[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]