    [Senate Hearing 116-381]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 116-381

     AN EXAMINATION OF EMERGING OFFSHORE AND MARINE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN
      THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING OFFSHORE WIND, MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC
              ENERGY, AND ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR MARITIME SHIPPING

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 22, 2020

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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

                                    __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    41-921                     WASHINGTON : 2022

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

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona              ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota

                          Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                          Lucy Murfitt, Chief Counsel
                   Spencer Nelson, Professional Staff Member
                     Alexander Jackstadt, Legislative Aide
                     Renae Black, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
               Luke Bassett, Democratic Professional Staff Member
                         Darla Ripchensky, Chief Clerk

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska....     1
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      West Virginia..................................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Simmons, Hon. Daniel R., Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency
      and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy................     5
    Cruickshank, Dr. Walter, Acting Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy
      Management, U.S. Department of the Interior....................    13
    Davies, Stuart, Chief Executive Officer, Ocean Renewable Power
      Company, Inc...................................................    18
    Kindem, Siri Espedal, President, Equinor Wind U.S................    29
    Lewis, Jonathan F., Senior Counsel, Clean Air Task Force.........    38

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Cruickshank, Dr. Walter:
        Opening Statement............................................    13
        Written Testimony............................................    15
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    90
    Davies, Stuart:
        Opening Statement............................................    18
        Written Testimony............................................    20
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    98
    Kindem, Siri Espedal:
        Opening Statement............................................    29
        Written Testimony............................................    31
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   100
    Lewis, Jonathan F.:
        Opening Statement............................................    38
        Written Testimony............................................    40
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   105
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
        Opening Statement............................................     3
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Simmons, Hon. Daniel R.:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
        Written Testimony............................................     7
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    73

     AN EXAMINATION OF EMERGING OFFSHORE AND MARINE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES IN
      THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING OFFSHORE WIND, MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC
              ENERGY, AND ALTERNATIVE FUELS FOR MARITIME SHIPPING

                                  ----------

                          TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2020

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
    Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. The Committee will
    come to order.
        We are meeting this morning to examine the development of
    emerging offshore energy technologies, including renewable
    resources like offshore wind and marine energy. First of all, I
    need to start the discussion this morning by just saying how
    much I love this topic. I hope my Ranking Member is paying
    attention. I just get so excited about this discussion, because
    I think the opportunities here have so much potential.
        I do want to make one clarification. I think that when most
    people hear the phrase ``offshore energy,'' they automatically
    think of offshore oil and gas development, and while we
    absolutely, absolutely, recognize that those resources are an
    important part of our energy mix and contribute greatly to our
    energy security, oil and gas reflect only part of the potential
    that we have to use the ocean as a source of energy. There are
    numerous other ways to produce and consume energy in the ocean.
    Those other offshore technologies have always been on the
    fringes here in the United States, but because of a number of
    technology and policy developments, we are finally starting to
    see them take shape and it is exciting.
        First, of course, is offshore wind, which is poised for
    significant growth in the years ahead. The two small
    installations off the coast of Virginia and Rhode Island have
    served as useful test beds and analysts are now expecting more
    than 20 gigawatts of potential growth this decade. I had an
    opportunity to go out to Block Island and see for myself what
    they are doing out there some years ago. I have been following
    the development of a comprehensive environmental impact
    statement for the Atlantic Coast. I look forward to learning
    more about that process today.
        I also want to note that Alaska has more offshore wind
    energy potential than all the other states combined. I am
    always talking about how big Alaska is and how extraordinary
    its energy potential is, but we have some 33,000 miles of
    coastline in Alaska. We have some pretty extraordinary rivers
    and we are surrounded by three seas and an ocean, so we have
    plenty of room for ocean activity there. I would hope that with
    further cost improvements and new technology, like floating
    turbines, this abundant resource can further enhance our
    state's energy supply. We are also seeing significant advances
    in technologies like marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) energy, an
    innovative form of hydropower that, I think, has historically
    been underutilized.
        Back home, in Alaska, we have a jump-start on MHK with one
    of Ocean Renewable Power Company's (ORPC's) RivGen facilities,
    which is now providing about half of the power for the rural
    Southwest village of Igiugig. More communities in the state are
    interested in marine hydrokinetic after seeing Igiugig's
    success. Again, I had an opportunity to go out several years
    ago to visit with the leadership there in Igiugig and
    understand what they were trying to do. It is pretty incredible
    when you think of what that small river turbine is able to
    contribute when you feed that into the small microgrid for this
    village that utilizes a wind turbine, a little bit of solar,
    and then harnessing the power of that river there.
        Finally, we have alternative maritime shipping fuels as a
    focus area for this hearing. Last year, we had a hearing on the
    International Maritime Organization's (IMO) new sulfur
    standard, but one area we did not dive into was IMO's expected
    long-term carbon reduction goals and what the options really
    are for reducing emissions from shipping. A recent report from
    the International Energy Agency (IEA) found that there are
    opportunities in hydrogen, electricity, biofuels and even
    ammonia, but developing those options will require a lot of
    research and development going forward.
        In addition to the technologies that are at the core focus
    of today's hearing, we have tremendous opportunities in methane
    hydrates from the seafloor as well as floating nuclear reactors
    that can be built more cheaply and move to where power is
    needed most. Coastal states have the opportunity to expand and
    reimagine their ocean-based economies with these technologies
    and there is plenty of space for the interior, non-coastal
    states to participate and to benefit by manufacturing equipment
    and producing similar fuels. Taken together, these technologies
    can help enable a broader blue economy that is either
    untethered or interconnected with inland energy facilities.
    Emerging drivers of economic growth like aquaculture, seabed
    mining and desalination will benefit from having directly
    coupled energy sources. Developing a broader range of offshore
    energy technologies will enable cleaner and more affordable
    energy for island communities and could even help recover from
    natural disasters.
        To again turn it back home to Alaska, I see tremendous
    opportunities for these technologies, both individually and in
    a hybrid fashion. Take the community of Dutch Harbor in Alaska,
    out in the Aleutians, for example. Imagine local communities
    drawing geothermal power from the Makushin Volcano. Imagine
    them producing hydrogen and more electricity from offshore wind
    and marine energy to power and refuel shipping vessels that are
    transiting between Asia and the Lower 48, and imagine floating
    data centers in Cook Inlet powered by naturally strong tides in
    the area. The possibilities are endless. If we expand research
    and development in each of these areas as authorized in our
    American Energy Innovation Act, we can make that vision a
    reality. And while it may appear unlikely right now, just
    remember that about 10 to 15 years ago, solar, onshore wind,
    and hydraulic fracturing all appeared to be small players in
    our energy economy and yet those technologies now dominate new
    electricity capacity investment here in this country.
        We have a great panel with us this morning, well-equipped
    to cover both government and private sector activities for
    emerging forms of offshore energy. Our panel includes: Mr.
    Daniel Simmons, who is the Assistant Secretary for Energy
    Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) at the Department of
    Energy (DOE); Dr. Walter Cruickshank, who is the Acting
    Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) at the
    Department of the Interior (DOI); Mr. Stuart Davies, who is the
    CEO of the Ocean Renewable Power Company (ORPC); Ms. Siri
    Kindem, who is the President of Equinor Wind U.S.; and Mr.
    Jonathan Lewis, who is the Senior Counsel at the Clean Air Task
    Force.
        I want to thank all of our panelists for joining us to
    discuss these technologies and our sustainable blue economy. I
    cannot think of a better time for this hearing or to pass our
    energy innovation bill through the Senate than National Clean
    Energy Week.
        Senator Manchin, I turn to you for your comments and then
    we will get to this great panel.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Manchin. Well, thank you, Chairman Murkowski. I
    look forward to today's hearing about ocean energy. It has been
    quite a while since West Virginia has had oceanfront property,
    but I am told it did happen. I want to thank you for convening
    the hearing on emerging ocean technologies.
        As a boat owner and an avid boater, as all my colleagues in
    the Senate know, I take a special interest in the fuels part of
    today's conversation which I think will be most interesting. I
    appreciate our witnesses joining us to share your expertise
    with us and update us on the progress made in the technologies
    and the deployment of these technologies. I would like to take
    a moment to note the relevance of this topic to the work that
    Chairman Murkowski, the members of this Committee and that I
    have undertaken to advance the American Energy Innovation Act
    which we are very hopeful that we will still be successful very
    shortly.
        Our energy package will advance climate solutions across
    the four sectors of the economy that make up approximately 90
    percent of our current greenhouse gas emissions. Advancing
    marine renewable energy and offshore wind technologies is part
    of that solution as well as authorizing much needed research on
    the industrial equipment needed to make the shipping fuels of
    the future. Included in that package are Senators Smith and
    Collins' Wind Energy Research and Development Act which covers
    both onshore and offshore wind energy research and development,
    and Senator Wyden's Marine Energy Research and Development Act
    which covers the full range of marine energy technologies.
    Those are just two examples of the important provisions in the
    energy bill, and I remain committed to working to help get that
    across the line with my Chairman.
        Turning to the topic at hand, I am glad that for today's
    hearing we have both the perspective of the technology and
    project developers, including DOE's important research,
    development and demonstration role. And also, the agency
    charged with managing the federal permitting approval process,
    the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. That is important
    because we need increasing and continued R&D for these growing
    and emerging technologies, but we also need to ensure that they
    can actually come online. I look forward to hearing from our
    witnesses about some of the barriers for these technologies,
    and I expect that we will hear robust discussion of how we can
    better align our national interests in developing these new
    energy sources and the industries behind them with the reality
    of the permitting challenges that you are going to face.
        My good friend, Senator Whitehouse, joined us just last
    week to discuss his work on offshore wind, specifically
    relating to revenue sharing and revenue sharing is a big thing
    with most every Senator here because they are trying to
    basically support their home areas. Revenue sharing is not the
    topic of today, but I would be remiss not to mention that
    expanding offshore generation in federal waters is a revenue
    raiser. In addition, the technologies that we will be
    discussing today have the potential to create U.S. jobs for
    workers in communities that need a long-term lifeline. Our
    supply chains and manufacturing sector have struggled for
    decades causing hardship for steelworkers, shipbuilders, coal
    miners and many other hard-working men and women around the
    country. The Coronavirus has put those vulnerabilities in the
    spotlight, and it is making it clear how important targeted and
    enduring policies to correct those vulnerabilities will be. By
    identifying the policies and industries that will rebuild our
    manufacturing sector and reclaim our economic future, I believe
    that we can help our workers and their families while
    reestablishing U.S. leadership in existing and entirely new
    energy markets.
        One final quick fact that I would like to share is that
    maritime freight shipping currently contributes approximately
    12 percent of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. That is 12
    percent by the shipping--slightly more than our agricultural
    sector--and shipping business is projected to triple in the
    next 30 years. I know that DOE is hard at work to help us meet
    the International Maritime Organization's reduced emissions
    goals, so I look forward to hearing about the research and
    development needs and opportunities for low-carbon maritime
    fuels.
        With that, I appreciate all of you being here and those who
    are joining us virtually and look forward to the hearing.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
        With that, we will turn to our panel of witnesses. As I
    have introduced each of you previously, I will just repeat my
    welcome. Thank you for being here both in person and, for those
    that are with us online this morning, thank you as well. We
    will begin with our Assistant Secretary for DOE, the Honorable
    Daniel Simmons. We will go down the line in order of
    introduction. It would be Mr. Simmons, Dr. Cruickshank, Mr.
    Davies, Ms. Kindem and then Mr. Lewis. We would ask that you
    try to keep your comments to about five minutes. Your full
    statements will be incorporated as part of the record, and then
    we will have an opportunity for some questions and answers at
    the end.
        With that, Assistant Secretary, if you would like to lead
    off and thank you again for being here.

       STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL R. SIMMONS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
      ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                                 ENERGY

        Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking
    Member Manchin. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
    development and deployment of emerging offshore energy
    technologies. My name is Daniel Simmons, and I am the Assistant
    Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy (EERE).
        Developing technologies that tap into our abundant offshore
    energy resources play a vital role in the Department's all-of-
    the-above energy strategy with more than 50 percent of the
    population living within 50 miles of coastlines, and the
    coastal and Great Lakes states accounting for nearly 80 percent
    of U.S. electricity demand, there is vast potential for clean,
    renewable electricity to communities and cities across the
    United States using innovative technologies such as offshore
    wind, marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies, and
    alternative sources of drop-in fuels for marine shipping
    applications. While EERE works to overcome the technological
    barriers to these emerging technologies, there are other
    barriers such as permitting and regulations that fall outside
    the scope of the Department of Energy but can slow the
    innovation and deployment of emerging offshore energy
    technologies. Streamlining permitting is an important aspect to
    helping drive forward this important innovation and development
    of offshore energy technologies.
        Offshore wind is poised to become one of the fastest-
    growing areas or the fastest-growing area of renewable energy
    development in the next decade. The unique coastal and ocean
    environment in the United States includes deep water,
    hurricanes, and icing and it further requires innovations to
    realize low-cost installation of wind in these regions. EERE's
    Wind Energy Technologies Office currently funds two Offshore
    Wind Advanced Technology Demonstration Projects that are
    seeking to overcome these challenges. One of the projects is
    located in deep water off the coast of Maine and is positioned
    to be the first U.S. floating wind project using commercial
    technology. The Wind Office also conducts cross-cutting
    research to bring down the cost of both offshore and onshore
    applications of wind energy technologies such as advanced
    technologies for ultra-large and ultra-lightweight turbines.
        Another offshore energy technology with untapped potential,
    as the Chairwoman remarked earlier, is marine and hydrokinetic
    resources, also called MHK. EERE's Water Power Technologies
    Office leads the way in evaluating new sources of MHK energy,
    including waves, currents, tides, and ocean thermal resources.
    EERE, through both the Wind and the Water Offices, supports
    capabilities at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's
    Marine and Coastal Science Research Laboratory which stands at
    the intersection of the blue economy and energy innovation and
    supports key elements of the Water Office's Powering the Blue
    Economy initiative which we also call PBE. The Powering the
    Blue Economy initiative supports marine energy R&D targeting
    maritime markets that could benefit from the early adoption of
    ocean energy technologies. This initiative offers the potential
    to accelerate cost reductions from grid-scale marine energy
    systems. It can also accelerate offshore energy development by
    enabling critical support technologies such as monitoring
    systems for offshore oil and gas wells or providing persistent
    power needed for underwater vehicles to inspect wind turbine
    foundations. The Powering the Blue Economy initiative also
    focuses on providing support for resilient coastal communities
    by advancing marine energy's potential to power remote, coastal
    and island grids.
        In addition to researching innovative ways to use offshore
    resources to provide electricity, EERE's Bioenergy Technologies
    Office and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Offices are
    looking at other energy options. The Bioenergy Technologies
    Office is examining the potential for bio-derived marine fuels
    that are low-sulfur by their very nature, and Oak Ridge
    National Laboratory recently released a report titled,
    ``Understanding the Opportunities for Biofuels for Marine
    Shipping.'' Additionally, the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
    Technologies Office is collaborating with the Wind Office
    through the H2@Scale initiative which envisions affordable
    hydrogen production, storage, distribution and use across
    multiple sectors in the economy and is funding activities to
    demonstrate the potential of hydrogen for maritime
    applications, including using hydrogen for energy storage
    powered by offshore wind and looking at hydrogen fuel cells
    that can power marine vessels.
        I look forward to working with you to promote affordable
    and reliable energy to enhance America's economic growth and
    energy security. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    the Committee today. I look forward to your questions and
    hearing from the other panelists.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Simmons follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Assistant Secretary Simmons.
        We will now turn to Dr. Walter Cruickshank with the
    Department of the Interior.

    STATEMENT OF DR. WALTER CRUICKSHANK, ACTING DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF
        OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Dr. Cruickshank. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member
    Manchin, members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
    before you today to discuss the Bureau of Ocean Energy
    Management's role in developing America's emerging energy
    resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). BOEM is
    responsible for managing the development of our nation's
    offshore energy and mineral resources in an economically and
    environmentally responsible manner. BOEM plays an important
    role in advancing the Administration's comprehensive approach
    to expanding responsible, domestic energy development as part
    of a broader effort to secure the nation's energy future,
    benefit the economy and create jobs.
        I would like to address three emerging offshore energy
    resources today: wind, marine hydrokinetic energy and methane
    hydrates.
        BOEM works diligently to oversee the responsible offshore
    wind development on the OCS by identifying wind energy areas
    using a transparent process with extensive environmental
    analysis, stakeholder outreach and public participation. BOEM
    is committed to working with all our stakeholders--including
    state and local governments, the military, other federal
    agencies, the fishing and maritime communities, federally-
    recognized tribes and the offshore wind industry--to ensure any
    potential development that takes all ocean uses into account.
    And once that's a partnership, the Department of Energy's
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory has provided invaluable
    insight to BOEM by providing wind resource assessments for
    offshore areas of the United States. To date, BOEM has issued
    16 active commercial offshore wind energy leases, generating
    over $470 million in bonus bids for 1.7 million acres. We have
    at least one wind energy lease off every state on the Atlantic
    Coast from Massachusetts to North Carolina, and we're examining
    additional offshore wind planning activities in the Atlantic
    and Pacific OCS.
        BOEM has received ten Construction and Operations Plans
    (COPs) for specific wind energy projects in areas that have
    already been leased, and we anticipate receiving up to five
    more COPs over the coming year. The first wind turbines in
    federal waters were installed offshore of Virginia in June of
    this year. Continued technological development will be
    important to the industry's future, including drawing
    competitiveness of floating foundations for wind turbines that
    would be necessary for offshore wind development in the
    Pacific. Other technological areas of importance include shared
    offshore transmission systems and grid integration as well as
    technologies that will mitigate impacts on the environment and
    other uses of the ocean.
        BOEM is committed to advancing innovative technologies for
    both wind energy and marine hydrokinetic energy offshore of the
    United States. MHK technology harnesses energy from ocean
    waves, tides and currents and converts it into electricity to
    power our homes, buildings and cities. Jurisdiction for grid-
    connected MHK projects on the OCS is shared by BOEM and the
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). BOEM has authority
    to issue leases, and FERC has authority to issue licenses for
    the construction and operation of MHK projects on those leases.
    We are excited for the possibilities these two new technologies
    bring and expect to learn more as projects develop.
        Turning to methane hydrates, over the past several years,
    BOEM has made significant advances in our effort to assess
    resource potential of gas hydrates located on the OCS. Gas
    hydrates are ice-like substances occurring in nature where a
    solid water lattice accommodates gas molecules in a cage-like
    structure. These form under conditions of relatively high
    pressure and low temperatures such as those found in the
    shallow subsurface under many of the world's deepwater oceans.
    One cubic foot of hydrate at reservoir temperature and pressure
    yields approximately 160 cubic feet of gas at atmospheric
    temperature and pressure, and the amount of natural gas
    contained in methane hydrates worldwide is estimated to be far
    greater than the entire world's conventional natural gas
    resources.
        BOEM, in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, the
    Department of Energy and other agencies, is working to develop
    models to identify resources on the OCS. The technology for
    production of hydrates is in its infancy and sustained
    production of energy from gas hydrates has yet to be
    demonstrated. Nevertheless, BOEM continues to work with
    partners to create and adapt models of marine hydrate resources
    for all regions of the OCS to better understand the potential
    viability of our nation's gas hydrate resources. Development of
    emerging offshore energy resources advances the
    Administration's goal of expanding domestic energy production
    to support our nation's long-term economic development.
    Offshore energy in all its forms will play an important role in
    the country's energy portfolio and BOEM stands ready to work
    with the Committee as we move forward.
        I look forward to our continuing to work together and to
    answering your questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Cruickshank follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Dr. Cruickshank, thank you so much.
        We now turn to Mr. Stuart Davies, who is with ORPC. Welcome
    to the Committee.

      STATEMENT OF STUART DAVIES, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OCEAN
                     RENEWABLE POWER COMPANY, INC.

        Mr. Davies. Good morning, my name is Stuart Davies, CEO of
    the Ocean Renewable Power Company based in Portland, Maine.
    It's an honor to speak with you today, and I want to thank you
    for your invitation.
        Prior to joining ORPC I spent 17 years at Sankaty Advisors,
    a $35 billion asset management firm where I was both a member
    of the Executive and the Investment Committees. During my
    career I spent a lot of time studying fossil fuel and renewable
    energy companies as well as utilities. In 2016 I left to work
    with companies that were trying to solve big challenges. I was
    attracted to ORPC due to its leadership position in river and
    hydro and tidal energy solutions. Over the past few years, I
    came to believe that the U.S. and world cannot transition to
    100 percent renewable power without developing river and tidal
    energy technologies or marine and hydrokinetics, MHK, as they
    are called by the Department of Energy.
        Wind, solar and battery storage are great sources of
    renewable energy, but we need a highly predictable, baseload
    energy source to pair up with these technologies to get to 100
    percent. River and tidal energy meet these criteria.
    Importantly, they have no land use issues, no noise issues, no
    visual impact and low environmental impact. With the right
    support over the next five to ten years, MHK technology can
    grow rapidly to meet our renewable energy objectives, providing
    power to over 100 million people, and in the process creating
    hundreds of thousands of new manufacturing, engineering and
    marine industry jobs.
        ORPC is a great example of U.S. MHK companies whose devices
    are at or near commercialization and are refining their
    technologies to drive down the cost of energy. Our RivGen
    Power System has been operating for the past ten months in
    Igiugig, Alaska, providing clean, locally-produced renewable
    electricity generated from the Kvichak River and displacing
    very high cost diesel-generated power. ORPC has proven that the
    RivGen can survive the harsh winter conditions in a remote
    community in Alaska and continues to provide power daily to
    this community. ORPC is deploying the same core technology in
    the tidal environment of False Pass, Alaska, which, like
    Igiugig, is representative of remote isolated grid communities
    that pay five to ten times as much for electricity as the
    average American. ORPC's devices could also be exported to
    countries around the world where roughly 1.5 billion people
    currently live near ocean or river resources who are without
    power or use diesel generators as their sources of electricity.
    ORPC is also planning a project in Eastport, Maine, that could
    be another model for the future, as it will combine tidal
    energy with solar, battery storage and a smart microgrid to
    provide 100 percent locally-produced renewable energy in that
    community.
        What does the industry need to do over the next five years?
    It needs to reduce its cost of energy to increase market
    adoption. Wind and solar are currently below $0.10 per kilowatt
    hour, but given that tidal and river energy can provide
    baseload power, if MHK technology can provide power in the
    $0.15 to $0.20 range, it will be a viable source of
    electricity. In the past decade, the wind and solar industries
    received approximately $75 billion in federal and state funding
    and tax incentives. That financial support was highly
    successful in accelerating cost reductions. These industries
    have created over 500,000 jobs, and they continue a high growth
    trajectory in terms of their share of energy production.
    Meanwhile, MHK received about $75 million over that time
    period, roughly a tenth of a penny on a relative basis. With
    equitable future support, MHK has the opportunity to experience
    the same rapid cost reduction.
        What policy changes can help this happen? First, provide
    infrastructure funding to support communities to install river
    and tidal power systems. Our target early adopter communities
    have high power costs and do not have the economic resources to
    purchase these systems. Infrastructure funding would provide
    them with cheaper power and with it, its related economic
    benefits. Second, streamline the regulatory process. A review
    of MHK pilot projects in state waters licensed by the FERC
    shows that the average time to obtain approval is 7.5 years.
    This timeframe is simply too long for the commercialization of
    mature MHK devices. Finally, the Title 17 Innovative Energy
    Loan Guarantee Program, a $25 billion investment tool, must be
    changed to help fund smaller projects. River and tidal projects
    perfectly match the program's loan criteria and goals, but the
    diligence and approval process add roughly $1.5 million to
    projects costing between $2 and $10 million. We propose that
    Congress simply carve out approximately two percent of the
    program to create a $500 million fund for smaller projects that
    have much less stringent diligence and approval criteria.
        In conclusion, the last ten years was the decade of solar
    and wind. With the right incentives in place, the next ten
    years could be the decade of river and tidal energy bringing
    with it manufacturing and marine industry jobs to communities
    across the country and creating a highly predictable, baseload
    renewable energy source that will move the U.S. and the world
    closer to a 100 percent renewable energy future.
        Thank you again for allowing me to speak today, and thank
    you for your time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Davies follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Mr. Davies, thank you. We appreciate you
    sharing some of the innovation that we are seeing up in Alaska.
        Let's now go to Ms. Siri Kindem. Welcome to the Committee.

                   STATEMENT OF SIRI ESPEDAL KINDEM,
                      PRESIDENT, EQUINOR WIND U.S.

        Ms. Kindem. Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Manchin
    and members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to
    be here today and to discuss with you offshore energy
    technologies, especially offshore wind. My name is Siri Espedal
    Kindem, and I'm the President of Equinor Wind U.S. and I'm very
    pleased to join you today and take you through the exciting
    developments of the offshore wind industry.
        Equinor is a global energy company with over four decades
    of experience in developing, owning and operating large-scale
    offshore energy projects. The resource experience and technical
    capability that Equinor has acquired over time has allowed us
    to become a global leader in the development and operations of
    offshore renewable resources. Equinor currently owns, operates
    and markets the output of numerous operating offshore wind
    facilities, including the first floating offshore wind farm,
    Hywind Scotland. We truly believe that floating wind, which
    will be because of deeper water in the U.S. in the future, is
    the next big breakthrough in renewables. With floating wind
    turbines already in production, Equinor is the world's leading
    floating offshore wind developer.
        Next step first is that we are currently developing Hywind
    Tampen in the North Sea. This will be the world's first
    floating wind farm built to power existing offshore oil and gas
    platforms. When Hywind Tampen is completed, it will be the
    world's largest floating offshore wind farm. So this will be a
    test case for further development of floating wind around the
    world and will explore the use of new and emerging technology
    and insulation methods that represent an essential step in
    industrializing solutions and representing costs for the future
    projects.
        So then shifting to the U.S. business, Equinor Wind is
    developing two bottom-fixed offshore wind projects on the East
    Coast of the United States: Beacon Wind off the New England
    coast and Empire Wind in the waters offshore. The Empire
    project has incurred one offtake agreement for 816 megawatts
    which is the total of about 40 percent of our lease area. So we
    plan to participate in the future bids for solicitations to
    provide the power for the remainder of the Empire lease and the
    Beacon lease which as a total have then a combined capacity of
    approximately 4 gigawatts. But it is important to note these
    big projects, they have big timeframes. Commercial operations
    for Empire is expected in the mid-2020s and in the late mid-
    2020s for Beacon.
        Since 2016, Equinor Wind has, in the planning and
    development of its U.S. offshore wind project, been engaging
    with key stakeholders including many dialogues and meetings
    with fisheries. We believe that mitigation measures to reduce
    impact of fisheries should be identified and developed in close
    consultation with relevant fisheries' stakeholders and then
    early in the project development process. So we endeavor to
    minimize disruptions to fisheries at all stages of project
    life. Consultations have already heeded valuable insight that
    have been incorporated into the Equinor Wind survey and
    planning processes.
        So thank you again for inviting me to participate. We
    appreciate that the Committee's interest in offshore wind
    development in the U.S., and we're looking forward to working
    with you and also look forward to answering your questions.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kindem follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Kindem, we appreciate that.
        Our final member on the panel this morning is Mr. Jonathan
    Lewis with the Clean Air Task Force. Welcome.

            STATEMENT OF JONATHAN F. LEWIS, SENIOR COUNSEL,
                          CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE

        Mr. Lewis. Thank you. My name is Jonathan Lewis. I'm Senior
    Counsel for the Clean Air Task Force, a non-profit organization
    that advocates for the change in technologies and policies
    needed to get to a zero-emissions, high-energy planet at an
    affordable cost. I want to thank Chairman Murkowski, Ranking
    Member Manchin and the rest of the Committee for hosting me
    today.
        To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we need to
    eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from nearly every sector of
    the major--of the global economy by 2050. Marine shipping is
    one of those sectors. If it were a country, marine shipping
    would rank sixth on a list of countries with the highest
    greenhouse gas emissions, behind Japan, but ahead of Germany,
    the United Kingdom and South Korea. Alone, any greenhouse gas
    emissions from the marine sector requires a wholesale shift
    away from carbon-intensive fuels and points to the urgent need
    to develop and deploy alternative fuels to offer the benefits
    of oil and gas but without the carbon. Hydrogen is one such
    fuel. Ammonia which is made by combining hydrogen with
    nitrogen, is another. Neither fuel contains carbon atoms so
    they emit zero CO2 when they are converted to
    energy. Although the vast majority of hydrogen and ammonia is
    currently produced in carbon intensive ways, both hydrogen and
    ammonia can be produced through processes that emit little or
    no greenhouse gas.
        One option for producing zero carbon fuels is to install a
    carbon capture and sequestration system at methane reformers
    that use natural gas to make hydrogen. If effective emission
    controls are put in place, they significantly reduce methane
    leakage throughout the natural gas production transformed
    distribution system and if all or nearly all of the
    CO2 produced by the reformer is captured and
    sequestered, making hydrogen and ammonia at gas reforming
    facilities would emit low to zero carbon. A second option is
    electrolysis in which electricity is used to split water into
    hydrogen and oxygen. If a zero-carbon power source is used to
    generate electricity, such as solar, wind or nuclear,
    electrolytic production of hydrogen results in zero carbon
    emissions.
        Both of these production processes are massively scalable,
    in part because the ingredients for making hydrogen and ammonia
    are readily obtainable and nearly inexhaustible. Ammonia is a
    particularly compelling candidate for fuel shifting for marine
    shipping for reasons outlined in recent studies by University
    College London, Siemens Gamesa, Shell and others. Ammonia is
    relatively easy to store and transport, and it appears to be
    compatible with retrofitted and purpose-built internal
    combustion engines which might limit the extent to which
    existing energy systems need to be wholly replaced. Ports
    already site and build ammonia storage and handling equipment,
    thereby avoiding a large challenge associated with the
    transition to alternate fuels and marine vessels are already
    fueled by professionals that could be trained to safely manage
    ammonia.
        There are important steps that Congress and this Committee
    can take to support the development and scale-up of a zero
    carbon fuels industry and the decarbonization of marine
    shipping. First, we recommend that the Senate immediately pass
    the American Energy Innovation Act of 2020. Second, the
    Committee should help reduce technology costs by directing DOE
    to sponsor research, development and deployment of ammonia
    reciprocating engines, high temperature electrolysis and other
    critical technologies. Third, the Committee should direct
    federal support to zero carbon fuel production and end-use
    technology adoption through production and investment tax
    credits, through rebates and incentives for zero carbon fuel
    end use technologies and through tax credits for pipelines,
    terminals, storage tanks and other infrastructure for zero
    carbon fuels. Finally, Congress should kick-start zero carbon
    fuels and marine shipping decarbonization through development
    loans and cost share grants that facilitate the development of
    key zero carbon fuel production transport and end-use hubs
    across the United States.
        The shift to zero carbon refuels will take place within the
    context of a much broader and larger decarbonization effort,
    replacing half of the more than 250 quadrillion BTU of fossil
    fuels we currently use directly for transportation, industry
    and heating would require on the order of a billion metric tons
    of clean hydrogen per year. This is the gigaton clean hydrogen
    challenge for mid-century. Meeting that challenge or even more
    modest hydrogen utilization scenarios will require that nuclear
    or renewable electricity production increase by at least an
    order of magnitude or that billions of tons of CO2
    are captured for methane reforming and sequestered each year or
    both. This is on top of the scale required to provide clean
    electricity for easier to electrify sectors of the economy.
    These scenarios all represent extremely large markets and
    opportunities for innovation.
        The Clean Air Task Force is eager to work with this
    Committee on steps that can be taken to seize that opportunity.
    Thank you for your time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Thank you, all, for
    your testimony this morning.
        Mr. Davies, I want to start my questions by noting one of
    your comments that when we are talking about marine
    hydrokinetic energy you think about the power of the tides of
    our rivers, but also the reliability of that. I mean, you look
    at your tide book, we can tell you when the tide is coming in.
    We can tell you when the tide is going out, and I don't think
    there has been a day that I have been on this planet that the
    tide has not come in and gone out. To me, that is pretty
    reliable.
        So when we think about that as a baseload power source, I
    think it is important to recognize how it has been, kind of,
    sitting out there on its own for quite a period of time and the
    attention that we are able to focus on it, not only through the
    private sector but through our government agencies, I think, is
    important. You note that the Title 17 Loan Guarantee Program
    has some opportunities but that in order for it, really, to
    work for companies such as ORPC, when you are a smaller
    project, when you are a smaller program, it is competitive. So
    I am intrigued by your idea of a carve-out of those funds that
    would go toward smaller entities.
        But you also mention in one of your recommendations that we
    need to look to streamlining the regulatory process and you
    note that it took seven and a half years for a FERC license. I
    would like to bring Dr. Cruickshank into this conversation with
    you on what we might be able to do to shorten that permitting
    process, especially for pilot projects, and then to the issue
    of the level of cooperation between FERC and state governments
    on permitting these projects. I am trying to understand if
    there are some areas here that we can allow for a more
    efficient process out there. Mr. Davies, why don't you start
    off and then Dr. Cruickshank, if you can speak to this?
        Mr. Davies. Sure, and Senator, thank you for the question.
    I think when we talk about our projects, you know, the first
    time we put a device in the water is also the first time for
    regulators seeing those devices. So I think there's naturally
    going to be delays as, you know, not understanding what an MHK
    device is and what the potential impacts are around it. There's
    a steep learning curve for regulators there. And so, I think
    the natural tendency is to go take the most conservative
    position that a regulator could take. I think one of the--the
    hydropower industry had some of these challenges.
        And I think, I can think of three steps. Back in 2013 there
    was the Hydropower Regulatory and Efficiency Act that was
    passed that really streamlined the process for permitting and
    licensing for new hydropower projects. I think having a similar
    legislation like that for MHK that would streamline, it would
    not only streamline the federal process, but I think it would
    align, enable state and local regulators to align their
    policies with that policy so it would actually act as a guiding
    document as well. And then finally, I think one of the most
    effective things is to put devices in the water. I think the
    more devices that are in the water, regulators from various
    states and jurisdictions can understand how regulators in other
    jurisdictions, you know, dealt with getting device in the water
    and what, if any, you know, we believe there's little to no
    impact from our devices, but to actually experience that and
    see what, how other regulators, you know, worked to approve
    those processes, we think will streamline our process as well.
        The Chairman. Dr. Cruickshank.
        Dr. Cruickshank. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
        We have an MOU in place with FERC so that we can cooperate
    on any marine hydrokinetic energy that'll be on the Outer
    Continental Shelf. As I mentioned, we're responsible for
    issuing the leases and FERC will license the actual project
    itself. We've worked together closely to try and develop a
    process that we believe can be efficient but, as Mr. Davies
    noted, there will be challenges whenever there is something
    being installed for the first time as stakeholders and
    regulators try to understand what it is they're dealing with
    and how it will work. And I also agree with him that as more of
    these get into the water, a lot of those questions will be
    answered which will allow the process to really work as
    efficiently as we've tried to design it to be.
        The Chairman. Well, my time is expired on this round, but I
    think it is one of those where we recognize that we have the
    federal regulators, we have the state and those who are trying
    to advance the project. You also have tribal interests in our
    state, but recognizing that there is a level of cooperation,
    collaboration, working together rather than a more siloed
    approach that, I think, historically we know exists, could be
    helpful.
        Senator Manchin.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        This will be for Mr. Simmons and Mr. Lewis. Maritime
    shipping is projected to potentially triple in the next 30
    years which will require alternative fuel options to reduce the
    environmental impact of increased ocean freight. I understand a
    low emission vessel must be commercially available by 2030 to
    meet the international maritime organization's reduced emission
    goals. As we are today, several officials in DOE are investing
    in research and development to help develop alternative fuels,
    including ones that could accelerate this timeline. So Mr.
    Simmons or Mr. Lewis, are we on track to meet the industry
    needs of commercially viable, low emission vessels in ten
    years?
        Mr. Simmons. I don't know is the safe answer. We are--so
    our Bioenergy Technology Office is looking at, you know, has a
    new focus on heavier fuels such as biofuel for jets.
        Senator Manchin. Sure.
        Mr. Simmons. But also, for biofuel for these heavy
    applications for marine as well as if they are from, like if it
    is like ammonia, I don't think we would get there. If we can
    get there with a biofuel that is a heavy biofuel than we could
    do that if it's a pure drop in fuel within ten years.
        Senator Manchin. Which low carbon technologies do we need
    to be investing in the most to be, to meet these goals?
        Mr. Simmons. Well, I'd like to hear from Mr.----
        Senator Manchin. Mr. Lewis?
        Mr. Simmons. I forgot his name. Mr. Lewis. His thoughts on
    that.
        Senator Manchin. Okay.
        Mr. Simmons. But definitely on these heavy biofuels is very
    important but also in, as in ammonia. That's also a critical
    technology.
        Senator Manchin. Sure.
        Mr. Simmons. And because it's a hydrogen carrier.
        Senator Manchin. Mr. Lewis, your input, please?
        Mr. Lewis. Yes, thanks for the question.
        We think that biofuels present some sustainability and
    scalability problems, and they're also going to face serious
    competition from the aviation sector. So as mentioned in my
    testimony, we think that ammonia is going to play a critical
    role in decarbonizing the sector. There's work being done on a
    handful of different fronts, at universities around the world,
    including the University of Minnesota and Texas Tech on ammonia
    fuel internal combustion engines.
        And there's work going on in the marine space. MAN Energy
    Solutions is designing new ammonia-compatible duel fuel engines
    and developing the capacity to retrofit its existing engines
    which it says powers half of global marine freight around the
    world. The company has said that it can deliver ammonia-
    compatible engines to the market by 2024. Other engine
    developers such as Wurtsila and Samsung Heavy Industries are
    also moving in this direction and American engine companies are
    also well-positioned to advance the development and deployment
    of these engines. Caterpillar, for example, filed a patent
    application for an ammonia fuel engine in 2008, so they should
    be ready to move forward as well.
        Senator Manchin. And this would be to all the witnesses or
    someone who has not spoken yet. Europe has led the way for
    manufacturing and building offshore wind projects. Given the
    size of those turbines, it seems to me it would not only make
    sense to build them here at home for U.S. projects but it would
    also present an opportunity to reinvest in our ports,
    shipbuilding and domestic workforces, the same should be said
    for marine energy technologies and low-carbon shipping fuels as
    we just spoke about. I think West Virginia's industries could
    also help boost some of these efforts by using our own natural
    gas resources to make hydrogen or ammonia for the shipping.
        I have been working with my friend, Senator Stabenow, to
    revive and retool the 48C Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit. To
    what extent would that help support new domestic job creation
    here in the U.S. and advance our efforts, the efforts you are
    all working on?
        Anybody want to take that one?
        Well, what other policies----
        Ms. Kindem. I can, please.
        Senator Manchin. I am sorry, please.
        Ms. Kindem. I may start?
        Senator Manchin. Yes.
        Ms. Kindem. Okay, thank you.
        It's a good and valuable question and however, I will, but
    we all know this offshore wind is a new industry in the U.S.
    and we are benefiting from a lot of experience that we have in
    Europe. And even though it's extremely important that we are
    building up that support and supply industry also in the U.S.
    And in a way we want to leverage the opportunities we have in
    the U.S. as we are moving forward and that's, also, you know,
    of course in the U.S. and also, we are familiar with the supply
    chain also in the--so I think it is something we'll be able to
    pull off. These projects are still immature from our side but
    we are moving forward and----
        Senator Manchin. Ms. Kindem, are you all doing any----
        Ms. Kindem. ----you know, going forward like that.
        Senator Manchin. Excuse me, I am so sorry. Are you all
    doing any manufacturing in the U.S. now?
        Ms. Kindem. We have not started. We have not come that far
    from the ITC. We have not even sold manufacturing. But we are
    in the process now as early stage project of doing, kind of,
    the tenuring process and then you get into details. I can't
    share with you, but I assure you this is high on our agenda
    when we moving forward with these proposals.
        Senator Manchin. Do any of you know, is there any
    manufacturing on offshore wind projects in the United States?
    Any of that technology?
        Dr. Cruickshank. Yes, Senator, there has been. It is, it
    has not been the turbine blades or the cells at this point, but
    for instance, for Block Island, the foundations for each of
    those turbines was built at Gulf Island Shipyard in the Gulf of
    Mexico and there are a lot of agreements that have been put in
    place for projects that are still in the design phase that
    would have foundations and supply vessels and various other
    components manufactured here in the United States. And I think
    that some of the larger pieces of equipment will come along
    when there are enough projects in the pipeline to support
    investment in that supply chain.
        Senator Manchin. Madam Chairman, if I could just indulge
    with one more question, just real quick?
        Most, for offshore they are telling us that they utilize
    the gear-box drive generator. Offshore wind mills rely on a
    very powerful magnet as a key component in a direct drive
    generator. You all would know more about the technology here. A
    direct drive generator is more suitable to offshore wind due to
    its low maintenance requirements; however, it also creates
    supply chain vulnerability because the magnet is derived from a
    rare earth mineral called neodymium which is mined almost
    exclusively in China. The wind turbines on the Block Island
    Wind Farm off the coast of Rhode Island are equipped with a
    magnet that was made in Japan out of rare earth minerals
    originating in China.
        So we have held several hearings in the Committee about the
    monopoly China holds over the supply chain of rare earth
    elements. Is this a tremendous obstacle for us to be able to
    successfully manufacture in the U.S. because of our dependence
    on China on rare earth minerals? Very quickly.
        I am sorry, take more time.
        Mr. Simmons. Well, that could be a long answer, but----
        [Laughter.]
        ----and we will happily answer, give a more----
        Senator Manchin. I guess the quick answer would be sourcing
    from China. Does that create one heck of an obstacle for you?
        Mr. Simmons. It does create an obstacle and we are doing a
    number of things to overcome that obstacle, including there is
    a project that we're funding from GE to look at a super-
    conducting generator that wouldn't need any rare earth magnets.
    So there's----
        Senator Manchin. We will get into that----
        Mr. Simmons. We're happy to give you plenty of information
    on the subject, yeah.
        Senator Manchin. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you all.
    Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
        Senator Cassidy was next on our side. It looks like he has
    dropped off the line, and Senator Gardner was following him. I
    don't see either of them. If either one of them comes back on
    we will turn to them, but in the meantime let's go to Senator
    Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you and
    the Ranking Member Manchin for holding this important hearing.
    As a proud coastal state, our economy on the coast is very
    important to us. My constituents probably don't even know that
    our coastline generates a tremendous amount of pollution-free
    electricity. According to analysis there is over 120 gigawatts
    of offshore wind potentially along the Washington State coast
    and almost 200 terawatts of resources off our coastline that
    could be, could generate, I should say.
        So Washington is also the home to the Marine and Coastal
    Research Laboratory in Sequim, which is part of the Pacific
    Northwest National Laboratory, and I know that some of you are
    very familiar with that. We think this research center is very
    important to us in the research that we are doing on these
    offshore resources. Mr. Simmons, could you comment on whether
    you support the $10 million currently allocated in the energy
    area of energy and water appropriations for this kind of R&D?
    And you recently visited there and met with a lot of the
    regional experts. What do you think we should be doing in
    addition to accelerate the innovation that they have been
    working on?
        Mr. Simmons. We are strong supporters of the laboratory.
    The new name confused me a little bit. But it was--I had a
    great visit there last year. I was very happy to have the
    opportunity to go see the work that they're doing. There's a
    lot of opportunities in, especially as one of the Powering the
    Blue Economy Initiative from our Water Power Technology Office
    because they're our only coastal laboratory of any of the, of
    any parts of the national laboratories so that they are well
    positioned and they have great experts that--well positioned
    physically, geographically and as well as having experts in
    this area that can really contribute to the blue economy
    overall, but also to next generation ocean technologies.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, I was thinking about just this
    level of commercialization which is always an issue, you know,
    on the R&D side, protect transfer. Do you think that there are
    legal or jurisdictional barriers? I mean, should we be working
    more closely with FERC and NOAA and Ocean Energy Management to
    try to tackle some of these issues?
        Mr. Simmons. Yes, we, I mean, as Mr. Davies noted when it
    was seven years to get a FERC permit, I think that that is,
    that is challenging. That is super challenging when it comes--
    anything that touches the water, the regulatory process is long
    and we need to do whatever we can to streamline that process.
    We try our best to work with Department of Interior, with the
    regulators in this area to do research to help them, as well as
    some work with FERC, to have as expedited a process as
    possible, but it is an area that we definitely need to focus
    on.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        Well, we will follow up with you on that, and I would
    certainly like to invite the Chair and the Ranking Member to
    come and visit the facility. It really is quite an amazing
    facility, probably not visited much by members of this
    Committee, but the technology is amazing and the site itself is
    breathtaking.
        On fuel issues which several of my colleagues have pointed
    out, in my state, Washington Ferries announced last summer that
    they will gradually move to electrification of the fleet with
    the replacement of 13 diesel ferries with hybrid electric
    vessels and the conversion of six other plug-in hybrids. I know
    I have visited some of our shipbuilding facilities in the state
    who are building these electric ferries for other parts of the
    United States, very easy on load, off load, commuter, passenger
    ships. Where should we be going in further incenting that? And
    I know a lot of your work is on the R&D side, but there are
    members here who obviously have to think about these things
    from all our committee jurisdictions.
        Mr. Simmons. That's a tough question for me when it comes
    to further incentivizing it. There is definitely research that
    needs to be done in terms of how do we charge, I mean, the
    ferries use an amazing amount of energy. When I went on the
    same trip, I had the chance to tour one of the ferries and we
    went down into the engine room. It is a huge vessel and which,
    so when that pulls in and is connected to the dock, it is a lot
    of electricity that is flowing very quickly. That is a serious
    challenge for batteries to be able to take in all that
    electricity. It degrades the battery. So, like, it is a--there
    are definitely R&D challenges to further that, to further that
    technology, but it is rather exciting.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, just like you had mentioned on, you
    know, FERC and other offshore, I think a similar kind of
    collaboration between agencies on vehicle transformation to
    alternatives would be great.
        So thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. I might come and see those electric ferries
    too.
        Senator Cantwell. Yes.
        The Chairman. Yes, lots to see out there.
        We have Senator King, who is with us remotely.
        Senator King. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. This has
    been a fascinating and really important hearing. I am forced to
    mention up front how much Maine is involved. ORPC, who is with
    us here today, is based in Portland, Maine, and the country's
    first floating offshore wind project, Aqua Ventus, is on track
    to move forward in Maine in the next couple of years. So I
    really want to thank you for this important hearing and also
    brag a little bit about the role that Maine is playing in this
    development.
        I can't emphasize enough how important the federal
    investments in research are. The model is the development of
    hydrofracking technology which was supported by federal
    research. It was not economically viable at the beginning, but,
    of course, now we know that it is. The same thing with solar
    and wind. The price has gone down tremendously in the last ten
    years and it was the federal research support, as I think Mr.
    Davies mentioned, that had a lot to do with developing the
    technology, the infrastructure, the supply chain that enabled
    that to happen. So I want to thank Dan Simmons, he has been to
    Maine, for the work that they have done, for the support they
    have given to our Aqua Ventus offshore wind project because the
    very first Ford built by hand was pretty expensive. Now they
    can build Fords at very reasonable prices because of the
    development of demand and the supply chain and the
    infrastructure. So I think that is an important point.
        I wanted to ask Dr. Cruickshank about if there is research
    being done in connection with other agencies on fisheries
    impacts. We have a very vigorous fisheries industry in Maine,
    as they do in Alaska, and our fishermen are going to want to
    know what are the impacts, what are the implications? I would
    also like to ask our friend from Equinor to give her thoughts
    as to what has been the impact, if any, on fisheries on the
    offshore project in Scotland.
        So Dr. Cruickshank, any thoughts on that issue?
        Dr. Cruickshank. Yes Senator, thank you for the question.
    We have funded quite a lot of fisheries research from BOEM's
    environmental studies program. In fact, we've funded about 22
    fisheries-related studies along the Atlantic that have tried to
    capture baseline information on fisheries' movements and
    fisheries' habitat as well as studies focused on the impacts of
    sound in the water and electromagnetic fuels. So we have been
    doing our best to try and learn what impacts the construction
    of these facilities may have. We are also partnering with
    National Marine Fisheries Service to conduct research, and
    we've entered an MOU with them and with the Responsible
    Offshore Development Alliance which is a consortium of
    commercial fishing interests to try and identify information
    gaps and focus research on filling those gaps. And as a matter
    of fact, the three of us are co-hosting a workshop next month
    on the state of the science of fisheries as it relates to
    renewable energy so we can further those efforts.
        Thank you.
        Senator King. It is going to be important to continue that
    work so that when we are moving closer to deployment, we don't
    have to start afresh on the research. I am glad to hear about
    that.
        Ms. Kindem, on the Equinor project, number one, are you
    seeing fisheries' effects and, number two, is the power coming
    ashore
    A/C or D/C? I understand there is less EMF issue with D/C and
    there are some other advantages. What is the technology that
    you are using there?
        Ms. Kindem. Well, thank you for being interested in Hywind
    Scotland and floating wind. I think this is a fantastic
    technology for the future and, for us, it's extremely important
    to work with fisheries in general so we, you know, if we're
    talking the U.S., I will say we have a tremendous amount of
    meetings with fisheries to listen to them and ensure that their
    interests is also being followed. So this is the balancing act
    where we're working hard with them. It's the same thing,
    approach, we've had with also the Scotland project.
        So the Scotland project is, you know, has been operating
    for many years now. It's off the coast of Scotland. It's set at
    five turbines and in a way it was important for us, it was a
    research project in itself because this is not only about
    having one turbine, but it's having----
        Senator King. That is a floating project, right?
        Ms. Kindem. It is really a floating project and this is the
    first time we, it is not a one-of-a-kind installation, but this
    is a five turbines and then you have to, you know, you are
    testing a lot of things. You're testing the interactions
    between these turbines, which is extremely important for us.
    Then also it's important that you continue to have the dialogue
    with the fisheries as we're doing, you know, in either it's the
    scope and all we are doing at the moment also in the U.S. and
    for us, it's extremely important. We've been, if you look at
    Empire project, which is, kind of, the first project to come
    along in the U.S. We've spent a lot of time through the, you
    know, working with water too and having discussions there to
    ensure that some of the layers that also could be adjusted
    according the fisheries and I think----
        Senator King. Well, let me interrupt for a minute, just
    because I am running out of time.
        Ms. Kindem. Sorry.
        Senator King. But have there been substantial fisheries
    impacts that have----
        Ms. Kindem. We haven't heard of any substantial--we haven't
    heard of any substantial fishery impact. What I would like is
    to follow up with you after. I can give you some details on the
    work we've done on Hywind Scotland, on--I'm sure that would be
    of interest for you and then we can give more of the details
    both on the fisheries and also on the technologies included in
    that.
        Senator King. And is it D/C or A/C coming ashore?
        Ms. Kindem. I must say it's, I think it's A/C, but then
    again, I think I'd have to give you the details again. It's a
    long time since I've worked with the Hywind Scotland, but I can
    assure you I can give you the details.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Madam Chair, thank you very much. I hope we will have a
    second round. I have a few more questions. Thank you.
        Ms. Kindem. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Absolutely, thank you, Senator King.
        Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you for this
    conversation. I, too, find it very interesting and a great
    opportunity here in the United States.
        Mr. Lewis, in your testimony you note that two of the most
    promising shipping fuel options are ammonia and hydrogen. So
    what economic opportunities do hydrogen and ammonia fuels
    provide for non-marine states across the country, like Nevada,
    where we are focusing on a robust, renewable energy portfolio?
    I am just curious if you have any thoughts about that. And that
    would be for Mr. Lewis.
        Mr. Lewis. Yes, thank you for the question. We think there
    are significant opportunities for inland states because
    producing enough zero carbon fuels for the marine sector and
    other sectors is going to be, sort of, an all-hands-on deck
    requirement. A key attribute of hydrogen and ammonia fuels is
    that they can be produced and used in so many different ways.
    We think it's likely that scale up of zero carbon hydrogen
    production is going to be achieved through the use of expanded
    renewable energy power, nuclear power and gas reforming with
    carbon capture. So, some of the jobs associated with this scale
    up involve new technologies and new skill sets while others are
    going to be pretty similar to jobs that already exist in the
    petrochemical industry. Ultimately, we're going to need to
    produce liquid and gaseous fuels for using technologies that
    are similar in many ways, the conventional refineries, but do a
    better job managing carbon flows. Those are large installations
    that require lots of people to build and to run them.
        We're going to also need----
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Oh, sorry, go ahead.
        Mr. Lewis. I was just going to say, we're also going to
    significantly need to expand our distribution from places like
    Nevada to ports and other demand centers around the country. So
    that means building a lot of pipelines, storage tanks, fueling
    terminals and lots of jobs building, servicing and operating
    that equipment.
        Senator Cortez Masto. And thank you, because that was my
    next question for you, you segued perfectly, is the workforce
    and the opportunity to, as we were coming out of this pandemic
    and we are dealing with the economic crisis and a lack of jobs,
    there are jobs of the future in this space. And you know, I
    find it interesting prior to the pandemic nearly 3.4 million
    Americans worked in the clean energy industry and as such, the
    Bureau of Labor statistics projected in 2019 that wind turbine
    technicians would be one of the nation's fastest growing jobs
    over the next decade.
        So let me open it up to the panel because I do think there
    is the opportunity to start focusing on how we start
    transitioning, how we really rebuild our workforce and include
    this new technology. I would love to open it up to you and get
    your thoughts on that. Let me start with Ms. Kindem. I am
    curious how we should be looking at this at the federal level
    to continue to support our workforce as well.
        Ms. Kindem. I think this is a very good point to put
    forward on the local workforce and you know, that have become
    created on Empire Wind. We have a local continent that we've
    got to live on and you know, and then you get the local
    workforce which is going to be really part of that. So we are
    planning the sector, you know, the operations, that's going to
    be a base, of course, and technicians and we have also to have
    to work on educating them to ensure they are on proper skills
    proper for working. So I think this is going to be some of the
    most important tasks we're going to have as an industry. It's
    really kind of the upscaling of the workforce and ensuring that
    we have the technicians available and, then again, this is
    going to be what's part that's going to buildup of the
    industry.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Mr. Simmons, can you talk a little bit about that? What is
    DOE doing to continue to further incentivize the expansion of
    our workforce, the transition of our workforce in this space?
        Mr. Simmons. We have a number of programs focused on,
    focused on workforce, we're focused on workforce training.
    Earlier this year we announced a $20 million award to the
    University of Tennessee that is focused on these jobs, these
    energy jobs of the future. All of our, just about all of our
    programs have some aspect of workforce training in them. It's
    very important, obviously, you have to have people that
    understand the technology so that we can grow the technologies,
    that that is, that is a key part of the technology itself.
        And if I may, about the previous question, about Nevada and
    hydrogen, our H2@Scale concept which is using hydrogen in all
    the possible ways that we think that we can use it, definitely
    applies to Nevada where you could use hydrogen as a storage
    medium. You could also use, hydrogen can power combustion
    turbines. In fact, there is a project to do that, not that far
    across the border, in Utah at the Intermountain Power Plant, to
    have a combustion turbine that is at least partially powered by
    hydrogen and hopefully, at one point, 100 percent hydrogen. So
    I just wanted to make sure to get that in because it's--
    hydrogen has very important aspects onshore as well.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you all.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Let me go back to you, Dr. Cruickshank and this will be a
    discussion, a little bit here, about wind energy permitting.
    You spoke in your opening statement about the interest, I think
    you mentioned some 16 active wind leases right now. It is clear
    that there is a market for competitively-priced offshore wind
    here. I am happy to hear that BOEM has been able to keep on
    track with its December timeline for the Vineyard Wind Notice
    of Intent.
        I worry though about, again, permitting and timelines and
    delays and potential delays for future Notices of Intent. Why
    don't you talk to me about whether or not you anticipate
    regulatory delays for other offshore wind projects similar to
    those that affected Vineyard Wind. Do you think that we have
    the necessary staff to meet the timelines? How do you feel
    about just where we are with a somewhat predictable timeline or
    is it predictable at this point in time?
        Dr. Cruickshank. Thank you for that question.
        I believe that we will become more predictable over time.
    The Vineyard Wind Project being the first of its kind in U.S.
    waters has certainly raised a lot of issues that we've needed
    to work through with other users of the ocean. It's important
    to the Secretary of the Interior and to us at BOEM that this
    first decision be right, and by that I mean it finds a way to
    have a project that allows successful co-existence of offshore
    wind and commercial fishing and maritime navigation--it does
    not have any unintended environmental consequences.
        And I think, as we work through the Vineyard Wind Project
    and get to our answer there, that our decision on that will be
    guidance for us at BOEM for how to work through other projects
    so they will be able to work on a, we will be able to work
    through them on a more predictable timeline. I would also note
    that the supplemental EIS we did to try and get a broader look
    at how to build out of offshore wind in the U.S. would impact
    the environment and other uses is a document that will help
    support a number of analyses for a number of other projects
    that we will have in the future.
        As far as resources, I think that Congress has been kind to
    us and meeting our needs and we hope that the FY 2021 budget
    that the--and the requests that the President sent up certainly
    would provide us the resources we need to be able to meet our
    responsibilities in permitting these projects.
        The Chairman. So it sounds like you think you have the
    necessary staff. Would you support implementing a more
    predictable lease schedule offshore wind options similar to
    what we do currently for oil and gas development? Is that
    something that you will look at? What do you think about that?
        Dr. Cruickshank. It is something we consider. At this point
    we have really tried to build our leasing process through
    working closely with states and other federal agencies and
    other stakeholders in the ocean to work on a state-by-state or
    a regional scale now to try and identify areas that are
    suitable. I think that if we tried to put out a program right
    now before we have much experience with these projects in the
    water, that we would really be running into a lot of questions.
    It would make it difficult to design a program of a national
    scope like we have for oil and gas.
        The Chairman. So let me turn to you, Assistant Secretary
    Simmons. The Water Power Technologies Office R&D initiative of
    Powering the Blue Economy, it has identified these isolated
    communities, and again I think about Alaska's situation. You
    have a situation where you have a market there of all these
    isolated communities of more than 70 megawatts. What efforts
    are you making within the Department to work directly with
    these local communities, these smaller communities, to expand
    the resources and as we think about these energy transition
    opportunities, particularly for the islanded communities that
    we have and not just in Alaska, but Hawaii, certainly Maine, as
    Senator King has mentioned? What are we doing to facilitate
    that level of outreach and communication?
        Mr. Simmons. We have a number of things that we are doing
    that, you know, the Powering the Blue Economy initiative is
    pretty new, but you've heard about one of the things that would
    fit into this concept with the work that ORPC is doing, for
    example, at Igiugig. We also had another aspect of that is the
    Waves to Water Prize that we announced last year to use the
    mechanical energy of wave power to drive desalination for some
    of these communities. Also, one of the things that we are very
    excited about is that next month we are going to be announcing
    the selections of our Energy Transitions Initiative Partnership
    Project, I think is the name of this initiative.
        And so, we have the--for a number of years we've had the
    Energy Transition Initiative that works with island and remote
    communities. What we have done differently is we took that
    effort and we included additional monies from the Water Power
    Technology Office and the Solar Energy Technology Office to
    fund, to be able to fund more projects. We're going to make
    those selections next month, about mid-month, hopefully. That's
    the current plan, where we'll fund about five partners to
    provide multi-year support to provide technical assistance to
    these communities as well as to provide a platform for
    information sharing because well, like, in one way, all remote
    communities are different, in another way, they're all remote
    and they all have similarities. So ways that we can build on
    those similarities and share information from, you know, from
    the Caribbean, to island communities in the far Pacific, to
    Alaska or Hawaii. So we're very excited to when those
    selections will be made and looking forward to being able to do
    that next month.
        The Chairman. And we will look forward to hearing about
    those.
        Let's turn to Senator Manchin.
        Senator Manchin. Very quickly, I just have one question.
        With Puerto Rico receiving $9.6 billion, which has just
    been announced for the grid, are you all working on any types
    of this technology, ocean technology or the wave technology or
    all the things we are talking about that would be more reliable
    for them if that is going to be that kind of investment rather
    than a system that basically goes down every time they have a
    storm? Anybody want to talk to that one?
        Mr. Simmons. I'll speak to it quickly and just that at the
    Department of Energy our Office of Electricity is spearheading
    the work with Puerto Rico and some of, some people from my
    office have worked with the Office of Electricity. So----
        Senator Manchin. Are they prepared now, I mean, with this
    slug of money coming, $9.6 billion has just been announced. Are
    you ready to, are they ready to implement this? Ready to go
    with it?
        Mr. Simmons. That I don't know.
        Senator Manchin. Does anybody know about Puerto Rico?
        Dr. Cruickshank. I can't speak to the spending of the
    money, Senator, but I would note that the Outer Continental
    Shelf Lands Act does not have jurisdiction offshore of Puerto
    Rico or any of the territories or possessions. It's limited to
    the 50 states. So there could not be any leasing for such
    projects in federal waters offshore of Puerto Rico.
        Senator Manchin. Anybody else have any knowledge of
    anything going into Puerto Rico? I mean, it is an awful lot of
    money to be throwing at that when we have a vulnerable system
    there and if it is not hardened or other types of reliability,
    it is going to be something we are going to repeat. It is
    something we would like to look into maybe. Maybe we can get
    some information. DOE, you would have the best ability to get
    that information.
        Mr. Simmons. Sure. Yeah. We will get you additional
    information on that.
        Senator Manchin. Would you pull it all together? Tell us
    how they intend to spend that $9.6 billion?
        Mr. Simmons. Yeah, yes, we will do that.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you. That is it, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator King.
        You are still on mute here.
        Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. There you go.
        Senator King. The question I have is talk to me, briefly, I
    mean, we have limited time, about the difference between
    ammonia and hydrogen, what the advantages and disadvantages are
    in terms of generating the fuel, storing it and deploying it.
        Mr. Lewis. Thanks for the question.
        So whether we're making hydrogen neat for use in fuel cells
    or ammonia for use in internal combustion engines and other
    systems, we start with hydrogen and we want to make the
    hydrogen without carbon. But the difference at that point,
    whether or not you keep it as hydrogen or turn it into ammonia,
    depends on your intended application.
        So ferries, which were discussed earlier, are potential
    terrific users of hydrogen-based fuel cells because you are
    working in a near shore application. You're not trying to cross
    the ocean. You can refuel more frequently. If you're trying to
    cross an ocean you need something that's a little bit more
    energy dense. It's easier to store. And ammonia is much easier
    to store, especially in large volumes than hydrogen.
        Senator King. That was going to be my next question. Give
    me a comparison of energy density between ammonia and diesel
    fuel, for example.
        Mr. Lewis. It's about, ammonia has about half the energy
    density of diesel fuel because the----
        Senator King. And is it used and stored on an internal
    combustion situation in a liquid form?
        Mr. Lewis. Yes, yes----
        Senator King. And so you need larger tanks as it sounds
    like it.
        Mr. Lewis. You would need, you'd need a larger tank that is
    slightly refrigerated. There are engineering firms and
    shipbuilding firms around the world that are working on
    mitigating that challenge and they think they see paths
    forward.
        Senator King. And you mentioned, I think, briefly, can
    current diesel engines be retrofitted to use ammonia?
        Mr. Lewis. We think so. We're very eager to see some of the
    first commercial applications of that, but there are several
    companies around the world, again, that are working on that
    because these are, you know, these are large engines and
    significant investments and it would be great if we could take
    the existing fleet and make it ammonia compatible.
        Senator King. So, the idea is hydrogen and ammonia
    generated by renewable power offshore, you could generate it
    during periods of light demand at night, for example. It would
    be a use for that power which would otherwise be surplus. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Lewis. That would certainly work. We think there's a
    lot of different ways to make zero carbon hydrogen whether it's
    from renewables, whether it's from nuclear, whether it's from
    steam-methane reformation with CCS, all of these technologies,
    though, need DOE investment to really be unlocked.
        Senator King. Madam Chair, I want to thank you for this
    hearing. I feel like we are literally seeing the future here.
    And of course, I have to mention that all of our problems may
    be solved today. Elon Musk has called today Battery Day, so who
    knows what they are going to be announcing in terms of battery
    capacity and longevity and energy density. So a great day on
    this subject. It is a very exciting future.
        I was really struck by the figure of 80 percent of our
    electricity demands reside along the coasts and along the
    shores of the Great Lakes. Huge opportunity here with existing
    transmission and distribution infrastructure. Exciting stuff.
        Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing.
        The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator King, I agree. It is
    exciting stuff.
        I have just a couple more questions. Other members have
    dropped off the line, so I will be quick in wrapping up here.
    Ms. Kindem, I wanted to ask you a question. There was a recent
    Executive Order (EO) from the White House that prohibits oil
    and gas leasing activities in federal waters in the Eastern
    Gulf, in the Straits of Florida and Southern Atlantic. Do you
    expect that that EO could affect the offshore wind industry's
    access to develop in those regions? Have you given any thought
    to that?
        Ms. Kindem. I think this is something we're evaluating what
    this truly means. If it's also offshore wind and not only oil
    and gas and I guess I need some expert to help me on responding
    of that. But I guess I can respond a bit more general that I
    think if it's a good area for a lease or not, I think that's
    more dependent on, you know, specific topics and not like a
    general order. So I think this is more, if it's a good lease
    area, I think that should depend more on that it could be
    geology, it could be on the state for the input, you know,
    different topics and not like a general order. So I think
    that's our general view on that.
        The Chairman. Have you looked to the potential for offshore
    wind development near and around the State of Alaska? I
    recognize that the Scotland project is a big one for you but
    having been to Scotland and looking at their energy assets, I
    couldn't help but note many of the comparisons with my state.
        Ms. Kindem. Well, and I agree. I think it's--I think Alaska
    should be, could be relevant for us. We all know that in the
    report, I think it was from 2016 or 2017, restating the
    potential, more technical potential, but Alaska, then again
    there is, you know, there's some things that also challenging
    being far away to load centers, you know, being more remote
    areas. So you know, I wouldn't argue on that thing, but I will
    say, like a general view, that, you know, for us, we're looking
    at the U.S. in total. So the last thing could also be co-
    interest for us. And this is also, you know, climate wise, you
    know, as a climate we are used to working in.
        The Chairman. One last question for you, Mr. Davies, and
    this is going to take it back to the Igiugig project there
    because this is not something that--you mentioned that it has
    been in the water now ten months and producing power for the
    community which, of course, is significant. But I had the
    opportunity, again, to go out there several years back, and it
    probably is more than several right now, and they had had the
    turbine in the river for a very brief period of time and took
    it out and recalibrated it and that went on for several,
    several summers. Of course, the seasonality of the project at
    that time just to determine how it was going to handle itself
    in winter conditions. Can you give just a quick recap on
    lessons learned there and what progress has been made since
    initial deployment?
        I know that many in the state, and not just in our state
    but others, are going to look at this and say, well, we've got
    a river right out here. We will just do the same thing that
    they have done in Igiugig. We think, we recognize though that
    it is not the same in every place and, in fact, it is unique in
    every place. Can you just speak a little bit to the lessons
    learned here?
        Mr. Davies. Sure, thank you for the question.
        So I think there's been a tremendous amount of learning
    over the last year. I mean, we've, and I think a lot of the
    news is great news. We survived temperatures as low as minus 40
    degrees for a 15, 20 degree--15-, 20-day period. We--there was
    two feet of ice that broke up off of Lake Iliamna and floated
    over the top of the device. That was a very cold winter, and so
    I think it was a 10 or 15 high in terms of ice thickness. And
    so, all of those are tests that we wanted to see to, you know,
    we've designed that process that you talked about. From 2010 to
    2016 was there were a lot of design changes in the components
    and how we designed the system to be able to withstand the
    harsh winter conditions in a remote community in Alaska
    because, you know, once you put it down in October, you really
    can't get access to it until next May. And so, we designed a
    number of components to be able to handle that, those winters.
        In addition, we've really made a lot of advances in the way
    the device deploys and is retrieved and so it is now very
    modular. We can ship it in four containers, you know,
    standardized containers so, we're able to move it to a site
    very quickly and then, it's designed to work with the local
    resources of the community to put it in the water. So it can be
    assembled on the beach and pushed into the water with local
    equipment and then it takes very small capacity boats to be
    able to tow it out to the location and put on the device, put
    onsite. And then the pontoon structure we've designed to, the
    ability to basically, the pontoons fill with water and it
    lowers the, you push a button and it fills it with water and it
    lowers it down and then, you can push another button and it
    comes back up. And that's no small task for a device that
    weighs 30 tons.
        And so all of that we've been able to test multiple times
    over the last ten months and you know, are happy to report
    we've had a lot of success on the device is back down on the
    river bottom and producing power today.
        The Chairman. And not interfering with the fish?
        Mr. Davies. Again, in our history, we've had a number of
    studies done and we've had no fish injuries or mortalities that
    have been recorded. You know, generally, if you think about
    where we're locating a device it's in the fastest flowing
    section of the river and fish migrating upstream are naturally
    going to disperse around that section of the river.
    Unfortunately, due to COVID we were not able to have Fish and
    Wildlife staff and people from the University of Alaska onsite
    to conduct fish studies, but we're hoping to do that next
    spring and the Department of Energy Water Technologies Office
    has extended our project deadline too and provided funding for
    us to do that next spring.
        The Chairman. Okay, very good.
        Well, Senator King, I just want to point out to you that
    this is yet another example of good, strong partnering between
    Alaska and Maine. This is, it has been really interesting to
    watch as this has really evolved over these years and I think,
    an opportunity for us.
        Senator King. Well, we are very proud of the work. We are
    very proud of the work that ORPC is doing. Although, now I
    noticed your comparison of Alaska and Scotland. I urge that you
    not take up eating haggis though in Alaska.
        [Laughter.]
        There are limits.
        The Chairman. I will take that under advisement. I
    appreciate that.
        This has been a great discussion this morning, and I
    appreciate the conversation that Senator Cortez Masto brought
    up about the workforce and the imperative of the workforce
    here. I think it is important to note that our American Energy
    Innovation Act that Senator Manchin spoke to and that Mr. Lewis
    mentioned that we needed to pass expeditiously, does contain in
    it several workforce development pieces when it comes to our
    opportunities for some of these resources.
        So a great exchange of information. I agree with you,
    Senator King, that it feels like where we are looking out
    toward the future and it is very exciting and there is a great
    deal that is going on. Thank you for sharing your updates with
    us this morning. We look forward to more progress in this area.
        With that, the Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]