do that with hydro and geothermal and 
bioenergy. But we are also likely to need carbon-free 
generation sources that aren't constrained by location like 
hydro and geothermal.
    So the good news here is that companies like NetPower are 
developing CCS approaches to capture 100 percent of emissions 
from fossil fuel plants, and companies like NuScale are 
developing advanced nuclear options and small modular reactors 
that can play a role in America's clean energy future.
    So my closing thought is that is risky to bet the climate 
on just a single set of technologies. Support RD&D across a 
broad set and let us keep our focus on carbon emissions, not on 
the market share of any particular technology.
    I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Hausker follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Hausker.
    And next, we will here from Ms. Angielski. You are 
recognized for five minutes, please.

                   STATEMENT OF MS. ANGIELSKI

    Ms. Angielski. Thank you, Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member 
Shimkus, for the invitation to testify before the subcommittee 
today and to discuss initiatives that can decarbonize the U.S. 
economy, and we really appreciate your leadership on these 
issues.
    I just want to start by introducing the Carbon Utilization 
Research Council. CURC is an industry coalition focused on 
technology solutions for the responsible use of our fossil 
energy resources in a balanced low-carbon generation portfolio.
    Members of CURC believe that American fossil fuel ingenuity 
and technology innovation will satisfy the world's growing 
appetite for affordable energy, improve energy security, 
increase exports of U.S. resources and manufactured energy 
equipment, create high-paying jobs, and improve environmental 
quality.
    In order to achieve these objectives, members of CURC are 
at the forefront of their industries to develop and 
commercialize technologies that will transform the way the 
world uses fossil fuels.
    My testimony will address five key points describing what 
is needed to unlock the innovation that is needed to 
decarbonize the use of fossil fuels in the power sector.
    Point one--the growing use of fossil fuels must be 
accompanied by robust investment in carbon capture utilization 
and storage, or CCUS.
    This is because global fossil fuel use is projected to rise 
well into the future. As a result, modelling conducted by the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International 
Energy Agency, or the IEA, agree that carbon capture is an 
integral part of the technology solution set in order to cost 
effectively achieve global climate targets.
    A recent IEA analysis shows that high capture rates are 
wind combined with sustainable biofuels. Power generated from 
fossil fuels can achieve net zero carbon emissions.
    Other recent analysis from IEA estimates that by 2060 CCUS 
accounts for approximately 100 gigatons of the CO2 emissions 
reductions needed to meet the global goals of the two degrees 
scenario.
    To put this scale of emissions reductions into perspective, 
this would be the same as, roughly, 1,100 coal units installing 
carbon capture by 2030 and storing CO2 from those systems for 
the next 30 years.
    This would also be the same as 3,200 natural gas combined 
cycle units with the same amount of carbon capture over the 
same period.
    Modelling also shows that in order to achieve deep 
decarbonization goals, CCUS must be complemented with 
technology such as direct air capture and other negative 
emissions technologies.
    To date, however, carbon capture has not been deployed at 
the rate needed to achieve deep decarbonization objectives.
    Point two, U.S. industry, thankfully, has years of 
experience with CCUS. Projects operating in the U.S. today 
capture, roughly, 25 million metric tons of CO2 annually from 
industrial processes.
    Large volumes of CO2 are also transported through a 4,500-
mile pipeline network and some of that CO2 is stored in well-
documented and studied geologic reservoirs across the country.
    For more CCUS deployment to occur, projects need to 
integrate each of these individual elements together into one 
system. The Petra Nova project that retrofit a coal power plant 
with carbon capture in Texas and transports that CO2 by a 
pipeline into a nearby oil field as well as the Archer Daniels 
Midland ethanol production facility with carbon capture in 
Illinois are just two prime examples of how to integrate those 
different industries together into one process and demonstrate 
that CCUS is technically feasible.
     Point three--while carbon capture is in the early stages 
of deployment, the U.S. is making significant strides to reduce 
costs and create a robust carbon capture industry. Innovative 
research and development is well underway that will further 
improve the cost and performance of new carbon capture 
technologies through DOE's world class carbon capture and 
storage programs.
    These technologies have the promise of providing 
dispatchable fossil fuel power generation with low to zero 
carbon emissions necessary to support the growth of renewables 
and achieve decarbonization of the power grid.
    Importantly, carbon capture is fuel and emissions agnostic. 
This means investment in power sector applications will also 
benefit the use of carbon capture in other industries and when 
applied to other fuel gas streams.
    With improved technology and deployment, the technology 
will follow a well understood cost reduction curve and 
economies of scale will be achieved in the same way this 
happened with the wind and solar industries.
    Four, investments in carbon capture will benefit the 
environment, improve energy security, and provide macroeconomic 
benefits to the U.S. economy.
    Analysis connected by CURC and ClearPath Foundation shows 
that there are significant economic benefits to the U.S. if the 
public-private sector investments in carbon capture are 
undertaken.
    Our analysis projects that at least 17 gigawatts and up to 
87 gigawatts of market-driven carbon capture paired with 
enhanced solar recovery will significantly increase oil 
production, lower retail electricity rates, all of which 
contribute to substantial increases in annual GDP as well as 
create over 800,000 new jobs by 2040.
    Five, with robust and sustained policy support, carbon 
capture can contribute to any deep decarbonization goals. 45Q 
is a key policy tool for catalyzing a carbon capture industry 
in this country and is seen as a model policy by international 
energy entities.
    And while several carbon capture projects are in 
development as a result of this policy, project developers are 
eagerly awaiting issuance of Treasury guidance to understand 
how to use the tax credits.
    However, even as the U.S. continues to invest in innovative 
research and projects that will be incentivized through the use 
of these credits, it is important to recognize that multiple 
policy tools will be needed to accelerate and attract 
investment in carbon capture.
    I just want to mention several--there are several CCUS 
bills in Congress pending that would do that, some of which are 
before this committee, and I just want to recognize Congressman 
Peters and Mr. McKinley on the Utilizing Significant Emissions 
Act as well as the Carbon Capture Modernization Act are just 
two examples.
    So in closing, I just want to close by saying the world is 
watching as we embark on these initiatives. Investment in CCUS 
will transform carbon dioxide into an economic resource, lower 
the cost of reducing emissions, save consumers money, and 
safeguard the environment.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Angielski follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Ms. Angielski.
    And Mr. Cohen, you are recognized for five minutes, please.

                     STATEMENT OF MR. COHEN

    Mr. Cohen. Chairman Tonko, Ranking Member Shimkus, and 
distinguished members of the committee, I appreciate the 
opportunity to testify this morning.
    Rather than read a written statement, I presented or 
prepared several slides and visuals that I think I want to just 
walk you through to kind of connect some of the threads you 
have already heard. It is labelled supporting slides.
    So if you turn with me to the first page, there's a pie 
chart and it is U.S. energy CO2 emissions by sector. And so we 
talk a lot about electricity but as some of the previous 
speakers have mentioned, it is not just about electricity. 
Actually, electricity is 40 percent of the CO2 energy problem 
in the United States. Agriculture is--you know, I will put it 
in a separate category.
    The point is there are many sectors to address here. We 
have got a $2 trillion a year energy economy that we have to 
decarbonize over a period of decades.
    My bottom line is that it is tough but feasible if we 
retain options to go down multiple pathways at once and those 
pathways are represented in the next slide, which is called 
puzzle pieces for a 100 percent carbon-free energy economy, and 
there you can see that we have to do a number of things 
simultaneously, some of which have been mentioned.
    We need--we can utilize variable zero-carbon electricity 
that we have today at low cost like wind and solar and with 
storage.
    We will need firm always available zero-carbon electricity 
to balance the grid. I will get to that in a minute. We will 
need carbon capture and storage. We will need electrification.
    We will need low-carbon industrial processes, and at the 
center of this puzzle diagram you will see something called 
zero-carbon fuels, which are essential to making all of this 
work. If we have a zero-carbon drop-in liquid or gaseous fuel 
to substitute for current gas and oil, we have really a winning 
combination.
    Finally, there is something in this--there is a puzzle 
piece called super pollutants, which is really dealing with 
methane leakage from the fossil fuel system, which we will have 
to do with fossil energy as to be part of this decarbonized 
future.
    The next slide is a somewhat complicated diagram but I 
won't walk through in detail. But it is called a zero-carbon 
energy system. The point that is made here is that we need to 
succeed. We are going to need a complementary set of 
technologies.
    You will see that zero-carbon electricity is kind of at the 
core because you can do a lot, as Dr. Hausker has recommended, 
in terms of building decarbonization industry and transport. 
But we are going to need some other things, and to the left of 
the zero-carbon electricity diagram you will see hydrogen, and 
we would add to that hydrogen-derived fuels like ammonia, which 
can be used as substitutes for gas and oil.
    The way that we create zero-carbon electricity through 
renewables, through nuclear energy, and through fossil energy 
with carbon capture, interestingly, there are a lot of 
crossovers in here and complementarities among these 
technologies.
    So, for example, you will see towards the bottom of the 
page that kind of all roads lead to carbon capture, as has been 
mentioned. Carbon capture really does triple duty.
    It can decarbonize electricity. It can help create zero-
carbon fuels for transport, and it can help create zero-carbon 
fuels for industrial heat and process.
    So very, very critical lynchpin technology, electrolysis 
and hydrogen transformation as well, and you will see that 
nuclear also plays a role in this picture along with renewable.
    So an overarching point is there has been a lot of talk 
about Apollo 11 in the last week, rightly so. But my view is 
this is not about moon shots. This is about test flights and it 
is about some smart earthbound engineering.
    Most of what is in these diagrams has already been 
demonstrated. Not all of it has been demonstrated or built 
multiple series at commercial scale but it has all 
fundamentally been demonstrated.
    Whether it is nuclear or carbon capture, it is about smart 
engineering, it is about getting into mass production, and 
bringing costs down.
    Let me close by addressing the electric part of this 
equation, which, as we have mentioned, is absolutely critical. 
We have a great head start on electricity. A third of the 
United States power grid is already decarbonized.
    Between hydroelectric, wind and solar, and nuclear, we are 
now a third of the way there. So we need to get the other two-
thirds of the way there. So how do we do that?
    As was mentioned, we have an enormous accomplishment to be 
proud of, which is the degree to which wind and solar costs 
have come down.
    I have no doubt that they will be the backbone of a future 
decarbonized electric grid. But that may not be the whole 
solution.
    They might be, but I believe that there is reason from the 
modelling and the analysis that has been done, which I am going 
to walk you through in the next minute. We can talk about that 
at greater length in the Q&A.
    To demonstrate why we need things in addition to variable 
weather dependent electricity, if you turn to slide four you 
will see--I took the example of California because it is a 
state that is blessed with renewable resources and also a state 
that is very dedicated to decarbonizing its grid and has 
actually put that into law.
    You can see that wind and sun vary by season. If it were 
just a question of daily wind and sun variability, we could do 
that with battery storage pretty cheaply.
    But the fact is we have seasonal variations and you can see 
a factor of 400 or 500 percent variation for months over the 
year. If you--at the bottom of slide four you will see the 
demand in California, which is pretty constant throughout the 
year.
    But you will see that the available resource--wind and 
solar resource combined--fluctuates quite a bit over the year 
over seasonal patterns. And if you flip the page to slide five, 
you will see that the result is that we have what essentially 
is a seasonal surplus and a seasonal deficit.
    That is very expensive to deal with with battery storage, 
even if we dropped the price of batteries by, say, 80 percent.
    My final slide just shows that if we go to a system that 
is, let us say, half renewables, we probably have modest costs 
right now and we can manage that with storage.
    If we push a lot farther than that right now without firm 
energy in the system, which would be the light blue bars, we 
are looking at a very steep incline.
    So bottom line is firm energy, zero-carbon energy very 
important and we can address that in the Q&A.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Mr. Cohen, thank you.
    And now Dr. Cleetus, you are recognized for five minutes, 
please.

               STATEMENT OF RACHEL CLEETUS, Ph.D.

    Dr. Cleetus. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Tonko, 
Ranking Member Shimkus, and members of the subcommittee for 
providing me the opportunity to testify here today.
    My name is Rachel Cleetus and I am the policy director for 
the Climate and Energy program at the Union of Concerned 
Scientists.
    The science is clear. We need to get to net zero carbon 
emissions by 2050 to help limit the risks of climate change 
including worsening flooding, heat waves, wildfires, and sea 
level rise.
    Embracing a zero-carbon energy future would also be a boon 
for the economy and for public health. If we do this right, we 
can help ensure that all communities will benefit from this 
transition.
    Reaching net zero emissions by 2050 will not be easy and it 
requires a sustained effort over decades. But a just and 
equitable low-carbon transition is both a necessary and 
achievable goal for the U.S.
    The U.S. can and must play a leading role in the global 
efforts and right now we are far off track. The good news is 
that we have today many of the scalable technology solutions 
that we need to get on a path to net zero and others are 
clearly on the horizon--energy efficiency, renewable energy, 
electrifying energy end uses, and increasing carbon storage in 
lands and soils, for example.
    The costs of wind, solar, and battery storage have been 
falling dramatically over the past decade. To decarbonize the 
power sector we need a diverse mix of zero-carbon technologies.
    Most analyses including from UCS show that renewable 
electricity plays a dominant role in decarbonizing the power 
sector and, by extension, the rest of the economy.
    Our analysis shows renewables reaching 70 to 80 percent of 
the generation mix by 2050 while conventional coal-fired power 
is phased out by 2030.
    Natural gas with CCS and nuclear will likely need to be 
part of the mix, although their role is constrained by costs 
and we need to address associated safety, security, and social 
and environmental concerns.
    Significant investments in infrastructure are needed for 
this transition. But the near-term public health benefits will 
be immense. As renewables are ramped up, we have many tools 
available to ensure reliable and affordable integration of this 
generation.
    A key near-term challenge is how to avoid an over reliance 
on natural gas, which is still a fossil fuel and has associated 
methane leakage, methane being a potent heat-trapping gas.
    The role of conventional natural gas must be contained 
within the next decade else we risk blowing past our climate 
goals or have billions of dollars in stranded assets.
    Another near-term challenge highlighted in a 2018 UCS 
analysis--the nuclear power dilemma--is that more than one-
third of existing U.S. nuclear plants face early retirement 
over the next decade and could be replaced by natural gas, 
risking a six percent rise in cumulative power sector 
emissions.
    A national carbon price or low-carbon electricity standard 
combined with strong safety standards could help limit this 
risk. The transportation sector is the leading contributor to 
U.S. heat-trapping emissions today.
    Therefore, cutting these emissions is essential, and that 
can be done by cleaning up vehicles and fuels through strong 
fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards and reducing 
the carbon content of fuels, and rapidly transitioning to 
electrification while investing in low-carbon mass transit.
    The middle of the century can seem a long way off but the 
reality is we must implement policies right now to drive down 
emissions and avoid locking in long-lived carbon-intensive 
infrastructure.
    We need a robust comprehensive economy wide suite of 
policies to scale up the many solutions we already have on 
hand, even as we invest in the research, development, and 
deployment of a portfolio of the next generation of zero-carbon 
technologies.
    Congress is already considering many types of these 
policies, including proposals for an RES, a CES, 100 percent 
clean energy, a range of carbon pricing proposals, and tax 
credit extensions.
    Done right, climate action can also help address long-
standing inequities for low-income communities and communities 
of color that have borne a disproportionate burden of our 
dependence on fossil fuels, and we can also unleash the 
benefits of clean energy in these communities.
    We must invest in just transition policies for fossil fuel-
dependent workers and communities. It is now time for bold and 
comprehensive action.
    Our choices today will determine the kind of climate future 
we leave our children and grandchildren. Last week, UCS 
released an analysis, ``Killer Heat in the United States,'' 
that shows that if we fail to sharply curtail global heat-
trapping emissions, rapid widespread increases in extreme heat 
are projected to occur across the country.
    However, if we dramatically cut emissions we can greatly 
limit the intensity of the coming heat. Our nation just 
celebrated the 50th anniversary of humans landing on the Moon, 
an amazing testament to American vision, ingenuity, and 
courage. That is the can-do spirit we have to bring to the 
challenge before us today.
    We are greatly encouraged by this committee's leadership, 
look forward to seeing Congress enact robust legislation, and 
we thank you, Chairmen Tonko, Rush, and Pallone, for the bold 
vision that you laid out yesterday.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Cleetus follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Dr. Cleetus.
    That concludes witness opening statements. We now will move 
to member questions, each Member having five minutes to ask 
questions of our witnesses.
    I will start by recognizing myself for five minutes.
    A number of members have stated support for achieving 
economy wide net zero emissions by 2050 and, obviously, we want 
to get there sooner, if possible.
    Now, my request here is to have each of you briefly give 
your perspective on this target. Is it ambitious? Is it aligned 
with the global scientific consensus? Is it achievable if we 
get started as soon as possible and how difficult will it be to 
achieve?
    So Dr. Hausker, we will start with you, please.
    Mr. Hausker. Thank you. I will preface my response by 
saying there are a lot of young people in the audience and, in 
fact, two of my daughters are behind me, and a niece, and we 
have a moral obligation to get to net zero by 2050 and leave 
them a climate that is not disrupted.
    And, frankly, our generation has dithered for 30 years 
since I was a Senate staffer in 1988 and Jim Hansen testified 
before the Senate Energy Committee.
    So, we need to get going on this. In terms of timing, it is 
a 30-year multi-sector transformation. I think the hearings 
that you are going to conduct over the next months will 
establish a good fact-based foundation for what can we do by 
2030 realistically; what can we do by 2040 realistically.
    Where can we deploy technologies fully commercial in a big 
way now versus what do we need to aim for by 2030, and I hinted 
at that in my testimony. We can go into more details.
    But as several of us have noted, we have fully 
commercialized at low cost wind and solar. We can deploy that 
like crazy. We are on the edge of breakthroughs in CCS that 
will allow us to scale up in the 2020s to the kind of 
magnitudes that my colleague, Shannon, described.
    There is longer-term research that we will need for things 
we need to deploy in the 2040s and beyond. So it is a mixture. 
Someone said there is no single policy. There is also no single 
technology that is going to do this.
    I think all of us look forward to working with you in 
further hearings. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Ms. Angielski?
    Ms. Angielski. So I will just build on what Dr. Hausker was 
just saying, that I think if we look to the lessons learned 
from the wind and solar industry, it took 25 years for that 
industry to actually commercialize, and with that 25 years 
there was significant investment by the U.S. in those 
technologies both for innovative research as well as tax 
credits and deployment policies as well as at the state and 
regional level to actually create markets for the sale of that 
electricity.
    So, again, to my point, in my testimony was sustained and I 
think aggressive policy support--we are already there with 
carbon capture. It is not 25 years from now that we are talking 
about.
    We are talking about another 10 years. We just need to 
build on the success of 45Q, continue to innovate, and do more 
projects.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, totally feasible and proof of 
concept--three examples in history. Sweden, Ontario, and France 
virtually decarbonized their grid in 20 years, OK, and they did 
it with a combination of technologies.
    We can do it if we decide to.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, and finally, Dr. Cleetus?
    Dr. Cleetus. Net zero by 2050 is an essential floor for an 
ambitious U.S. contribution to global efforts to limit 
temperature increase to 1.5 C.
    The reality is we are hurtling to well over 3 C right now, 
and even right now at 1 C we are seeing terrible impacts across 
our nation--flooding, heat waves, droughts, sea level rise.
    This is not a moment to lower the bar on ambition. We need 
to raise ambition as much as possible. It is not going to be 
easy. But the problem is not technology. I think we have all 
laid out that there are many pathways. We have the technologies 
available.
    It is feasible. The challenge is political will. We are 
really encouraged to see this particular subcommittee take this 
issue seriously because it is political will that we need right 
now.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And two of the top line messages we 
are hearing today is that everyone believes in order to achieve 
this target we must, first, take an inclusive view of clean 
energy technologies, and, second, implement policies that 
result in emissions reductions from all sectors of the economy.
    I am certain that everyone here has slightly different 
preferred pathways to decarbonization. But does everyone agree 
with these two overarching points and how important are they to 
keep in mind as we think through policy specifics?
    Dr. Cleetus, why don't we start with you and work backward?
    Dr. Cleetus. We have the technologies available and the 
core of them is a zero-carbon technology transition in our 
energy sector.
    Renewables will play a dominant role, as I said, but we 
will need to be--to be fully risk averse and be sure that we 
will hit our climate targets. We need to have a diverse mix of 
zero-carbon technologies on the table.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. Completely agree, and I would just say there are 
two halves to this equation. There is innovation to get that 
diverse portfolio. But there is also market pull.
    Innovation by itself is not going to get the pace we need.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    And Ms. Angielski?
    Ms. Angielski. I would say that as it relates to carbon 
capture, we already have the 45Q incentives that actually put a 
price on capturing and storing CO2. So that is a good start and 
would encourage incentivizing more to that.
    Mr. Tonko. OK. And, finally, Dr. Hausker?
    Mr. Hausker. Your analogy is completely right. We need a 
broad portfolio. Just like in financial investments and just 
like if you are in Vegas--don't put all your chips on one or 
two slots.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much, and now I recognize Mr. 
Shimkus for five minutes. Our clock--we will keep you posted if 
it is offset.
    Mr. Shimkus. I understand. That is right.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    For Ms. Angielski, in a February hearing this year on 
addressing climate change, Rick Powell of ClearPath testified, 
and I quote, ``The expected emissions growth from developing 
Asian countries alone would offset a complete decarbonization 
of the U.S. economy by mid-century.''
    Do you agree with that statement?
    Ms. Angielski. I will say that the IEA has actually just 
recently issued more analysis that came to the same conclusion.
    Mr. Shimkus. In that same hearing, Ms. Angielski, we heard 
testimony that fossil energy will remain a major part of the 
energy mix in growing nations like India, Vietnam, Colombia, 
South Africa, because the sources are domestic, abundant, and 
affordable.
    From a technological standpoint, what does it take for the 
United States to help these nations continue to use fossil 
energy and reduce emissions?
    Ms. Angielski. So there are a variety of technology 
approaches that could be undertaken. Those countries are still 
emerging economies so they are looking for the lowest cost 
possible opportunity to generate energy.
    In many cases that is with coal. And so if we--if they 
could adopt more highly-efficient coal systems and when we can 
actually export lower cost carbon capture technologies and help 
them implement it, I think those are the opportunities that we 
can evaluate as the infrastructure in those countries will be 
very young.
    So they will have those assets on the ground that will 
continue to operate for many years.
    Mr. Shimkus. Will it be easier for us to help them with a 
robust economy or a weak economy?
    Ms. Angielski. From our perspective, a robust economy will 
also help us to invest in innovation that we need in order to 
export those technologies and let them help them to utilize 
them.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
    Let me go to Mr. Cohen. On your testimony on Page 4 it 
shows a chart--and I thought we were going to try to put it up 
on here so everyone can see it on the screen--about the change 
in primary energy demand globally.
    The U.S. is in decline. So, this is the--I don't know if it 
is going to get put up, and I hope--anyway, you're going to 
have to turn around to see it, but you know it.
    But this is a million tons of oil equivalency. So, this is 
the IEA's--International Energy Agency--world energy outlook, 
and -until, 2040 and it shows the U.S. would take a 30 million 
tons oil equivalent decline where you have those other 
countries at an increase.
    I think we just have to have that in perspective. I think 
the technology debate we are having today is very, very 
important because we need to be the leader and then we can 
export to these areas that they are going to move in the fossil 
fuel sector regardless of what we do.
    Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. Yes, and, Representative, I think the point of 
the visual was actually it is going to need to be cheap, too. 
Developing countries are likely not going to pay a big premium 
for clean energy.
    So the commercialization process that we do in the U.S. 
just as we did for wind and solar to drive costs down is going 
to go viral around the world, hopefully.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you.
    And I will just end on this. The unspoken word, although it 
was mentioned once or twice, is nuclear. It has to be a huge 
part of the portfolio. You can't talk about France's 
decarbonizing without its 80 percent portfolio of nuclear 
generation.
    So, we need to work on that from our side, too, because we 
don't have a very consistent message to nuclear power in our 
country right now.
    With that, Madam Chairman, I will yield back.
    Ms. Clarke [presiding]. Thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, full committee 
chairman, for five minutes to ask questions.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
    I wanted to talk a little bit about a technology neutral 
approach and also about natural gas. So yesterday the committee 
announced our intention, as you know, to chart a legislative a 
path towards a 100 percent clean economy, defined as net zero 
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and this is the target that 
the science says we must achieve if we are to limit warming to 
1.5 degrees Celsius, avoiding the worst effects of climate 
change. And I know this is going to be a challenge but I think 
we can do it.
    So let me start out on the technology neutral approach.
    Dr. Hausker, you covered this in your testimony. Could you 
just explain why we should take a technology neutral approach 
to comprehensive climate policy?
    Mr. Hausker. Yes. I think I will contrast it to there are 
some very serious people in the climate policy community who 
would like us to commit to 100 percent renewable energy as the 
solution, and then there is another group of equally serious 
people that say we should take a technology neutral approach, 
leaving the door open to things like nuclear and carbon capture 
on fossil fuels.
    And the reason that I am in the camp of a technology 
neutral approach is that there are likely--we are likely to hit 
some obstacles if we try to lock in just a narrow set of 
technologies--renewables only.
    It may be possible to supply all the world's needs with 100 
percent renewable. One can't predict the future with certainty. 
But it is much less risky to invest in multiple technologies 
that can get us there as long as we manage all of the related 
environmental issues.
    There is not only just CO2 but there are other issues 
related to fossil fuel extraction and combustion. With nuclear 
we need to make sure the plants are safe and that we can safely 
store the waste and control proliferation problems.
    But, particularly, it will be very difficult to keep costs 
affordable and go to 100 percent renewables. We can go deeper 
into that if the committee wishes.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. I wanted to ask some of the others 
about this too but I have to get to natural gas. So if anyone 
else wants to briefly comment and answer the question about the 
technology neutral approach.
    Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. Yes. May I just add a couple points to Karl's 
comment?
    First of all, as I set out in my testimony, I would go a 
little farther and say the vast majority of studies that have 
looked at the electricity sector have concluded that firm zero-
carbon energy, you know, nonweather dependent, whether it is 
nuclear or carbon capture, is going to bring costs down and, 
you know, there are some outlier studies that suggest it. But I 
would say that that is a distinct minority of the studies out 
there.
    Second point is renewables are great for electricity. Not 
entirely clear how you decarbonize cement, steel, or how you 
decarbonize all heavy freight with renewable energy.
    So there is some--even if you could do 100 percent 
electricity--100 percent renewable on the electricity grid, 
there are other sectors to worry about.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. I am going to move on because I 
want to ask about the role of natural gas.
    Dr. Cleetus, in your testimony you discuss the near-term 
challenge of avoiding an over reliance on natural gas. Could 
you explain your concern with this scenario and why it should 
be a problem--why it could be a problem for meeting our 100 by 
'50 goal?
    Dr. Cleetus. So the reality is right now in the U.S. we are 
seeing a tremendous build out of natural gas infrastructure. It 
is one of the drivers for the significant amounts of coal 
retirements we have seen. It has helped integrate renewables 
online. So there is definitely a role for natural gas.
    The problem is that if we look ahead and we look at the 
fact that natural gas is still a fossil fuel, comes with CO2 
emissions, a coal-to-gas switch will just not be enough to meet 
our climate goals.
    And further compounding that problem is that we have these 
methane emissions from natural gas that are leaking--very 
potent greenhouse gas heat-trapping emission--and that could 
mean that just by natural gas being built out in this way--
conventional natural gas--we could completely blow past our 
climate goals. We have to get our arms around this problem and 
limit this unmitigated build out of conventional natural gas.
    Natural gas with CCS in our modelling shows up as it could 
be a contributor to a net zero world. That is the way in which 
we need to be leaning.
    Mr. Pallone. All right. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Cohen, you touch on this issue in your testimony and 
you stress the importance of eliminating super pollutants such 
as methane. Do you want to elaborate on the importance of 
addressing the methane emissions in order to meet our 100 by 
'50 target?
    Mr. Cohen. As I set out in the testimony, the problem with 
methane is that it is 87 times more powerful as a warming 
pollutant per unit than a CO2.
    So very important--if we use natural gas and we decarbonize 
it with CCS but we leave the methane out there, we are not 
doing ourselves any favors from a climate standpoint.
    The agenda before us is pretty straightforward. First of 
all, the EPA has regulated or has regulation in place to deal 
with new sources of natural gas. But that is only about 20 
percent of the total.
    We need to extend those regulations to cover existing 
wells. We also need a lot of RD&D to make--really button up 
that system and make it zero methane leakage, and there are 
many things we could talk about in future hearings that would 
do that.
    Mr. Pallone. I thank you. I thank all of our witnesses.
    Ms. Clarke. Colleagues, I just wanted to bring to the 
attention of the room that, unfortunately, we are having a 
little difficulty with our clock system.
    So we have come up with a solution. We are using 
stopwatches back here. So, you are going to have to trust me 
that your five minutes are up.
    Having said that, I now recognize Mr. Long.
    Mr. Long. Thank you. Yes, I was wondering about that clock 
situation. We can watch it here and it will go up and it will 
go down, and I didn't know what was possessing it.
    But I am from Springfield, Missouri, and in Springfield, 
Missouri, back in the 1950s there was a nationwide the first 
country television show called ``Ozark Jubilee'' and on ``Ozark 
Jubilee'' stars would come in from all around the country. Red 
Foley made it big there, Porter Wagoner, on and on.
    There is a little restaurant, Aunt Martha's Pancake House, 
because Aunt Martha performed on the Jubilee so she opened a 
pancake house, and this guy came to town and he couldn't make 
it on the Jubilee and he said, well, I will prove to them I can 
make it.
    So he went over to Aunt Martha's, got a job washing dishes 
for quite some time and every week he would go back and 
audition, and they said, you have no talent.
    So Willie Nelson left town and but Aunt Martha's remained, 
and during the time when we went to no smoking in Springfield, 
Missouri, the people that owned Aunt Martha's at that time 
weren't real fond of the new no smoking policy.
    And so you would go in there and you would sit at a 
nonsmoking table, which most people like. The table next to you 
was smoking. The next one was nonsmoking. The next one was 
smoking. Nonsmoking. So it sort of defeated the purpose.
    And I use that analogy to think--if you have travelled to 
China, if you have travelled to India, those are the type of 
things that complicate this whole climate change and trying to 
clean up the environment, because if you are clean at your 
table and not smoking it really doesn't do you much good when 
the next table is allowed to smoke and put out those kind of 
pollutants.
    Mr. Cohen, I would like to focus on how we can reduce 
carbon dioxide emissions while keep energy and commodity prices 
low, particularly in rural and agricultural communities like 
those I represent.
    In my home state of Missouri, coal-fired power plants 
provide 73 percent of our electricity--provided 73 percent of 
our electricity in 2018. This is an improvement from 2017 where 
coal produced 81 percent of our electricity, so going from 81 
to 73 is moving in the right direction.
    But as we talk about decarbonizing the whole economy while 
electric generation seemingly gets most of the attention, it 
only makes up, as has been mentioned here today, about 40 
percent of the emissions we produce.
    You say in your testimony that a carbon-free energy system 
requires essentially zeroing out energy-related greenhouse 
emissions from all sectors of the economy by 2050.
    When you think about agriculture, do we currently have the 
technology to decarbonize the agricultural industry while 
continuing to produce and move goods to market without harming 
consumers?
    I can see electric cars. I can see Volts. I can see Teslas. 
I can see electric cars moving up and down the interstate 
system. But as I am driving down that interstate system and I 
look out to the fields and the massive tractors and horsepower 
required, is that practical and where are we on that?
    Mr. Cohen. Let me just caveat and say--I probably should 
have said at the outset--I am really much more expert on the 
energy system and agricultural is not my field. But let me just 
make one--give you one example.
    So right now actually the agriculture uses ammonia fuel for 
farm equipment on quite an extensive basis. That is quite 
interesting because ammonia is potentially a zero-carbon or 
zero emitting fuel.
    It is made from hydrogen and, you know, combined with 
nitrogen and you have got ammonia, and it is used for 
fertilizer, obviously, but also for--so we actually have an 
example of, essentially, a zero-carbon combusted zero-carbon 
fuel in the agricultural sector. Expanding that would be a 
really big step throughout the agricultural sector and actually 
throughout the economy.
    As far as other--I think other people on the panel are more 
expert on soil management and cropping and low-carbon 
agriculture and methane capture from livestock and so forth.
    But I do think that there are certainly areas to go in but 
I, honestly, am not deep on that. My focus is on energy.
    Mr. Long. Let me ask Dr. Hausker--the same question as far 
as the practicality of electrification of the agricultural 
enterprise, you mentioned low carbon and zero carbon in your 
opening comments. Can you kind of explain how--what that would 
look like in the agricultural community?
    Mr. Hausker. Sure. I think you are putting your finger on 
some end uses--some sectors that will be the more difficult to 
decarbonize.
    Some agricultural applications of energy, heavy duty 
transport, and jet fuel will all be more challenging to find 
solutions to than the other examples you cite, like we know how 
to have electric heat pumps for buildings, electric water 
heaters, electric cars.
    That is kind of the low-hanging fruit. That seems ready for 
commercialization. But there are things--here is why we need an 
innovation agenda, building off of some things that my 
colleague, Armond said.
    We know how to make synthetic methane, and one of the 
feedstocks could be CO2 that we capture through other uses. We 
know how to use ammonia potentially as a fuel. We ultimately 
can make hydrogen as a fuel, and all of these have potential 
applications in those more difficult to decarbonize end uses 
like you cite.
    Mr. Long. We have talked a lot about carbon capture on this 
committee over the years and it looked like it was pretty slow 
to get to first base. But now that it is starting to move, can 
you kind of bring us up to date on where we are on carbon 
capture and what that looks like, going forward?
    Mr. Hausker. Yes. I will give a quick answer and then I 
want to defer to my colleague, Shannon, who, I think, has 
deeper knowledge on this.
    But you have heard a couple of examples here of plants that 
are already in operation. We know that the oil and gas industry 
has injected CO2 into old oil and gas fields for decades and 
safely stored that.
    We know that we have plants being demonstrated now and we 
know that we have a very promising demonstration of natural gas 
with CCS at the 50 megawatt demonstration level in Texas, and 
that is the Net Power example that I cited.
    So we are, I think, at the cusp of really commercializing 
CCS and let me----
    Ms. Clarke. The gentleman's time has actually expired. We 
will probably pick up on those questions as we move along.
    And I know recognize myself, the gentle lady from New York, 
for my questions for five minutes at this time.
    And I want to thank Chairman Tonko and Ranking Member 
Shimkus for convening this extremely important hearing on what 
we can and must do across our entire economy to cut greenhouse 
gas emissions and put an end to the environmental pollution 
that is harming our communities and driving our climate crisis.
    Thank you as well to you, our witnesses, for being here 
today. The world right now is facing a climate emergency. 
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we 
have until the year 2030 to make rapid, far-reaching, and 
unprecedented changes to limit greenhouse gas emissions and to 
avoid the worst effects of climate change by 2050.
    But we don't need to wait until 2050 to feel the effects of 
climate change. We don't even need to wait until 2030. The 
climate crisis is happening right now and communities across 
our nation are already suffering the consequences, especially 
our low-income communities and communities of color, who are on 
the front lines of this crisis.
    In my home city of Brooklyn, New York, thousands of 
families were displaced when Superstorm Sandy struck our 
communities back in 2012, flooding entire neighborhoods and 
critically damaging our subway systems and other critical 
infrastructure.
    Even today, many families still have been unable to come 
back to their homes and just this weekend, like Chairman 
Pallone in my district and neighboring communities in Brooklyn, 
we faced blackouts due to the prolonged overheating, if you 
will, extreme temperatures that have hit the Northeast region 
of the United States, driving a number of communities to really 
suffer as a result of these blackouts. Overwhelmed 
infrastructure, overwhelmed energy grids, old infrastructure--
we know that if we really put our minds to it we can address.
    The key to avoiding the greatest human and economic costs 
of climate crisis, as my city has learned, is to take action 
before it is too late.
    Earlier this year, New York City passed its own Green New 
Deal, if you will, committing $14 billion in clean investments 
that will safeguard our communities and spur thousands of good-
paying jobs.
    And New York City is not alone. Just last week, New York 
State passed the most ambitious state-level climate legislation 
in the nation with the goal of decreasing our economy-wide 
greenhouse gas emissions by 85 percent by the year 2050. We are 
trying to do our part.
    So I applaud these recent achievements in New York City and 
New York State, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on this committee to accomplish similar climate 
action on the Federal level.
    Having said that, my first question is to Mr. Cohen. 
According to the EPA, emissions from transportation have 
actually been increasing since 2012. In fact, as of 2016, the 
transportation sector has officially become the single largest 
source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
    I find this deeply concerning. Do you share my concern? 
What do you believe are the greatest challenges and 
opportunities for vehicle electrification in the United States 
and what can Congress do to help encourage this transition?
    Mr. Cohen. So yes, it is a concern and, in fact, as 
electric power gets cleaner, obviously, the transportation 
wedge will be comparatively larger.
    So there are really two paths, right. There is 
electrification and then clean up the grid, and then there is 
some kind of fuel that you drop into a combustion engine, and I 
think we are going to need both.
    So my top line would be something like a low-carbon fuel 
standard that requires increasing shares of zero-carbon fuel 
for transportation throughout the country over time--give the 
industry time to adapt--and then put in the necessary RD&D 
dollars to make sure that those zero-carbon fuels are 
available.
    I think it could be technology neutral. It could be 
electricity. It could be hydrogen. It could be ammonia. It 
could be biofuels that are climate beneficial.
    But we need a market driver to make that happen. We can't 
conserve our way out of the transportation problem. Efficiency 
is good but it is not going to get us to zero.
    Ms. Clarke. It is my opinion that we don't simply need to 
build a clean future. Instead, we need to build a clean 
equitable future.
    New York State recently signed climate legislation attempts 
to move towards this goal by prioritizing new investments in 
disadvantaged communities and also by ensuring that no 
solutions are implemented which might increase the burden on 
low-income communities or communities of color.
    Dr. Cleetus, in your testimony today, you talked about the 
need for just and equitable socioeconomic transition. Can you 
speak a little more about what this means in terms of 
decarbonizing the economy and how do we ensure this massive 
transformation of the economy benefits all communities and does 
not continue to negatively impact low income communities and 
communities of color?
    Dr. Cleetus. We have an opportunity here as we address the 
climate crisis to make sure that we do it in a just and 
equitable way. In fact, that is the best way to address the 
climate crisis.
    Just last week, there was an equitable and just national 
climate platform that was released by a number of environmental 
justice and national environmental groups.
    It lays out some core principles that point out that as we 
address climate change we can cut and we should cut pollution 
directly in communities that have borne a disproportionate 
burden of our dependence on fossil fuels.
    Fence-line communities that are in the path of the 
smokestacks are seeing vehicle emissions in their communities 
that have led to high asthma rates and other cancers in their 
communities.
    So it is really, really fundamental and important that we 
aren't just talking about cutting emissions and technology 
changes but deep social economic changes that move us towards a 
more just society and address longstanding inequities.
    It is a big opportunity. There are lots of twofers. We can 
build low-carbon and climate-resilient infrastructure in these 
communities that will help protect people, clean up the air and 
water and make sure that they are full participants in a clean 
energy economy.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you. I yield back my time.
    And now the Chair recognizes the ranking member of the full 
committee, Mr. Walden, for five minutes to ask questions.
    Mr. Walden. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank all 
of our witnesses. We have two hearings going on simultaneously. 
So some of us have to bounce back and forth.
    Ms. Angielski, Republicans have been briefed by the 
Department of Energy on some of the exciting new technologies 
that are there to extract carbon from the atmosphere including 
one that would be a simple membrane to potentially remove 
carbon dioxide from coal emissions.
    What is necessary to accelerate development of those 
technologies and what do you think the impact could be of them?
    Ms. Angielski. So I think from an innovation standpoint I 
think that we could look at increasing some of the budgets that 
the Department of Energy currently receives for carbon capture.
    That would be on the research side. I think we also need 
larger budgets to accommodate and support the scale up and 
testing of those technologies at a commercial scale.
    We need to do some pilot work. We do have something called 
the National Carbon Capture Center that is operated by Southern 
Company and supported by DOE where we can test some of those 
technologies at a smaller scale.
    But we don't have that sort of mid-level scale testing 
capability. And so a lot of these technologies that are 
individual technologies are looking to partner at power plant 
sites.
    So if we were to have more test facilities and the Federal 
investment going into those scale-up opportunities, I think 
that we could really see some of these innovative technologies 
being accelerated in terms of commercialization.
    And I also just want to mention that there is one that is 
already operating on natural gas right now called NetPower that 
Karl Hausker referenced. But it is at that scale and size of 
testing that we really need to understand how these 
technologies are going to operate to be able to benefit from 
them.
    Mr. Walden. Can I ask each of you, and because of limited 
time we'll try and keep this short, but do you all believe that 
nuclear power is a key part of the solution here?
    Just sort of yes or no, if you could.
    Mr. Hausker. I will say yes. Both the existing plants have 
a role to play and I think with sufficient RD&D we could 
probably bring a new generation----
    Mr. Walden. You reference NuScale. Yes.
    Ms. Angielski. Members of CURC look at the diverse 
generation portfolio so that includes nuclear.
    Mr. Walden. Nuclear. And Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. Yes. But there is a lot of work to do.
    Mr. Walden. Right. Dr. Cleetus?
    Dr. Cleetus. Nuclear power can play a role but UCS has long 
been a nuclear safety watchdog and safety must be central----
    Mr. Walden. Of course.
    Dr. Cleetus [continuing]. To how we deploy nuclear power.
    Mr. Walden. Right. Of course.
    I want to go, too, to the fleet because transportation is 
such a big part of this. I think we are making gains on the 
power generation side and I hope, you know, we are all hopeful 
innovation will lead there.
    We have manufacturing issues to deal with on emissions. But 
what about the transportation fleet? And there are various 
proposals out there. Some call for, you know, raising the costs 
of driving, basically, with higher fuel taxes and all.
    Do you all support that sort of concept and, if so, what do 
you think that number needs to be on a per gallon cost?
    Mr. Hausker. If I can take the question a slightly 
different direction, which is, more broadly speaking, we need 
some kind of price on carbon as a sort of foundational policy 
to shift to the economy.
    That can be done through fees and taxes. That can be done 
through cap and trade. There is a very rich debate out there.
    Mr. Walden. Right.
    Mr. Hausker. But we need a price on carbon.
    Mr. Walden. All right.
    I just want to get each of you, briefly. I have got another 
question after that.
    Ms. Angielski. I won't comment on transportation fuels. 
It's just not within the mission.
    Mr. Walden. Not your deal. OK.
    Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. I would take a much more innovation-focused 
approach. I would sort of see if we can push technologies 
through the pipeline like I discussed to get the costs down so 
that the delta isn't as big.
    I think some evidence is that even if you had a fairly high 
carbon tax the economy probably wouldn't too much----
    Mr. Walden. So, you are not advocating for that----
    Mr. Cohen. Not----
    Mr. Walden [continuing]. For the vehicle fleet.
    Dr. Cleetus?
    Dr. Cleetus. To decarbonize the transportation sector we 
have got to address the vehicles, we have got to address the 
fuels, and we have got to address the infrastructure, including 
electrification infrastructure as well as building out mass 
transit.
    A carbon price alone will not help accomplish those goals. 
So we do need fuel economy standards, greenhouse gas standards. 
We need electric vehicle tax incentives. We need to be 
investing in the kind of infrastructure that'll help electrify 
as much of the electric fleet as possible.
    Mr. Walden. I want to ask about the agricultural sector as 
well. Some of the recommendations that have been put forth by 
some groups basically call for the elimination of cattle 
grazing because of cattle production.
    Do you all support that concept? I have only got 22 seconds 
for all of you so----
    Mr. Hausker. I don't think we should be just eliminating 
classes of food. There are other things we can do to be 
smarter.
    Mr. Walden. All right.
    Ms. Angielski. I am with CURC so I am going to pass.
    Mr. Walden. All right.
    Mr. Cohen. I am going to pass on that. We haven't looked at 
that deeply.
    Mr. Walden. All right.
    Dr. Cleetus. There are serious proposals for how we can cut 
emissions and how the agricultural sector can play a big role 
including through--for better soil management and agricultural 
practices to store carbon better in soils.
    Mr. Walden. What about cattle specific?
    Dr. Cleetus. I don't think that is actually a serious 
proposal. I think there are serious proposals out there and we 
should certainly explore them to help limit these emissions if 
we are serious about tackling climate change.
    Mr. Walden. Thank you, Doctor.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Clarke. The Chair recognizes Mr. Peters for five 
minutes to ask his questions at this time.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I want to say, first of all, I am very happy to have this 
hearing. I have been among a number of people who have been 
frustrated with the dominance of politics and the lack of 
solutions.
    Today it looks like we are actually having a discussion 
about a range of solutions to deal with this issue. I think it 
couldn't come soon enough.
    Also, I want to acknowledge that I think that the concerns 
raised by my Republican colleagues about foreign policy in 
India and China are 100 percent legitimate.
    We ought to be working on what we can do as a matter of 
foreign policy to discourage the implementation of the use of 
coal, in particular, but to encourage the use of renewables so 
that they come along with what we discover here.
    And I want to talk about two things. I am emphasizing, just 
briefly, on one is super pollutants. I mean, I think that one 
of the things that we have talked about here is that we know 
natural gas burns cleaner than coal.
    That is seen as an advantage. But if we lose the benefit 
because of methane emissions, I think, you know, we are hurting 
ourselves.
    And the opportunity in methane emissions and with all these 
short-lived super pollutants is that they are short-lived so 
that if you can keep them from getting into the atmosphere they 
don't persist like carbon dioxide.
    You can have a really quick impact--relatively quick impact 
on the rate of climate change. And so I think that is something 
that deserves a lot of emphasis here.
    But I want to talk a little bit about negative emissions 
technologies since I think almost all of you addressed that and 
it hasn't gotten a lot of attention.
    I address the first question to Mr. Cohen. One of the 
concerns about carbon capture technologies is that it is too 
expensive to implement on a large scale and, moreover, that the 
technology as it exists today doesn't work as advertised.
    Ms. Angielski talked about this a little bit. But can you 
discuss what carbon capture activities are currently taking 
place in the United States and what both industry and 
government are doing to bring down the costs of those carbon 
capture projects?
    Mr. Cohen. All right. I have global numbers, which is that 
globally there are now 18 fully commercial carbon capture units 
on industry and power around the world. I believe five are 
under construction and some 30 are--I am sorry, and then 20 are 
in the various stages of development.
    In the United States we have at least one very large-scale 
power example, Petra Nova Project near Houston. I took my board 
to see it. You know, you can see the CO2 pipe going in the 
ground. It is actually very instructive to actually say it is 
actually just a pipe and it's a bunch of--it is a bunch of 
chemical towers.
    So, clearly, we can do it. There are dozens of injection 
projects around the country to prove that we can keep it under 
ground.
    So the technology--I don't think there is any debate about 
that with currently technology we can do this and we can store 
it underground, and there has been lots of monitoring projects.
    The real challenge is bringing the costs down and that is 
just a question of really scale up. It is the solar and wind 
story, basically.
    Can you get--can you keep driving numbers and numbers and 
numbers to the point where, with the learning by doing, you get 
to a better price point?
    The company that did the project in Houston has said that 
they believe that if they did a second unit they could bring 
the cost down 30 percent just based on what they learned from 
the first unit.
    It is just a learning curve problem, in our view. So it is 
going be a lot of continued support probably from the Federal 
Government and from State Governments to just build that out 
and get to a point where we are in mass production.
    Mr. Peters. Ms. Angielski, I appreciate you mentioning the 
USE IT Act, which actually has been passed by the Senate and we 
could pass it--if we could pass it here in the House it would 
be great.
    Can you talk about the role of that in terms of advancing 
this technology and how you think that might be helpful?
    Ms. Angielski. So there is really two main components of 
that bill that I think are really interesting. One is that you 
are authorizing research at--for direct air capture as well as 
for carbon, if you capture carbon and you convert it into some 
other useful products.
    And so that, to me, would really help to accelerate those 
technologies, and as I said in my testimony, transform the way 
that we are currently using carbon and create it into 
marketable products, which is something that would really 
contribute to the deep, deep carbonization objectives that we 
are talking about.
    The other aspect of that bill would be to streamline 
permitting for projects and that would both for carbon capture 
project infrastructure, also as well for the pipelines that are 
needed to move around the CO2.
    Mr. Peters. Just for those people who are, maybe, not 
familiar with the technology, can you explain what the role of 
pipelines is in this sector? These are carbon dioxide pipes?
    Ms. Angielski. Sure. So once you--you need infrastructure 
to capture carbon dioxide from the industrial flue gas stream 
and once you capture it you have to do something with it.
    Mr. Peters. Right.
    Ms. Angielski. And so the most common way of moving CO2 is 
you pressurize it and you put it into a super critical state. 
So it is almost like a liquid fuel, and that typically is moved 
through pipelines.
    And as I mentioned in my testimony, we have about 4,500 
miles of carbon dioxide pipelines currently operating in this 
country. So we have existing infrastructure that we can tap 
into and----
    Mr. Peters. But it needs to be expanded, right? I am going 
to run out of time.
    Ms. Angielski. It does. Exactly.
    Mr. Peters. I will just say I look forward to someday even 
talking about what else we might do with that carbon. But for 
the time being, I yield back.
    Ms. Clarke. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Flores, for five minutes.
    Mr. Flores. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the 
panel for joining us today.
    One of the things we don't celebrate is where the United 
States actually is--where we come from and the point we have 
achieved today, and we have done it through innovation and 
through focus on conservation, resiliency, and preparation.
    And one of the things where I think we have been deficient 
is trying to figure out how to export that to the rest of the 
world and I think we need to do that.
    I will give you a personal example of where I am. I 
commissioned a solar system on my home in late 2009. That 
immediately reduced my net electricity usage by 40 percent, and 
from--since then, from 2013 to 2018, I just did a quick--I was 
looking at my power monitoring system--did a quick and dirty 
spreadsheet and I produced my net electricity usage by another 
42 percent and that is by switching to LED, tweaking the way 
our home automation system works, also tweaking the way we use 
our air conditioning and so forth.
    So, I mean, this is very achievable to do this. But and I--
we did that without any sort of government mandates or taxes. 
What we did it through was through conservation and innovation.
    And I think we need to think about that as we pursue this 
and I also agree we need to look at it on a technologically 
neutral basis.
    One of the things I didn't hear--I heard some about nuclear 
but I didn't really get the impression that there is as much 
enthusiasm about nuclear as I think we all need to look at.
    We are not going to produce baseload power, and I think it 
was, Mr. Cohen, you had the chart to show California's 
examples. We are not going to produce enough power on a cost-
effective basis by using 100 percent renewables.
    If we really want to have baseload power we need to look at 
nuclear. Another thing we need to look at is the land use 
impact of renewables.
    For instance, for every acre it takes to produce nuclear 
power it takes 3.5 acres to produce an equivalent amount of 
solar and it takes 5.7 to produce--acres to produce the same 
amount of wind and 25.3 acres to produce the same amount of 
hydro, and the only one of those that is conceivably close to 
being baseload is hydro.
    So we need to look, I think, more broadly, at nuclear. That 
is the reason we have the Advanced Nuclear Fuels Act to fuel 
the next generation of reactors that passed the House in the 
last Congress.
    It has also passed this committee and, hopefully, it'll 
pass the entire Congress to be signed by the president in this 
Congress.
    Mr. Walberg and Mr. Crenshaw and I introduced the LEADING 
Act. It incentivizes R&D and carbon capture technologies, and 
that allows us to fully harness the environmental benefits of 
America's vast natural gas resources.
    I do have some--you know, when we talk about the macro 
situation, look at the NASA Earth observatory Web site and it 
appears that total CO2 emissions from nature and man are--
humankind are 219 gigatons a year and the total sequestration 
is about 250 gigatons a year, which means we are emitting about 
4 gigatons a year into the atmosphere net that is not being 
sequestered.
    So when we talk about sequestration of that amount, I would 
like to get an idea from you all as the cost of sequestration 
today and where you think it'll be in 2050, if you are 
qualified to--if you feel comfortable talking about that.
    I would like to get the--get that answer in terms of trees 
and nature, direct atmospheric or air removal, and then CCUS 
from fossil fuels. Do you all have a feel for that cost today--
cost per ton for CO2 removal?
    Mr. Cohen. I think we can--well, I think Shannon can 
perhaps speak to the--for direct capture from flue gas. I 
guess, Shannon, I think--my guess is something in the range of 
$50 to $100 would be a fair--per ton would be a fair number.
    Ms. Angielski. At least the testimony that I provided--my 
written testimony refers to recent IEA analysis that looks at 
some of those costs and it's the break even cost for capture 
and storage application, and they range from--anywhere from $5 
U.S. per ton of CO2 that is stored upwards of $60.
    I would say that I think some people think that these 
numbers are somewhat low from practical application. But there 
is at least a range that you can look at and that is for carbon 
capture.
    And the gigaton scale that I mentioned in my testimony, 
that will be needed or at least projected by IEA that is needed 
to be captured and stored is--just for--from industrial uses is 
100 gigatons.
    That doesn't take into account other technologies that will 
contribute to that gigatons reduction that is needed.
    Mr. Flores. Yes. OK.
    Mr. Hausker, you talked about direct removal from the 
atmosphere or the air. What is the cost for that today and 
where--I know this is pie in the sky stuff but we know that we 
will--technology will bend the cost curve down. Where do you 
think that could be in 2050?
    Mr. Hausker. Some of the most recent engineering studies of 
what we could do with direct air captures is in the range of 
$200 per ton. I believe Professor David Keith recently issued a 
study.
    So yes, as we go to scale and learn on almost any 
technology, costs tend to come down. So it is very promising.
    Ms. Clarke. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Flores. Thank you.
    Ms. Clarke. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Barragan of 
California for five minutes to ask questions.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    I want to start the witnesses by being here today and for 
holding this hearing, which I think is so critically important. 
I was glad to see the committee yesterday make its announcement 
of moving forward on this--on this issue.
    You know, I happen to represent a district that is very 
working class, a district that is majority minority. It is the 
type of district that has been on the front lines of 
disproportionately being impacted by climate change and air 
pollution.
    And so to be able to see us address this in a way that is 
just and fair I think is so critically important. I want to 
start--my colleague started by saying he was concerned about 
the cost of what we were going to move forward with and harmful 
impacts of regulation, and I often tell people about the cost 
on people's lives.
    How do you put a price tag--how do you put a cost on the 
public health impacts that are being--that our families and 
that our communities are being negatively impacted on?
    In my district, we see cancer rates go up. We see asthma 
rates go up. As a matter of fact, the doctors' offices they 
keep the boxes of asthma inhalers just waiting for children to 
come by to give them out.
    And so, so critically important. My first question is, you 
know, my district is surrounded by three freeways and the Port 
of Los Angeles.
    Look at--Mr. Cohen, you provided some visual aids, and 
thank you for that. I am a visual learner.
    The emissions coming from the transportation sector--we had 
a hearing here not long ago about the administration's rolling 
back of the clean fuel standards.
    Maybe we can start with you, Mr. Cohen. Do you think that 
rolling these back is going to help us move in a positive 
direction to try to get to decarbonizing the economy?
    Mr. Cohen. Certainly not. It is moving us backwards. I 
would even argue that we need to move a great deal more forward 
and I suggested something like a low-carbon fuel standard that 
would address the fuel as well as the efficiency.
    But you mentioned the Port of Los Angeles and that is a 
good example of what can be done. The Port of Los Angeles has 
taken enormous efforts to electrify both the ships in berth as 
well as the landside vehicles to reduce emissions and they are 
also piloting hydrogen-powered freight at the Port.
    So those are two examples of where you could very 
concretely start to drive down local emissions from 
transportation.
    Ms. Barragan. Great. Thank you.
    Dr. Cleetus, maybe you can weigh in on the rollback of the 
administration's clean fuel standards.
    Dr. Cleetus. This administration's posture on climate 
change is egregious, from denying the science to rolling back 
all--pretty much all the important policies we had on the books 
to address climate change.
    It has been really deeply dismaying and does such a 
disservice to people around the country today and to our 
children and grandchildren.
    The fuel economy and emission standards are key. No other 
current federal policy is delivering greater global warming 
emission reductions than these standards. So it is a huge 
problem that the administration wants to roll those back.
    We need to keep them on the books. We need to set strong 
standards, going forward, to make sure that over time our 
vehicles are getting cleaner and cleaner, and this will also 
benefit consumers because it will save them money at the gas 
pump.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
    There was a lot of conversation about a carbon price--a 
carbon fee. Environmental justice groups have had a lot of 
concerns. I have some concerns about the impacts of that on 
low-income communities and it being a regressive tax.
    I am running low on time so I am not going to have an 
opportunity to ask more about that. But I do hope to follow up 
with you all about this because I often think that communities 
of color, low-income communities are not at the table to 
express their concerns on this and so would certainly like to 
hear more about what we can do. Are there ways to avoid that to 
get to where we need to get to.
    But what I want to spend my last few seconds here on is my 
district also has a lot of industrial areas. The Alameda 
Corridor is there. As I mentioned, the Port is there.
    I know one of you mentioned industrial areas at least in 
your testimony. What suggestions do you have for industrial 
areas like my district to get to decarbonize?
    Mr. Cohen. There are two major--I don't know exactly what 
the composition of your industries are but for cement, steel, 
petrochemicals there are two major things you can do--two huge 
levers.
    One is the--substituting another fuel input for the heat 
you need for these processes and, again, that can be zero-
carbon hydrogen or ammonia or other zero-carbon fuels. And then 
on the back end we need carbon capture, which will actually 
capture the other pollutants as well, not just carbon.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Clarke. The gentle lady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Carter of Georgia for five 
minutes to ask questions.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank all 
of you for being here. Certainly, an important subject, one 
that we all need to pay close attention to.
    I want start with you, Ms. Angielski. I am sorry if I 
butchered that. But nevertheless, carbon capture technology--we 
talked about that today and it is certainly something that is 
talked about quite often, and it certainly has a promising role 
in what we are trying to do to reduce emissions.
    I wanted to ask you, assuming that coal plants continue to 
come offline, and I suspect they will, and we will see more gas 
plants built not only because of the abundance but also because 
it is less emissions, if you will.
    Can the technology for carbon capture--can that be 
retrofitted onto existing plants?
    Ms. Angielski. It can. In fact, carbon capture technologies 
and what you are referring to is really primarily going to be 
called a post-combustion capture technology.
    Many of those technologies, as I mentioned earlier, are 
really agnostic to the source of the CO2. It is just the 
concentration of the CO2 in that flue gas that needs to be 
accommodated in that capture equipment.
    So you are just going to modify slightly the sorbent or 
solvent that is inside the equipment in order to capture it on 
gas plants, for example, or coal plants. So there is a leverage 
in investment opportunity. As importantly, they can be used in 
other industries.
    So as Armond mentioned, we are going to need it, carbon 
capture in other industrial applications. So----
    Mr. Carter. How much do you capture?
    Ms. Angielski. It depends on the technology. Some of these 
technologies can capture almost up to 99 to almost all of the 
CO2 emissions that come out of a fuel gas stream.
    It is really a question of what the cost is to capture that 
must of the CO2 from just a process perspective. But the 
capability is there to achieve sort of a net zero emission.
    Mr. Carter. OK. Good.
    In my district--in the 1st District of Georgia on the coast 
of Georgia--we have got a large manufacturer, Mitsubishi 
Hitachi Power Systems--and they manufacture gas turbines.
    I have been out there visit them. Very impressive what they 
do. It is an exceptional business and exceptional company, and 
they are the most efficient gas turbines in the world that they 
are building out there.
    And as they continue their research and development and 
they get even better, they'll become more efficient, and when 
we are replacing older coal fire or gas fire boilers as well as 
older gas turbines with these new more efficient gas turbines, 
the ones that can cut CO2 emissions by nearly 70 percent, how 
much carbon capture technology can we fit into the gas plant 
model? Can we fit that in there?
    Ms. Angielski. There are a variety of different approaches 
that can be pursued with natural gas generation. Some of them 
are process technologies where you would--the turbine would be 
part of the overall energy conversion platform.
    So we had mentioned earlier NetPower--something called the 
alum cycle. That is one natural gas technology that would, in 
its own right, be very highly efficient and then it just--a 
byproduct of that process is carbon capture already at 
pressure. So it just needs to be put into a pipeline and 
stored.
    There are other technologies like we just mentioned that 
are post-combustion technology. So even with a very highly 
efficient gas plant, like you said, you may have a 70 percent 
emissions reduction from what you might be replacing that with. 
But you are still going to be emitting some amount of CO2----
    Mr. Carter. OK. All right. Great.
    Ms. Angielski [continuing]. And you can still capture CO2 
from those plants.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Cohen, I want to get to you very quickly 
before my time runs out because I wanted to ask you, you made--
in your testimony you said the American grid is a third carbon 
free between wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro.
    And in the state of Georgia just north of my district we 
are the only place in the country that is building two nuclear 
reactors at this time. So I feel like nuclear is a big part of 
what we--what our future holds in the way of clean energy.
    And I just wanted to ask you, do you think we should be 
placing more of an emphasis on nuclear power, especially when 
you consider stability in its output?
    Mr. Cohen. Yes, absolutely. I actually sit on the board of 
an organization called the Nuclear Innovation Alliance that has 
exactly that objective.
    There is a lot of work to do in terms of cheaper, faster, 
and more efficient reactors. We won't go into the Georgia 
situation. There were some important lessons learned.
    Mr. Carter. Right. Yes.
    Mr. Cohen. Yes, that--we absolutely--having that in our 
toolkit would be an enormous step forward.
    Mr. Carter. And you are right, there is a lot of work left 
to do. But I would submit that perhaps the biggest work left 
for us to do and the largest obstacle and barrier for us to get 
over is just public acceptance of it.
    And how do we do that?
    Mr. Cohen. Well, I think cost is going to be an issue, too. 
I think we need to prove that we can bring these things on time 
and at budget or anywhere close to budget.
    But I do think public acceptance is important. I do think 
that is changing, by the way. You know, my generation probably 
was inclined against the technology.
    I talk to younger people who think climate is way more 
important than whatever concern they might have around the 
nuclear technology. I think it is shifting very rapidly.
    Mr. Carter. I hope you are right.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Ms. Clarke. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentle lady from California is now recognized, Ms. 
Matsui, for five minutes to ask questions.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I am 
really pleased that this committee is holding this hearing to 
explore the many areas in which we can make progress in 
reducing emissions and combating the climate crisis.
    And I must say, this was brought up before. But I think we 
know that one primary contributor to greenhouse gas emissions 
that is a particular concern and importance to all of us, 
especially me, is the transportation sector.
    It is all around us. We know it. It is the largest single 
source of greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation emissions 
from heavy duty vehicle, passenger cars, and shipping, aviation 
will continue to rise and plague our cities with poor air 
quality.
    We have discussed it before. There are pragmatic and 
achievable solutions to significantly reduce emissions across 
the board, something I have consistently worked with.
    For instance, my bills, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act 
and the one that I am really concerned about now--the Clean and 
Efficient Cars Act--which really does ensure that we keep the 
standards in place as far as fuel economy and greenhouse gas 
emissions, and I really think that those are sort of the low-
hanging fruit, and I think those are the kinds of things that 
we ought to keep focusing on.
    There are other things too that I want to talk about, too, 
and buildings electrification. I think that we can--we need to 
make real progress in reducing emissions and electrification of 
buildings.
    Net zero buildings--buildings that utilize a combination of 
strategies to consume only as much energy as can be produced on 
site through renewable resources--have tremendous potential in 
solving the climate crisis.
    My local utility, the Sacramento Municipal Utility 
District, otherwise known as SMUD, is doing great works toward 
greening our buildings by incentivizing the switch from gas to 
electric to perform functions such as heating and drying.
    We should be encouraging that type of transition across the 
country and throughout the private sector.
    Mr. Cohen, are there adequate policies and programs in 
place at the Federal level to incentivize the electrification 
of buildings, particularly within the private sector?
    Mr. Cohen. I don't consider myself an expert in that area. 
I am not aware of any broad policies. I know there is some R&D 
focused on improving the technology, for example, for ground 
source heat pumps and that sort of thing.
    Ms. Matsui. Is anyone else aware of it?
    Dr. Cleetus. At this point, most of building codes and 
building standards stand to be at the local and state level. We 
do not yet have strong uniform federal standards across the 
board and the opportunity here is not just to make buildings 
efficient and electrified, and the opportunity is also to make 
them climate resilient in the process, especially in the way--
in the face of the extreme weather events that we have been 
facing.
    Huge opportunities are built here in private sector as well 
as in public housing where communities of color and low-income 
communities are particularly at risk when extreme weather 
events affect these buildings.
    Ms. Matsui. So this is an opportunity for housing advocates 
to be involved in this too, you know, as far as climate 
solutions and----
    Dr. Cleetus. Absolutely. Climate change touches everything 
in our economy and our society and there is a real opportunity 
here to lean in on the building sector in terms of becoming 
more efficient and low carbon.
    Ms. Matsui. Right. I know we've been talk about carbon 
capture an awful lot, and I think that seems to be the buzzword 
now today.
    I think the National Academies of Science has reported last 
year that United States should launch a substantial research 
initiative to advance carbon dioxide removal through a full 
suite of approaches such as reforestation and soil management 
as well as scalable approaches like direct air capture and 
carbon mineralization.
    Now, we are seeing states across the country launch carbon 
capture programs. For instance, California Air Resources Board 
last fall adopted amendments to our low-carbon fuel standard 
program to include a new CSS protocol that enable a wider 
deployment of CSS technology.
    Mr. Hausker, how critical will a new research and 
development program on carbon dioxide removal be to meeting our 
climate objectives? Is this something we should be considering 
down the road or is it time now for us to invest and develop 
these technologies?
    Mr. Hausker. It is time now to invest again, depending on 
what stage a particular technology is at. There may be a role 
for R&D at the Federal Government or for support through a tax 
mechanism like 45Q.
    But as I emphasize in my--in my testimony, we can't wait 
until 2030 or 2040 to fully commercialize this. We need to act 
aggressively now.
    Ms. Matsui. So as you look at the future emissions 
trajectories, how important are scalable carbon dioxide removal 
approaches like direct air capture be to meeting our climate 
objectives? Is this an approach that is gradual and we are 
starting it now?
    Mr. Hausker. We don't need to begin direct air capture now. 
We simply need to put in motion the forces that will let us 
begin to deploy it in the 2040-2050 range.
    It is highly likely to be needed to remove carbon dioxide 
from the air in the mid-century range.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. That is fine. Thank you very much.
    I just really feel also that we have things that we can do 
today that we should keep doing and, you know, we can't just 
wait for that.
    Mr. Hausker. Absolutely. Absolutely.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Fine. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Ms. Clarke. The gentle lady from California yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, 
Mr. Duncan, for five minutes to ask questions.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to put 
our first slide up, please.
    All right. So this is the picture, and if you will take a 
look at it, it is just to make a point. But it shows a diesel-
powered van pulling a gasoline-powered generator plugged into 
an electric vehicle that has run out of juice.
    And the reason I put this up there is just to remind 
everyone that electricity has to be produced somehow. If we 
want to have more electrical vehicles on the road to lessen the 
carbon footprint, that electricity has got to be produced 
somehow.
    So it can be produced through a lot of different methods. 
Nuclear power that Mr. Cohen has talked about, and we are going 
to go back to that, by the way. Hydroelectric power, but there 
is a lot of Californians on this committee and good luck 
building a hydroelectric dam in California under their 
policies.
    Good luck building another hydroelectric project in this 
country under the current EPA rules and regulations. I think it 
is going to be very difficult.
    You have got coal-fired power plants. You have got natural 
gas-fired power plants. You have got wind, solar. You have got 
small-modular reactors that can come online.
    There is a lot of different ways to produce electricity and 
I truly am an all-of-the-above guy. I love wind and solar. I 
think it is groovy technology. I love the prospect of 
hydroelectric cars, hydrogen-powered cars. All these things.
    But I also know that our economy demands a 24/7/365 
baseload power supply, and let us just accept the understanding 
that the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always 
shine and that those renewables are intermittent.
    And so because of the intermittency they have to be 
supplemented by something that will provide the 24/7 baseload 
power supply that Americans demand. Not just American 
manufacturing but Americans.
    They like their refrigerator to have cold drinks in it. 
They like to have warm homes, cool homes, et cetera.
    But we see, you know, the trend sort of shifting. There is 
a city in California now that is banning natural gas. And so 
they are not going to allow in new homes or new businesses to 
have natural gas to power their HVAC units or possibly to power 
their stoves to cook on.
    So Berkeley is actually moving their constituents toward 
more expensive and less efficient energy sources for their 
homes. HVACs that are powered by electricity are less 
efficient. Electricity is more expensive than natural gas and 
the stoves are less efficient and electricity is more 
expensive.
    So thinking about electrical generation, let us shift gears 
and put the second slide up. I want to talk about nuclear 
energy and the important role it plays in the all-of-the-above 
energy matrix.
    Now, my home state of South Carolina has seven nuclear 
power reactors. They produce 95 percent of the state's 
emission-free electricity, 53 percent of our total electricity.
    In my district, Oconee Nuclear Station has three nuclear 
reactors. Let's just talk about one of those. Three nuclear 
reactors provide 2,550 megawatts of carbon-free continuous 
always-on power for South Carolina and North Carolina.
    If we replace the Oconee Nuclear Station, which uses less 
than two square miles, with solar it would require 107 square 
miles of land, nearly four times the size of our largest city 
in upstate Greenville.
    If we replace Oconee Nuclear Station with wind power, that 
will require over 854 square miles of land. That is more land 
than the entire county of Anderson, my largest county in my 
district.
    So this slide shows how you would replace one nuclear 
reactor that is 1,154 megawatts with wind. It would take 2,077 
windmills and there are 2,077 windmills on this graph. Two 
thousand seventy-seven windmills, 2 megawatt wind generators, 
to replace one solar reactor.
    Think about the land mass that that would take to provide 
the wind power for that one reactor. Nuclear power is emission-
free.
    Mr. Cohen, how can we further more nuclear power to lessen 
our carbon emission as part of this energy matrix?
    Mr. Cohen. Yes, that is probably a subject for another 
hearing. I would just say there are three things. One is let us 
get on with the RD&D demonstration of the next generation of 
reactors that will be less expensive and faster to build.
    Secondly, we need to address the U.S. waste problem and--
well, those two would be a good running start.
    Mr. Duncan. You mentioned earlier some of the things that 
are hampering nuclear power. In South Carolina, we were 
building two more nuclear reactors and the company had to stop 
because regulations by the government during the construction 
process--not during the permit approval process, during the 
construction process--changed so much that the cost went up, 
and that had to be mothballed. So now we are not having that 
nuclear power generation to meet our future electrical needs.
    How do we overcome the regulatory environment within a 
cost-benefit application that will support the growth of the 
nuclear industry?
    Mr. Cohen. We have been supporting, you know, much more 
performance-based regulation. I do think the situation in South 
Carolina is a little more complicated than that. It is probably 
the subject of another hearing. There is a lot of blame to go 
around on that. I think----
    Mr. Duncan. In the five-minute we have to--you know, you 
can't be that complicated in five minutes.
    Ms. Clarke. The gentleman's time----
    Mr. Cohen. I don't think the NRC--I don't think the NRC 
bears all the blame in that situation.
    Ms. Clarke. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
    Ms. Clarke. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Florida, Mr. Soto, for five minutes to ask questions.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    We are here today--like with our press conference yesterday 
we are here to act on climate and get to 100 percent clean 
energy by 2050, and that is going to take reducing carbon 
emissions to net zero.
    So we know the goals. We have been told by various 
scientific groups like the Center for Climate and Energy 
Solutions there are four main elements to decarbonization.
    One, transition to low-carbon electricity system; two, 
reduce emissions from transportation, buildings, industrial 
sectors; three, to deploy negative emissions measures; and 
four, to reduce non-COT greenhouse gas emissions.
    So I just want to ask all the panellists first do you all 
agree with these basic elements? Is this the recipe to get us 
to 100 percent clean energy by 2050?
    And we will start from left to right.
    Mr. Hausker. CCES is a great group and that's a great 
report you cited. Their four strategies sort of overlap with 
the four strategies I mention in my testimony. But it is not 
inconsistent.
    Everything I said was focused on the energy sector and CO2 
but they highlight the need to reduce the non-CO2 emissions, 
which are also sometimes called super pollutants, and Armond 
has discussed those today.
    Mr. Soto. So do you believe that's a basic recipe? We may 
argue over which is more prioritized.
    Mr. Hausker. It is a good recipe. It is an equally good 
framing as the one that I set out.
    Ms. Angielski. I can comment that yes, we can transition to 
a low-carbon electric grid.
    Mr. Soto. Would you say that this is a comprehensive list 
of the four elements that we need to work on regardless of what 
priority everybody may have of these elements?
    Ms. Angielski. Yes, in looking at the sources of CO2, 
absolutely.
    Mr. Soto. Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. That's a complete solution, sir.
    Mr. Soto. Dr. Cleetus, is this the four--is this the recipe 
right here?
    Dr. Cleetus. So that is the technological solutions--that 
we have to address this as a deep socioeconomic change as well. 
So we need just transition investments in communities that are 
going to be affected as we transition away from fossil fuels.
    We need policies that will center equity and how we deal 
with climate change and we have a political challenge here in 
the United States as well as globally.
    So these are--this is not just a technological problem. But 
yes, those are the core elements of decarbonizing the economy, 
which needs a whole suite of other changes alongside.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you, Dr. Cleetus. And we will worry about 
the political challenges right here on this committee. But I 
appreciate you bringing them up.
    I wanted to follow up on some line of questioning that 
Representative Peters has already discussed with regard to 
negative emissions, trying to reduce carbon in the atmosphere 
already. Could each of you give me one strategy that you would 
recommend since that seems to be one of the--one of the areas 
that we aren't as aggressive on yet?
    Mr. Hausker. I will just mention one and I am sure my 
colleagues will mention the others is through improved 
forestry, planting of trees, and agricultural changes, we can 
store--we can enhance the sequestration of CO2 in forests. And 
so----
    Mr. Soto. So forestry and--sorry, my time is limited--
forestry and more trees. I totally agree. Next.
    Ms. Angielski. I would say direct air capture is another 
pathway.
    Mr. Soto. Direct air capture. I think that covers it.
    OK. Dr. Cleetus?
    Dr. Cleetus. Yes. The natural solutions are ones that we 
should prioritize, recognizing that climate change itself is 
affecting our natural sync.
    We have seen a record heat wave in Alaska this year, for 
example, every time we have wildfires. If permafrost starts to 
melt, that natural sync is getting eroded. So we need to keep 
that in mind.
    Mr. Soto. Thank you. I also wanted to correct a 
misstatement that was made so far on the committee. There were 
turbine graphics that were put up that were based upon two 
megawatt wind turbines, and we now have 12 megawatt wind 
turbines offshore. So I think it is important to correct the 
record on that.
    I want to end by talking about some of the themes that we 
talked about yesterday in committee. First, we have to trust 
the science as best we can and help it lead us to the 
solutions. I think that is actually easier than the second 
part, which is building consensus.
    But it is absolutely critical that we build consensus. We 
are getting tugged from every which way politically around 
here, and we are not going to please every single person in the 
Congress.
    But we need a working majority of Democrats and Republicans 
who are going to come together to get a bill that will--a slate 
of bills that will get us to this 100 percent clean energy in 
2050, and the only thing we can't afford to do is inaction.
    We have to act on climate. And so thank you, Chairwoman, 
for the opportunity and I yield back.
    Mr. Tonko [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
    And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West 
Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for five minutes.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I agree with the panel and all of the people here about 
the United States must do its part to decrease greenhouse gas 
emissions.
    But we have got to keep in mind this is a global issue and 
not one confined to the United States. An MIT report that I 
have a copy of here--MIT report came out that says it matters 
little to the global environment what the United States does to 
decarbonize its economy.
    If emissions in China and India continue to go unabated, 
coastal cities in the United States will still flood. 
Wildfires, droughts, and storms will continue.
    So it is not going to fall entirely on the United States. I 
also appreciate the potential for renewables. But they are 
currently limited. Even Secretary Moniz expressed his doubts in 
remarks he made earlier this year.
    He said as recently as February--he said 100 percent 
renewables by 2015 is not realistic and certainly not cost 
effective. Then followed with that, a study by Wood Mackenzie 
calculated that for us to go to 100 percent renewables and have 
the cleanest energy possible we would require 900 gigawatts of 
battery storage. Nine hundred gigawatts of battery storage.
    Now, what do we have now? Totally around the globe we only 
have 5\1/2\ gigawatts battery storage. But we need just in 
America alone 900.
    So meanwhile, the rest of the world still has this 
voracious appetite for coal because it's cheap and easy to 
make. IEA says that they are still going to mount--by 2040 they 
are still--75 percent of the power is going to come from fossil 
fuels.
    So I think I go back to remarks that were made earlier. 
America has the capacity and the wherewithal to innovate, to 
lead in innovation, and that means putting significantly more 
money into carbon capture--significantly more money.
    And I would include too on that, Dr. Hausker, I think they 
need to look at how we are going to spend biologically in 
phytoplankton as part of that. So I want to come back to you on 
that.
    So in so doing, if we can capture--if we can lead again on 
this, we can then export this technology to the other nations 
and help them out.
    So if I could go to Ms. Angielski, I have given you some 
quotes from Secretary Moniz. Was he right?
    Ms. Angielski. With respect to renewables--is that what 
you're referring to?
    Mr. McKinley. Yes.
    Ms. Angielski. You know, I don't want to comment on the 
capability of renewables technology but I will say that I do--I 
think there are issues that haven't been discussed with respect 
to going to 100 percent renewables, and you touched on them, 
which is the capability of storage technologies and the 
environmental sustainability as well.
    Mr. McKinley. Do you agree with MIT's assessment?
    Ms. Angielski. Yes.
    Mr. McKinley. That the--that the reliance of India and 
China is putting the globe at risk? It is not the United States 
because we are already decreasing our CO2 emissions.
    Ms. Angielski. Correct.
    Mr. McKinley. Would you agree?
    Ms. Angielski. So I would agree.
    Mr. McKinley. And do you--what about Wood Mackenzie's 
report about the--so you have a concern too then about the 
amount of battery storage and batter capabilities?
    Ms. Angielski. Battery storage. Right.
    Well, one thing that we don't talk about is where we get 
the materials for those batteries and how we have to mine them 
and develop them, and the greenhouse gas profile or the 
environmental sustainability of those.
    So, potentially, the subject of another hearing but 
certainly that in and of itself could present a geopolitical 
challenge as well.
    Mr. McKinley. There was a question--I think it was Mr. 
Carter, perhaps, asked it or someone down on my left--asked 
about whether we could retrofit. And so the question I was 
hoping someone would speak up on this--so let me--I will ask 
the question a slightly different way.
    How would the New Source Review reform--New Source Review 
reform--how would it impact retrofitting for carbon capture 
technology? What do we--do we need some New Source Review 
reform?
    Ms. Angielski. So I will refer really to the Petra Nova 
project, which really had to face that potential challenge when 
they were retrofitting their existing coal plants with this 
carbon capture system.
    They decided in order to not open up their existing permit 
which would then trigger New Source Review they decided to 
build a separate power plant to power that facility.
    That model is not likely something that can be replicated 
by every coal-fire power plant or natural gas-fired power plant 
in this country. So potentially that could be a deterrent for 
retrofitting with carbon capture.
    Mr. McKinley. I have got one quick question back to Dr. 
Hausker.
    Are we spending enough money biologically to try to do some 
engineering work in phytoplankton?
    Mr. Hausker. Are you referring to algae-based biofuels, 
sir?
    Mr. McKinley. No, just in the oceans. The phytoplankton--
you understand its role, right?
    Mr. Hausker. I am sorry. I am not sure if you are talking 
about the production of biofuels or if you are talking about--
--
    Mr. McKinley. No, I am talking about phytoplankton in the 
oceans.
    Mr. Hausker. As a--as a sequestration option?
    Mr. McKinley. It is the--sorry. Fifty percent of the oxygen 
through the sink process--the photosynthesis process comes 
through phytoplankton as much as trees, shrubs, grass, and 
everything else.
    So I was a little surprised--we need to be focusing more on 
what we are going to do in the oceans to be able to increase 
the phytoplankton content so that we can increase their CO2 
capture.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Hausker. Yes. I am not an expert on that so I don't 
know the potential for increase in ocean sequestration as you 
describe. But I would be happy to get back to you if I can find 
some expert----
    Mr. McKinley. Please, if you could. Thank you.
    Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Colorado, Ms. 
DeGette, for five minutes.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    This is a really important hearing and I have been watching 
the testimony and the questioning of the witnesses.
    We have all talked about the fact that climate science 
indicates we need to cut net global greenhouse gas emissions in 
half in 10 years and then reduce the net emissions to zero in 
30 years or we will expose our children, grandchildren, and 
their children to great risk.
    I think all of us agree that the science is important and 
we need to do this. But it's not going to be easy.
    So I want to ask some questions to you about the science. 
First of all, for everybody, do you agree that many of the 
technologies that we are going to need for these emission cuts 
are either commercially available or approaching commercial 
availability?
    Mr. Hausker?
    Mr. Hausker. Yes, I think there is a wide range of 
technologies. Yes.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. How about you, Dr. Cleetus?
    Dr. Cleetus. Absolutely yes.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. And how about you, Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. Yes.
    Ms. DeGette. And how about you, Ms. Angielski?
    Ms. Angielski. Yes.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. So all of you agree that we have those 
technologies available and they are becoming more cost 
effective, I think.
    I wanted to ask you something that is kind of looming out 
there for people like me who are trying to work in a bipartisan 
way on climate legislation and that's this. We have all been 
talking about this goal of zero by 2050. Could we do zero 
technologically and economically within 10 years?
    And I will start with you, Mr. Hausker.
    Mr. Hausker. I think it would be extremely difficult and 
expensive to go to net zero in 10 years.
    Ms. DeGette. And would it have severe societal 
ramifications?
    Mr. Hausker. I think it would--it would be very costly and 
I think there would be push back.
    Ms. DeGette. What about you, Ms. Angielski? What is your 
view?
    Ms. Angielski. What I would say is that the capability 
exists to get to net zero, which I think was your first 
question.
    Ms. DeGette. In 10 years?
    Ms. Angielski. But the time frame is questionable, as I 
think Dr. Hausker said. I mean, what we really need to do is 
innovate more to help improve the technology and reduce costs, 
instead of putting a time frame of 10 years on it might not be 
practical.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. And what is your view, Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. Technically possible, economically challenging.
    Ms. DeGette. And are you aware of any studies that would 
show the cost?
    Mr. Cohen. Of the accelerations of moving the----
    Ms. DeGette. Right.
    Mr. Cohen. I am not but I can look into that.
    Ms. DeGette. If you can I would appreciate that.
    Dr. Cleetus, what is your view on this?
    Dr. Cleetus. Ten years will be deeply challenging. But what 
we have to get moving right away and get as far as we can in 
that 10 years because the science is really sobering.
    Ms. DeGette. I totally agree with you and, in fact, you 
know, in my state of Colorado, some of you probably know we did 
this renewable energy standard and the power companies totally 
opposed it and so we had to do it by ballot initiative and then 
we were able to achieve the goals in just a few years.
    And so we actually went back in and increased it 
legislatively with the support of all of the energy companies. 
So it is the kind of thing if we get started now we may be able 
to increase it.
    But what we are trying to think about is what kind of 
reasonable legislation can we pass to make that happen and I am 
wondering when you all say it would be technologically feasible 
but very expensive what kinds of things would we have to do to 
reach that in 10 years?
    Dr. Hausker?
    Mr. Hausker. I think I can throw some light on that. A lot 
of it is related to capital stock turnover and different 
things--different important pieces of energy-using equipment 
have different lifetimes. A car may have a lifetime of 15 
years.
    A water heater may have a life of 10 years. A building may 
have a life of a hundred years. An industrial plant. So the way 
to decarbonize effectively but not incur really huge costs is 
to try to use our existing capital stock and when it turns over 
that's when you go with the very efficient zero-carbon----
    Ms. DeGette. I got you. I have no idea how much time I have 
left. So I have one more question, if I may, Madam Chair.
    Is my time up?
    Ms. Clarke [presiding]. Your time has expired.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. Well, the question I have, which I'd like 
a written answer, to everybody is a lot of people talk about 
natural gas as a bridge fuel to get to zero carbon.
    The question I'd like you to give me an answer in writing 
is that's only a bridge fuel if we deal with the methane, as 
near as I can understand, because if you don't deal with the 
methane then you're not going to be able to get carbon capture.
    With that, I will yield back. And I apologize. I don't know 
what's going on with the----
    Ms. Clarke. The gentle lady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
McNerney, for five minutes to ask questions.
    Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chair and I thank the panelists 
for testifying this morning.
    The warming of the planet is accelerating and I am 
convinced that we are going to blow past the two degrees 
Celsius increase, exceeding the limits that the IPCC is calling 
for no matter what we do in terms of carbon emission 
reductions.
    Consequently, we need to be looking at all the potential 
tools in our climate solution toolbox including funding 
research for climate intervention and geoengineering. Given the 
complexity of the climate system and the risks that are 
associated with interfering in it, how do you think the U.S. 
Government should field a research on climate intervention, 
starting with Dr. Hausker and going down?
    Mr. Hausker. It merits some--it merits some research. It is 
a very controversial area, however.
    Ms. Angielski. This is not something that I have studied so 
I can't comment on this. I'll defer to my colleagues.
    Mr. Cohen. Research in two areas is required. One is the 
physical systems and also we need to think really about 
governance--what would you do if you actually had these 
technologies to deploy.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Dr. Cleetus. Cutting emissions and investing in climate 
resilience have to be our first line solutions here. But given 
where we are from a climate perspective, it is appropriate for 
us to have a better understanding of the risks and potential of 
things like geoengineering.
    However, we oppose any deployment of the technology at this 
point. There are too many risks associated with it, too many 
unknowns.
    We think there is a role for small-scale experiments but 
only if accompanied by very strong governance regimes to make 
sure that all of the risks are being appropriately accounted 
for.
    At this point, the U.S. government has stepped so far away 
from its responsibilities in terms of resilience and cutting 
emissions that we do not think that under the current 
administration it would be a responsible move to deflect 
attention towards this type of a technology development right 
now.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you, and I agree. We don't know enough 
about the science to decide one way or the other right now if 
geoengineering is appropriate and we need to invest to make the 
science available so that we will understand what the 
consequences and risks are.
    Mr. Cohen, direct emissions, which are from industry, make 
the industrial sector the third largest source of greenhouse 
gas emissions. It is also one of the hardest to decarbonize.
    Currently, the greatest impediments to commercializing, 
deploying, and eventually what are the biggest impediments to 
moving to decarbonizing the industrial sector?
    Mr. Cohen. Well, it is--let me start with the solutions. I 
mean, really, there are two main problems or two main sources 
of CO2 from industry. There is the process heat on the front 
end and that is provided by fossil fuels today--unabated fossil 
fuels--and then there is inherent CO2 coming out the back end 
for things like steel and cement production.
    So, as I said earlier, the two major solution pathways 
would be to substitute a high-temperature source of heat for 
the fossil fuels and that could be from nuclear--from high-
temperature nuclear. It could be from a hydrogen manufactured 
from a number of sources, and then on the back end, carbon 
capture.
    The impediment right now to implementing those are actually 
not technical. We have got demonstrations of both of those 
technologies in place on large industrial facilities around the 
world.
    It's going to be driving the costs down and making them 
really a feasible--economically feasible solution for those big 
heavy industries.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I spent a career developing wind energy 
technology and I see renewables being significant in the sense 
that you can overproduce energy and renewables and then you 
have periods where there is no production, and the 
overproduction you could create hydrogen by breaking water.
    There is things that we can do. I think the efficiency--the 
round trip efficiency of breaking water and then burning 
hydrogen is not what we need it to be. But there is----
    Mr. Cohen. That is one pathway. The only caution I would 
put on that is that you have maybe some of the same issues with 
intermittence on the grid that you would have with 
electrolysis. That is, you build an electrolysis plant if 
you're running it at very low capacity because you are relying 
only on variable sources of energy might have some issues. But 
in principle, yes, renewable energy can be a hydrogen source.
    Mr. McNerney. Ms. Angielski, is there a economic method to 
create carbon fiber from carbon dioxide?
    Ms. Angielski. I am not intimately familiar with carbon 
fiber production but, certainly, there are research programs 
underway at DOE at looking at novel markets like carbon fibers, 
for example, and converting that CO2 into marketable products. 
So I am aware of companies are investing in the development of 
that but at the scale that would be needed to really store CO2 
in those fibers I am not on exactly where they are with that 
right now.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Clarke. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Michigan, 
Mrs. Dingell, for five minutes to ask questions.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I want to 
thank Chairman Tonko for holding this hearing. I want to thank 
all the witnesses for being here because I do think we really 
are at a critical moment in our human history.
    The planet is warming. The ice is melting. The seas are 
rising. We are seeing the heat waves. I really felt it with 111 
degrees and no air conditioning this weekend.
    The droughts, floods, and wildfires are ravaging our 
communities and nobody can deny we are seeing the hurricanes. 
And the one thing we do have agreement on all of our best and 
brightest scientists agree the climate is changing with every 
amount of carbon that is being emitted across the economy.
    So I just want to say we have got to find the will and we 
have got to do it together. So it means all the stakeholders, 
all the industry, and there are a lot of complicated issues.
    I am a car girl and I will always be proud of being a car 
girl, and transportation industry is a part of this not only in 
the United States but in it worldwide, and I am not--don't have 
enough time even to ask questions about what is happening here 
versus other countries who are really taking that on.
    But I think every great human achievement begins with a 
goal and the goal for the moment, I think, is 100 by '50, 
meaning we set a course to achieve--it's a goal to set 100 
percent clean energy economy by 2050.
    I am working on a bill with my colleague, Mr. McEachin, and 
others that will establish 100 percent clean energy economy 
goal by 2050 and we hope to introduce the legislation soon.
    But I want to ask some questions because everybody says 
it's ambitious, and then I do have young people that are in my 
district office and everyplace I am going telling me we are not 
being ambitious enough soon enough.
    And it is--you know, we need to have the vision, a goal, 
and how do we get there as fast as we can.
    First, a quick question to all of you. A quick yes or no 
from the panel. Do you believe with American ingenuity and 
spirit we can find the collective will to get there?
    Dr. Hausker?
    Mr. Hausker. Absolutely, yes.
    Ms. Angielski. Yes.
    Mr. Cohen. Yes.
    Dr. Cleetus. We can and we must.
    Mrs. Dingell. That is great. OK.
    Dr. Cleetus, I am going to ask you some questions. Can you 
reiterate why it's so critical, as you just had in your passion 
again set a 100 by '50 goal today and why it is so urgent?
    Dr. Cleetus. It's urgent because of the climate impacts we 
are already feeling at one degree Celsius right now. As you 
pointed out, the terrible heat waves that we are seeing, the 
wildfires, the flooding, the intensified storms--this points 
out to us that we are already paying the costs of climate 
change.
    We have heard several Congress people today point out that 
making a clean energy transition will come with some investment 
costs. But those costs pale in comparison to runaway climate 
change.
    We need to address this problem because we owe it to our 
children and grandchildren. Those young people who are urging 
us to be ambitious, this is about the world we are leaving 
them.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen, I am going to ask you these questions. I am 
going to--because I do come from Michigan, I am going to do 
electric vehicles. With the rollout of more and more electric 
vehicles, how would electrifying the transportation sector help 
us achieve a net zero carbon pollution by 2050?
    Mr. Cohen. Well, clearly, if we are decarbonizing the grid 
at the same time we are doing that we are going to be reducing 
net carbon. That is, obviously, a great step forward.
    Mrs. Dingell. How do we accelerate the rollout of electric 
vehicles and the need for the infrastructure? I have heard all 
of you--not all of you but some--express concern about the 
battery capability.
    There is no consumer confidence in the electric vehicles 
and we are not building the grid we need to do to build it. 
It's a chicken and egg. What do we need to do?
    Mr. Cohen. So, well, the first thing I think we need to do 
is think about increasing the penetration of both electric 
vehicle take-up and the charging infrastructure.
    But as I said earlier, I think we also need some other 
pathways. And so I think these zero-carbon fuels could provide, 
particularly for heavy freight, could provide a backstop or a 
complement.
    I think we have to be going both ways at once. A zero--a 
technology-neutral low-carbon fuel standard analogous to what 
people have proposed on the electricity side would probably 
provide a really good market signal.
    Mrs. Dingell. I am going to--because I am almost out of 
time I am going to ask Dr. Cleetus this question because fuel 
economy standards came up earlier.
    And how do they fit into the range of tools we have 
discussed today to decarbonize our economy? Would they help us 
get to 100 by '50? And I do think they need to--personally, 
believe we need year to year increases.
    How do we do it in a real--part of the challenge for all of 
us is how we do all of this in the fastest way but the real 
way.
    Dr. Cleetus. So the interesting thing about it is doing it 
together is actually the cost effective way to do it. We can 
clean up the economy better if we are simultaneously building 
out the infrastructure in the transportation sector to 
electrify as much as we can even as we decarbonize the grid. We 
need to do those together.
    The fuel economy standards are critical. Right now, as we 
all said, the transportation sector is the biggest contributor 
to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions are rising in this 
sector.
    Those fuel economy standards are going to deliver a huge 
benefit in terms of emission reductions as well as consumer 
benefits, public health, and lowering their bills for fuel.
    Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Clarke. The gentle lady yields back.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
McEachin, for five minutes to ask questions.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I want to start off by thanking both Chairman Pallone and 
Chairman Tonko for their leadership in this area and for having 
this hearing.
    I am honored to serve with them as we work to preserve and 
protect our planet. There is no issue more important than 
preventing and mitigating climate change and speeding our 
transition to a clean energy economy.
    Their leadership is helping to ensure that we create a 
healthy sustainable planet for future generations and I am 
humbled to be their partner in that work.
    The best science says we need to completely stop adding 
climate pollution to the atmosphere by 2050 if not sooner. That 
is why I am fighting for bold action now.
    That is why I will be introducing legislation along with 
Congresswoman Haaland, Congresswoman Dingell, Congresswoman 
Blumenauer, and Chairman Tonko to transition the United States 
to 100 percent clean energy economy.
    A hundred percent clean will protect public health and our 
environment, create well-paying clean jobs, and strengthen our 
economy. It will mitigate the impacts of climate change for all 
communities and all generations, especially those 
disproportionately impacted by its worst effects.
    As we engage in this important policy work, we must break 
the decades-long cycle of environmental injustice. For much of 
our history, unjust policies have caused many of our most 
vulnerable friends and neighbors to lead sicker, shorter, and 
more difficult lives.
    So we desperately need climate action and we desperately 
need climate justice, and we cannot have one without the other.
    Dr. Cleetus--did I pronounce that correctly?
    Dr. Cleetus. Yes.
    Mr. McEachin. OK. Thank you.
    A just cause and a fighting spirit do not guarantee success 
and we have only one chance for climate change. We have to hit 
our marks.
    When it comes to reducing emissions, can you speak to what 
kind of processes as distinct from technologies or policy 
choices are most apt to move the needle?
    End goals are crucially important but is there a value in 
interim goals and in regularly scheduled checkups and progress 
reports?
    Dr. Cleetus. Thank you, Congressman McEachin, and I just 
want to thank you and Congressman Grijalva for the way in which 
you have centered environmental justice in addressing this 
problem of climate change.
    In terms of the processes, I would say two things. 
Absolutely we do need interim goals. This is not just about 
2050. This is about where we get in the next decade as well, 
because in that time we have the opportunity to get very far in 
cutting emission reduction emissions and we have the 
opportunity also to make sure that we are protecting people 
from the climate impacts already underway.
    We need to engage directly with stakeholders in communities 
that have often been left on the sidelines of this challenge. 
Environmental justice communities have solutions to this 
problem and they must have a seat at the table as we go about 
solving this problem.
    Just last week, there was a national platform released by 
environmental justice groups and national environmental 
groups--an equitable and just national climate platform which 
has many elements in it of what that process could look like 
and the vision for an equitable-centered climate platform.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
    Doctor, once we make a formal commitment to act, how do we 
make real-time adjustments and keep ourselves on a path to 
success?
    Dr. Cleetus. The opportunity we have here is if we get 
going in an ambitious way the costs of technologies are falling 
all the time. Folks on the panel have pointed out wind, solar.
    We have seen double-digit cost declines year over year. We 
have seen battery storage costs come down. Just in the last 
decade over a 70 percent reduction in wind and solar costs.
    So if we get started in an ambitious way the opportunity we 
will have is that when we get five years out or 10 years out, 
we know we can ratchet up ambition because the costs of these 
technologies will have fallen.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you.
    You have said that, done right, an economy wide low-carbon 
energy transition can also help address longstanding inequities 
of low income communities and communities of color.
    I need you to expound upon that. Is there a danger that we 
end up with climate action in the absence of climate justice or 
vice versa, and if so, how can we best avoid those dangers?
    Dr. Cleetus. Solving climate change in an equitable way 
won't happen by accident. We have to have that intentionality 
from the beginning to center equity.
    We know that as we cut CO2 emissions we have the 
opportunity to cut other co-pollutants that are causing near-
term public health burdens in these communities from mercury, 
from particulate matter, from sulfur dioxide emissions, NOX 
emissions.
    So the opportunity we have is making sure that we are 
making emission cuts and prioritizing emission cuts in 
communities that are overburdened by these other kinds of co-
pollutants even as we cut carbon dioxide pollutants.
    The other opportunity we have is to make sure that the 
benefits of clean energy are accruing directly to these 
communities--that they have access to these modern clean 
technologies, the efficient technologies that can save people 
money as well as make sure that they too will clean up the air 
and water in their communities.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you. I thank the witnesses and I thank 
you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Clarke. The gentleman yields back.
    I request unanimous consent to enter the following 
documents into the record: a letter from the International 
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Nuclear Energy 
Institute, three facts sheets from the Nuclear Energy 
Institute, and a report from the BlueGreen Alliance on its 
platform for climate action.
    Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Clarke. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for 
joining us here at today's hearing. I remind Members that 
pursuant to committee rules, they have 10 business days to 
submit additional questions for the record to be answered by 
our witnesses.
    I ask each witness to respond promptly to any such 
questions that you may receive.
    At this time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]