[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
                       FEDERAL CLIMATE ADAPTATION
                  AND RESILIENCE FOR THE 21st CENTURY

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

                                     
                                     
                                     

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                             AND TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 8, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-47

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
 
 
 
 
 
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     
                                     

       Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
       
       
       
       
                        ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
46-926 PDF          WASHINGTON : 2022 
       
       
       
       
       

              COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

             HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma, 
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
    Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico     MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California             JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California           MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York                 STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois                YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia                  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                MIKE CAREY, OHIO
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                             March 8, 2022

                                                                   Page

Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                           Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Haley Stevens, Acting Chairwoman, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................     9
    Written Statement............................................    10

Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 
  Representatives................................................    11
    Written Statement............................................    13

Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, 
  Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 
  House of Representatives.......................................    14

                               Witnesses:

Dr. Richard Spinrad, Administrator, National Oceanic and 
  Atmospheric Administration
    Oral Statement...............................................    16
    Written Statement............................................    18

Ms. Ingrid Kolb, Director, Office of Management, and Chief 
  Sustainability Officer, Department of Energy
    Oral Statement...............................................    29
    Written Statement............................................    31

Dr. Joel Carney, Deputy Associate Administrator for Mission 
  Support Operations, Mission Support Directorate, and Chief 
  Sustainability Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
  Administration
    Oral Statement...............................................    40
    Written Statement............................................    42

Mr. Alfredo Gomez, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, 
  Government Accountability Office
    Oral Statement...............................................    49
    Written Statement............................................    51

Discussion.......................................................    70

             Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Richard Spinrad, Administrator, National Oceanic and 
  Atmospheric Administration.....................................   100

Ms. Ingrid Kolb, Director, Office of Management, and Chief 
  Sustainability Officer, Department of Energy...................   107

Dr. Joel Carney, Deputy Associate Administrator for Mission 
  Support Operations, Mission Support Directorate, and Chief 
  Sustainability Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
  Administration.................................................   110

Mr. Alfredo Gomez, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, 
  Government Accountability Office...............................   111

            Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record

Document submitted by Representative Bill Posey, Committee on 
  Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
    Executive Order 14008, ``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home 
      and Abroad''...............................................   114


                       FEDERAL CLIMATE ADAPTATION

                  AND RESILIENCE FOR THE 21st CENTURY

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2022

                          House of Representatives,
               Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., via 
Zoom, Hon. Haley Stevens [Acting Chairwoman of the Committee] 
presiding.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    Chairwoman Stevens. Without objection, the Chair is 
authorized to declare recess at any time. And before I deliver 
opening remarks, I wanted to note that obviously today's 
Committee hearing is meeting virtually.
    Just a couple of reminders that Members are well familiar 
with about the conduct of this hearing. First, Members should 
keep their video feed on for as long as they're present in the 
hearing. Members are certainly responsible for their own 
microphones. Please also keep your microphone muted unless you 
are speaking. And finally, if Members have documents that they 
wish to submit for the record, please email them to the 
Committee Clerk, whose email address was circulated prior to 
the hearing.
    And so good morning to all of my colleagues, and thank you 
to our witnesses for joining us here today. I look forward to 
an excellent discussion that will signify the extent to which 
Federal climate adaptation and resilience is a priority for the 
Committee, the hearing on ``Federal Climate Adaptation and 
Resilience for the 21st Century.'' I think we're all excited to 
be a part of this hearing, and I'm particularly proud to lead 
this hearing because this is an issue that resonates with 
anyone who cares about making the Federal Government work for 
the American people.
    On the Science Committee we see all the time the incredible 
things that the Federal Government can do. We see NOAA 
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) develop 
forecasts and models that have revolutionized our understanding 
of the natural world and that will save lives when extreme 
weather threatens our communities. We see the Department of 
Energy (DOE) invest in groundbreaking technologies that change 
the boundaries of what we think is possible. We see NASA 
(National Aeronautics and Space Administration) push the limits 
of human knowledge beyond even our planet itself. I truly 
believe that all of us on both sides of the aisle are committed 
to supporting the missions of these agencies and ensuring that 
they can get the job done.
    Climate change is a threat to these agencies and our entire 
Federal Government that simply cannot be ignored. By now, we 
are all too familiar with the litany of climate risks that 
confront our society. Rising sea levels and more frequent 
coastal floods, dangerous wildfires sparked by higher 
temperatures, and longer, more intense droughts, intense 
precipitation that overwhelms flood protections, and many more.
    Federal agencies are a part of our society as well, and 
they must adapt along with the rest of us. As the owners of a 
vast and complex asset infrastructure, agencies like NOAA, DOE, 
and NASA are vulnerable to the full spectrum of climate 
impacts. The testimony of our witnesses today will make clear 
that NASA is facing challenges. Their launch facilities, which 
are essential to the agency's missions, are coastal and gravely 
threatened by sea-level rise. DOE's national laboratories, the 
jewel of American scientific research, are grappling with the 
need to maintain safety protocols under more extreme weather 
conditions. NOAA's finely tuned instruments and platforms which 
generate data that underpin so much vital scientific work are 
increasingly operating in conditions beyond their designated 
operating parameters.
    Climate change is not an abstract phenomenon for these 
agencies and further Federal agencies across the executive 
branch. It is a concrete, tangible danger that could undermine 
core agency functions if not properly addressed. The answer, as 
we will discuss in this hearing, is to bolster climate 
adaptation and resilience processes throughout the Federal 
Government to ensure that facilities are protected, operations 
are insulated, and future investments are made wisely. Federal 
agencies must adapt to climate risk and strengthen the 
resilience to climate impacts.
    It's not going to be easy. Agencies need a detailed 
understanding of their own climate vulnerabilities. They will 
need to update their planning processes to account for these 
vulnerabilities. They will need to incorporate climate data 
into basic management functions, and they will need to teach 
their work forces how to interpret that data accurately. 
Finally, they will need the resources and the support to 
implement their adaptation and resilience strategies. It will 
be a large undertaking, and it will take sustained effort over 
many years. But it is necessary, and I believe there will be 
bipartisan support for it.
    Protecting the capabilities of Federal agencies like NOAA, 
DOE, and NASA is a shared goal for all of us. We should also 
realize that climate change not--does not only threaten Federal 
science agencies; it also highlights how vital their work truly 
is. The scientific assets that must be protected from climate 
impacts are the very assets that will lead the way in 
strengthening adaptation and resilience.
    NOAA, NASA, and DOE produce climate data, create climate-
resilient technologies, and operate advanced scientific tools 
that will provide the foundation for climate adaptation and 
resilience across the Federal Government. They can lead the way 
not only to protect themselves but also to educate their fellow 
agencies about how to do the same. This is an innovation in 
action. I am eager to hear more about how Federal science 
agencies can enhance their interagency cooperation to the 
benefit of the entire government.
    Again, I want to thank our witnesses for testifying before 
the Committee today. And as representatives of NOAA, DOE, NASA, 
and GAO (Government Accountability Office), you're--you are 
leaders in preparing the Federal Government for climate change 
and working to mitigate for climate change legislation that 
will be forthcoming. You are also confronting your own agency's 
efforts and for the government as a whole. You can help us to 
understand the true scale of this challenge, as well as the 
best ways for Congress to support adaptation and resilience 
strategies in the years to come. Thank you for your commitment 
to public service and for the important work you do.
    [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Stevens follows:]

    Good morning to all of my colleagues and thank you to all 
of our witnesses for joining us here today. I look forward to 
an excellent discussion that will signify the extent to which 
Federal climate adaptation and resilience is a priority for the 
Committee.
    I'm very excited to lead this hearing because this is an 
issue that should resonate with anyone who cares about making 
the Federal Government work for the American people. On the 
Science Committee, we see all the time the incredible things 
that the Federal Government can do. We see NOAA develop 
forecasts and models that have revolutionized our understanding 
of the natural world--and that save lives when extreme weather 
threatens our communities. We see the Department of Energy 
invest in groundbreaking technologies that change the 
boundaries of what we think is possible. We see NASA push the 
limits of human knowledge beyond even our planet itself. I 
truly believe that all of us, on both sides of the aisle, are 
committed to supporting the missions of these agencies and 
ensuring that they can get the job done.
    Climate change is a threat to these agencies and the entire 
Federal Government that cannot be ignored. By now, we are all 
too familiar with the litany of climate risks that confront our 
society: rising sea levels and more frequent coastal floods; 
dangerous wildfires sparked by higher temperatures and longer, 
more intense droughts; intense precipitation that overwhelms 
flood protections; and many more. Federal Agencies are part of 
our society as well, and they must adapt along with the rest of 
us.
    As the owners of a vast and complex asset infrastructure, 
agencies like NOAA, DOE, and NASA are vulnerable to the full 
spectrum of climate impacts. The testimony of our witnesses 
today will make that clear. NASA's launch facilities, which are 
essential to the agency's mission, are coastal and gravely 
threatened by sea level rise. DOE's National Laboratories, a 
jewel of American scientific research, are grappling with the 
need to maintain safety protocols under more extreme weather 
conditions. NOAA's finely tuned instruments and platforms, 
which generate data that underpins so much vital scientific 
work, are increasingly operating in conditions beyond their 
designed operating parameters. Climate change is not an 
abstract phenomenon for these agencies, and for their fellow 
agencies across the executive branch. It is a concrete, 
tangible danger that could undermine core agency functions if 
not properly addressed.
    The answer, as we will discuss in this hearing, is to 
bolster climate adaptation and resilience processes throughout 
the Federal Government. To ensure that facilities are 
protected, operations are insulated, and future investments are 
made wisely, Federal agencies must adapt to climate risk and 
strengthen their resilience to climate impacts. It will not be 
easy. Agencies will need a detailed understanding of their own 
climate vulnerabilities. They will need to update their 
planning processes to account for these vulnerabilities. They 
will need to incorporate climate data into basic management 
functions, and they will need to teach their workforces how to 
interpret that data accurately. Finally, they will need the 
resources and the support to implement their adaptation and 
resilience strategies. It will be a large undertaking and it 
will take sustained effort over many years. But it is 
necessary, and I believe there will be bipartisan support for 
it. Protecting the capabilities of Federal agencies like NOAA, 
DOE, and NASA is a shared goal for all of us.
    We should also realize that climate change does not only 
threaten Federal science agencies--it also highlights how vital 
their work truly is. The scientific assets that must be 
protected from climate impacts are the very assets that will 
lead the way in strengthening adaptation and resilience. NOAA, 
NASA, and DOE produce climate data, create climate-resilient 
technologies, and operate advanced scientific tools that will 
provide the foundation for climate adaptation and resilience 
across the Federal Government. They can lead the way--not only 
to protect themselves, but also to educate their fellow 
agencies about how to do the same. I am eager to hear more 
about how Federal science agencies can enhance inter-agency 
cooperation to the benefit of the entire government.
    I want to think all of our witnesses for testifying before 
the Committee today. As representatives of NOAA, DOE, NASA, and 
GAO, you are leaders in preparing the Federal Government for 
climate change and working to mitigate the climate impacts 
confronting your own agencies and the government as a whole. 
You can help us to understand the true scale of this challenge, 
as well as the best ways for Congress to support adaptation and 
resilience strategies in the years to come. Thank you all for 
your commitment to public service and for the important work 
that you do.
    I now yield to Ranking Member Lucas for his opening 
statement.

    Chairwoman Stevens. And now, I will yield to Ranking Member 
Lucas for his opening statement.
    Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens.
    As many of my neighbors in rural Oklahoma can tell you, 
droughts are getting longer, heat waves are getting hotter, and 
the task of anticipating and managing risk from the environment 
has gotten more challenging. Extreme weather events can take 
lives and destroy property if we don't prepare for them.
    I know that many of these trends are related to the 
changing climate, and their effect could continue to grow in 
the future. In addition to our work in reducing emissions and 
combating climate change, we must also adapt to what we are 
currently facing. We've long recognized environmental risks for 
individuals and communities, which is why we've tasked agencies 
like NASA, NOAA, and DOE to provide tools and services to help 
prepare for and recover from severe events. But as we continue 
to confront a changing environment across the Nation, we must 
ensure that our Federal infrastructure is also protected and 
prepared to adopt.
    We're in the midst of an unprecedented investment in our 
infrastructure, and this Committee has been a driving force 
when it comes to increasing support for Federal research 
infrastructure. Recognizing that a world-class science 
enterprise requires world-class facilities and equipment, we 
invested heavily in infrastructure in the DOE Science for the 
Future Act, the NSF for the Future Act, and the NIST for the 
Future Act.
    In addition to preserving the facilities and instruments 
the Federal Government has already spent billions to build or 
acquire, these bipartisan bills call for more construction and 
additional facilities, projects, and tools that will ensure the 
U.S. research enterprise remains on the cutting edge and 
attracts world-renowned talent. I expect that, as part of this 
investment, agencies will ensure that they are considering a 
future where weather is more extreme and the risk for unique 
environmental events might be higher. Planning ahead is just as 
important as putting a shovel in the ground quickly.
    So let me issue a serious marker for the future. As a part 
of our support for increased investment in Federal research 
infrastructure, I do not expect to have another hearing in 5 
years where the same agencies before us today come and testify 
their facilities are suffering because of environmental 
changes. We have the ability to identify those risks now, and 
we should start to work to overcome them immediately or, at the 
very least, position ourselves to mitigate their most harmful 
effects in the future. That responsibility falls on each 
Federal agency.
    This preparation also extends beyond existing facilities 
into the many new clean energy projects and demonstrations 
being implemented as a result of the Infrastructure Investments 
and Jobs Act (IIJA). There is an unprecedented amount of money 
being spent through this legislation, which makes oversight and 
careful planning more important than ever. As money for brick-
and-mortar projects goes out the door, we need to be sure this 
money is spent carefully on projects built to last. Long-term 
operations should be a priority, and consideration of climate 
risk is a part of that. A lack of forward-looking planning 
would be just as wasteful as building an instrument that 
doesn't work.
    Additionally, we have an obligation to provide our citizens 
the most accurate information on climate and weather events so 
that they can make informed decisions for their own well-being 
and resiliency. Today's hearing offers an opportunity for each 
agency to inform us about the adaption tools they offer 
taxpayers and how those tools are being adjusted for changes in 
future climate risk. Personally, I believe that is best done by 
maximizing our resources through partnerships with private-
sector and academic institutions. I look forward to hearing 
from NASA and NOAA on how they plan to identify and utilize new 
commercial data related to atmospheric and weather behaviors.
    I also look forward to hearing from DOE on how their new 
demonstrations and pilot projects are bringing in partners from 
institutions of higher education and industry to help 
commercialize these groundbreaking tools. All in all, I think 
today's hearing is a timely topic and one I'm sure we'll look 
back on as a productive precursor. I look forward to hearing 
each of our witnesses' testimony, and I thank you, Madam 
Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

    Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson.
    As any one of my neighbors in rural Oklahoma could tell 
you, droughts are getting longer, heat waves are getting 
hotter, and the task of anticipating and managing risks from 
the environment has gotten more challenging. Extreme weather 
events can take lives and destroy property if we don't prepare 
for them.
    We know that many of these trends are related to the 
changing climate and their effect could continue to grow in the 
future. In addition to our work in reducing emissions and 
combating climate change, we must also adapt to what we're 
currently facing.
    We've long recognized environmental risks for individuals 
and communities, which is why we've tasked agencies like NASA, 
NOAA, and DOE to provide tools and services to help prepare for 
and recover from severe events. But as we continue to confront 
a changing environment across the nation, we must ensure that 
our federal infrastructure is also protected and prepared to 
adapt.
    We're in the midst of unprecedented investment in our 
infrastructure. And this Committee has been a driving force 
when it comes to increasing support for federal research 
infrastructure. Recognizing that a world-class science 
enterprise requires world-class facilities and equipment, we 
invested heavily in infrastructure in the DOE Science for the 
Future Act, the NSF for the Future Act, and the NIST for the 
Future Act.
    In addition to preserving the facilities and instruments 
the federal government has already spent billions to build or 
acquire, these bipartisan bills call for more construction and 
additional facilities, projects, and tools that will ensure the 
U.S. research enterprise remains on the cutting edge and 
attracts world renowned talent. I expect that as part of this 
investment, agencies will ensure they are considering a future 
where weather is more extreme and the risks for unique 
environmental events might be higher. Planning ahead is just as 
important as putting a shovel in the ground quickly.
    So let me issue a serious marker for the future. As part of 
our support for increased investment in federal research 
infrastructure, I do not expect to have another hearing in five 
years where the same agencies before us today come testify that 
their facilities are suffering because of environmental 
changes. We have the ability to identify those risks now, and 
we should start to work to overcome them immediately. Or at the 
very least, position ourselves to mitigate their most harmful 
effects in the future. That responsibility falls on each 
federal agency.
    This preparation also extends beyond existing facilities 
and to the many new clean energy projects and demonstrations 
being implemented as a result of the Infrastructure Investments 
and Jobs Act. There is an unprecedented amount of money being 
spent through this legislation, which makes oversight and 
careful planning more important than ever. As money for brick-
and-mortar projects goes out the door, we need to be sure this 
money is spent carefully on projects built to last. Long-term 
operations should be a priority and consideration of climate 
risk is part of that. A lack of forward-looking planning would 
be just as wasteful as building an instrument that doesn't 
work.
    Additionally, we have an obligation to provide our citizens 
the most accurate information on climate and weather events so 
that they can make informed decisions for their own well-being 
and resiliency. Today's hearing offers an opportunity for each 
agency to inform us about the adaptation tools they offer 
taxpayers and how those tools are being adjusted for changes in 
future climate risks. Personally, I believe that is best done 
by maximizing our resources through partnerships with the 
private sector and academic institutions. I look forward to 
hearing from NASA and NOAA on how they plan to identify and 
utilize new commercial data related to atmospheric and weather 
behaviors.
    I also look forward to hearing from DOE on how their new 
demonstrations and pilot projects are bringing in partners from 
institutions of higher education and industry to help 
commercialize these groundbreaking tools. All in all, I think 
today's hearing is a timely topic and one I am sure we will 
look back on as a productive precursor. I look forward to 
hearing each of our witnesses' testimony.
    Thank you Madam Chair and I yield back the balance of my 
time.

    Chairwoman Stevens. Well, it's in the record for all of 
time, ``productive precursor,'' so this is just a great start 
to today's hearing. And if there are other Members who wish to 
submit additional opening statements, your statements will be 
added to the record at this point.
    [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    I want to begin by thanking all of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle for joining me here today to discuss this 
important topic.
    The subject of this hearing is Federal climate adaptation 
and resilience. In other words, our focus will be the need for 
the Federal Government to protect itself from the impacts that 
climate change will bring in the years and decades to come.
    Democrats and Republicans, on this Committee and throughout 
the Congress, hold different views on many aspects of climate 
policy, and those debates will continue. But within a topic 
that all too often divides us, this is one area where we share 
a common goal. So many vital Federal programs--important to all 
of us and backed by longstanding bipartisan support--are now 
vulnerable to climate change. We must support efforts to 
bolster Federal resilience in order to ensure that these 
programs continue to deliver needed results for our 
constituents and the country as a whole.
    Climate impacts can take many forms: rising sea levels, 
higher temperatures, and more severe droughts and wildfires, to 
name only a few. For Federal agencies, the implications are 
clear. Coastal infrastructure is vulnerable to flooding. 
Facilities that require large amounts of energy confront 
stressed local power grids. In every region of the country, 
Federal assets are exposed to climate risks that threaten their 
programmatic missions.
    Three agencies will testify today about these risks, as 
well as their adaptation and resilience strategies to address 
them. NASA, the Department of Energy, and NOAA perform critical 
functions for the American people. This Committee has a long 
history of supporting them and working to bolster their ability 
to achieve their missions.
    The challenge posed by climate change is no different. When 
NASA launch facilities are threatened by sea level rise; when 
DOE National Laboratories experience environmental conditions 
that strain energy supplies and safety protocols; when NOAA 
platforms are forced to operate in more difficult environments 
than originally intended-well, those are challenges that will 
need to be overcome. But to properly do so, we need to fully 
understand the threat, and we need to know what steps the 
agencies are already planning to assess that threat and 
mitigate it.
    There is opportunity here as well. These three agencies are 
among the most powerful engines of the Federal scientific 
enterprise. They can play a critical role in generating climate 
data and disseminating that information to other agencies. They 
can and should lead the way in strengthening inter-agency 
coordination and educating other agencies about their climate 
risks in order to boost climate adaptation and resilience 
across the entire Federal Government.
    I am grateful to our witnesses for appearing before us 
today. Your perspectives as representatives of NOAA, DOE, NASA, 
and GAO will help us to understand the scale of the problem for 
your respective agencies and for the government as a whole. 
Your testimony will help us to think about the best ways for 
Congress to support ongoing efforts to improve Federal climate 
adaptation and resilience, and in doing so, protect Federal 
programs and investments for the long term. I thank each of you 
for your commitment to public service.
    I now yield to Ranking Member Lucas.

    Chairwoman Stevens. I would also at this time like to 
introduce our witnesses. So our first witness is Dr. Richard 
Spinrad. Dr. Spinrad is the Under Secretary of Commerce for 
Oceans and Atmosphere, as well as the Administrator of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, otherwise 
known as NOAA. He is responsible for developing NOAA's 
portfolio of products and services to address the climate 
crisis, enhance environmental sustainability, and foster 
economic development. Dr. Spinrad previously served as NOAA's 
Chief Scientist and lead of NOAA's Office of Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Research during President Obama's Administration. 
He also served as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the 
United Nations Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission from 
2005 to 2009.
    Our next witness is Ms. Ingrid Kolb. Ms. Kolb is the 
Department of Energy's Chief Sustainability Officer and 
Director of the Office of Management. The Office of Management 
oversees sustainability, acquisition management, real property 
management, and personal property management for DOE. Ms. Kolb 
also served as Deputy Director when the Office of Management 
was first established in 2005. Prior to her time with DOE, Ms. 
Kolb worked as the Chief of Staff to the Chief Financial 
Officers of both DHS (Department of Homeland Security) and OMB 
(Office of Management and Budget).
    Our third witness is Dr. Joel Carney. Dr. Carney is the 
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Strategic 
Infrastructure or OSI, as well as NASA's Chief Sustainability 
Officer. OSI leads NASA's Environmental Management Division, 
Logistics Management Division, Facilities and Real Estate 
Division, and the Space Testing Management Office. As head of 
OSI, Dr. Carney leads NASA's posture on climate change and 
environmental sustainment. Previously, Dr. Carney was the 
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mission Support Operations 
for NASA's Mission Support Directorate where he managed agency 
infrastructure, risk, and operational transformation.
    Following from Dr. Carney is Mr. Alfredo Gomez. Mr. Gomez 
is the Director in the Natural Resource and Environmental Team 
of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, otherwise known 
as GAO. He manages the team's work in environmental protection 
issues. His portfolio includes work in cleanup of hazardous 
substances, drinking and clean water issues, ecosystem 
restoration, pesticides, toxic chemicals, climate change, and 
EPA- (Environmental Protection Agency-) wide management issues. 
Mr. Gomez has produced numerous reports and testimonies 
addressing a wide range of environmental, natural resource, 
agency management, and food safety issues.
    I don't know about all of you, but these bios get me very 
fired up for the testimonies to follow.
    So as our witnesses should know, you're each going to have 
five minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony 
will be included in the record for the hearing. When all of you 
have completed your spoken testimony, we're going to begin with 
Member questions, and each Member's going to have five minutes 
to question this phenomenal panel.
    So with that, we will start with Dr. Spinrad for five 
minutes of oral testimony.

        TESTIMONY OF DR. RICHARD SPINRAD, ADMINISTRATOR,

        NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

    Dr. Spinrad. Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member Lucas, 
Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to 
testify today.
    Since its inception in 1970, NOAA has been a world leader 
in climate science and services, providing actionable 
environmental information that is the basis of smart policy and 
decisionmaking in the changing world. NOAA plays a unique role 
in the climate arena because we work along the entire lifecycle 
from climate data collection to research and modeling to 
product development and dissemination and continuous 
assessment. And we are mandated to make our data operational, 
providing actionable information to both the public and private 
sectors that protects lives and livelihoods and fuels the 
economy.
    In addition to helping other agencies and communities 
prepare for climate impacts, NOAA is working to ensure that our 
own operations are resilient to the impacts of climate change. 
NOAA facilities, like all infrastructure across the Nation, are 
exposed to the full range of weather and climate extremes, and 
in some cases their aging condition increases their 
vulnerability.
    We are in the last phase of a strategic review of facility 
vulnerabilities to extreme weather and climate change such a 
sea-level rise. We're using NOAA science to inform our 
facilities' decisions and have salient examples of ways we've 
managed our facilities' projects to better withstand climate 
impacts. A recent example is the Ketchikan Homeport 
Recapitalization Project in Alaska. The floating pier, which 
will homeport our Fairweather survey vessel, will be designed 
to withstand rising sea levels due to climate change. The 
pier's reconstruction also entails a significantly reduced 
carbon footprint.
    Information is power, and we share our climate data 
publicly and directly with users through our many partnerships 
and boots-on-the-ground activities across the country. We also 
regularly equip our interagency colleagues with climate data 
products and services that they need to make informed decisions 
to minimize exposure to extreme weather and climate impacts, 
and I'd be happy to go into some examples during the Q&A 
(question and answer).
    These partnerships help us provide trusted and targeted 
climate information to users and give us feedback so we're 
constantly improving our science and services to meet the 
evolving needs of our stakeholders. One of my top priorities as 
NOAA Administrator is to enhance NOAA's role as the 
authoritative provider of climate products and services that 
can be applied through a diverse range of needs. It's my vision 
that by 2030 NOAA will work with its partners to build a 
climate-ready nation that gets information into the hands of 
decisionmakers, provides support for tribal, rural, and other 
underserved communities, and expands our resources for climate 
readiness, response, and resilience. This capability is 
reflected in the Department of Commerce Climate Action Plan in 
which NOAA leads the effort to foster and enhance the 
resilience of vulnerable communities.
    At NOAA we recognize that climate adaptation and resilience 
are also opportunities to create jobs, spur economic growth, 
and prevent avoidable damages to infrastructure. Since becoming 
Administrator, I've personally engaged with new and 
nontraditional partners, including the insurance sector, the 
American Medical Association, realtors, and civil engineers to 
let them know NOAA stands ready to assist with actionable 
information. I've heard both a willingness and urgency to 
incorporate forward-looking, authoritative climate information 
into their decisionmaking and business practices as climate 
change is a major risk to their bottom lines.
    As part of the Department of Commerce, we can also help 
grow the burgeoning economic sector of commercial climate 
services to enable robust public-private partnerships, much 
like the successful $10 billion private weather enterprise that 
we know today. This new climate services sector, estimated to 
grow to a staggering annual value of $100 billion, will be 
built upon NOAA's credible data, research, modeling, and 
services. NOAA is an integral part of the whole-of-government 
effort to tackle the climate crisis, boost resilience, and 
promote economic growth.
    In the next decade, our Nation must transition to a carbon-
neutral economy if we're to stave off the worst impacts of 
climate change. At the same time, we must adapt to the impacts 
we cannot avoid. Achieving both will require making climate 
services accessible to all Americans to help them make informed 
decisions for their future. At NOAA, we are eager to work with 
communities and partners across the United States and to build 
a climate-ready nation. After all, if we prepare to fail, we 
are going to prepare to fail. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Spinrad follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
   
    
    Chairwoman Stevens. OK. With that, we'll hear from Ms. 
Kolb.

                 TESTIMONY OF MS. INGRID KOLB,

                 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT,

               AND CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER,

                      DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Ms. Kolb. Good morning. Congresswoman Stevens, Ranking 
Member Lucas, and Members of the Committee, it is an honor to 
appear before you today to discuss the Department of Energy's 
approach to addressing the threat of climate change to our 
mission and the actions that we are taking to enhance climate 
adaptation and resilience.
    The mission of the Department of Energy is to ensure 
America's security and prosperity by addressing its energy, 
environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative 
science and technology solutions. DOE understands its mission 
is being performed in an already-changing climate. Our sites, 
many of which are located in or near several of your districts, 
are already experiencing the impacts of climate change on our 
operations. DOE is committed to taking action to adapt and to 
respond to these threats by increasing our resilience.
    In August 2021, Secretary Granholm issued the Department's 
Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan, which supports the 
President's climate and sustainability goals for climate-
resilient infrastructure and operations. The plan addresses the 
extreme weather events that have impacted the Department's 
operations already. So some examples include wildfire damage 
and the disruption to operations that have occurred at such 
sites as Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and the 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California; extreme 
precipitation and flooding that have impacted DOE sites such as 
the Pantex Plant in Texas, our Nation's only nuclear weapons 
assembly and disassembly facility; coastal flooding that's 
impacted our coastal sites, including the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, which is in Texas and Louisiana.
    So the key strategies in our plan for addressing these 
impacts include the following: First, the Department is 
assessing our climate vulnerabilities at each DOE site and will 
develop resilience plans by this September. We will leverage 
risk assessment planning tools and the latest climate science 
information through collaboration with our national 
laboratories, including Argonne National Laboratory, as well as 
other Federal agencies, including NOAA.
    The Department will also enhance climate resilience by 
adopting solutions such as natural or physical barriers to 
protect facilities and equipment vulnerable to flooding, 
reinforcing assets vulnerable to wind and ice damage, reducing 
wildfire potential, and providing backup power generation to 
address power outages.
    In addition to hardening our assets, the Department is 
implementing resilience measures such as increasing energy 
efficiency and reducing energy demand. To support the 
transition to climate-ready sites, DOE will leverage its 
extensive land resources to increase resilience using onsite, 
clean energy generation and, where possible, using our buying 
power to work with other Federal agencies to procure clean 
electricity to meet the Administration's climate goals.
    To support commercialization and deployment of new and 
innovative clean energy technologies, DOE will use its sites as 
testbeds to demonstrate innovative, sustainable solutions for 
adoption and deployment at DOE sites and subsequent deployment 
to the public and private sectors. All of these efforts will be 
coordinated with DOE's new office, the Office of Energy Justice 
and Policy and Analysis, to promote energy and environmental 
justice and ensure we deliver the benefits of climate 
investments and climate resilience to disadvantaged 
communities.
    In summary, the Department will incorporate climate 
adaptation and resilience goals and actions in our planning and 
operations. We will also act with urgency to ensure the 
resilience of our sites. And finally, we will engage and share 
our best practices with other Federal agencies and other 
stakeholders.
    So thank you for the opportunity to participate today, and 
I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Kolb follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    
    Chairwoman Stevens. Excellent. And with that, we'll go to 
Dr. Carney.

                 TESTIMONY OF DR. JOEL CARNEY,

                 DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR

                FOR MISSION SUPPORT OPERATIONS,

                  MISSION SUPPORT DIRECTORATE,

               AND CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER,

         NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    Dr. Carney. Thank you, and good morning. Chairwoman 
Stevens, Ranking Member Lucas, and Members of the Committee, 
thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss NASA's 
efforts to increase resilience while achieving its mission in 
the face of a changing climate.
    Through the--through data collection, improving our 
predictive capabilities, reducing the impacts of air travel, 
and advanced infrastructure planning, climate is a central 
theme at NASA. These efforts will inform responses to global 
challenges with climate change now and into the future.
    Along with the organizations represented on this panel, 
NASA is one of the leading Federal agencies assessing climate 
vulnerabilities. NASA's Earth science missions collect data on 
space, airborne, and ground-based platforms, which are used to 
better understand trends in climate and improve our predictive 
capabilities. NASA's aeronautics research missions focus on 
advanced aircraft technologies and operational approaches that 
can lead to climate change mitigation benefits for the global 
community, including greenhouse gas emission reductions through 
electric propulsion and other advanced systems. Both of these 
organizations are also integral pieces of our Nation's effort 
to improve the control of wildfires and their cascading 
impacts.
    Whether we are improving the global understanding of 
climate and its impacts or planning for future missions, NASA 
is focused on climate. Central to NASA's interest in climate 
effects is the threat posed to its unique critical 
infrastructure portfolio. NASA's missions rely on the 
availability and resilience of its facilities and their 
underlying infrastructure. Approximately 2/3 of NASA's assets 
are located within 16 feet of mean sea level along America's 
coasts. Sea-level rise, extreme weather events, coastal and 
river flooding, heatwaves, and other changes have damaged and 
are projected to damage our centers in the future.
    Since 2003, NASA expenditures for recovery hardening and 
stabilization against these risks are estimated at more than $1 
billion. For example, NASA has spent over $200 million in the 
last 2 decades repairing damage at centers due to flooding 
alone. Shoreline restoration projects have been necessary to 
protect critical launch capabilities from beach erosion at the 
Kennedy Space Center in Florida and the Wallops Flight Facility 
in Virginia. In the last 5 years serious hurricanes have 
damaged rocket motor assembly and testing infrastructure at the 
Michoud Assembly Facility in Louisiana and the Stennis Space 
Center in Mississippi. These events highlight the risks to past 
and future missions. Infrastructure investment remains an 
essential part of the equation to provide safe and efficient 
sustainable facilities that can withstand the evolving climate-
related challenges and continue to support the success of 
NASA's missions in the future.
    In 2010, NASA established the Climate Adaptation Science 
Investigators, known as CASI, located at the Goddard Institute 
for Space Studies in New York City. The CASI team has worked 
with national and international teams to develop models that 
can better track and predict future climate conditions.
    In 2020, we engaged with the U.S. Department of Energy's 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory to study climate 
resilience at our NASA centers. NASA plans to complete the 
initial resiliency studies for all centers by 2025. These 
studies will inform our strategic infrastructure planning 
processes, which will help us better align climate change 
adaptation and resilience efforts to projected mission 
requirements.
    NASA is both a consumer of climate science and a leading 
source of climate data and information. We contribute to the 
latest climate observations, research, models, and analyses, 
providing foundational and decisional knowledge in cooperation 
with many partners. NASA will continue its efforts to improve 
our capabilities in modeling and climate change and its impacts 
and share that data with the scientific community and other 
government agencies. These data products can enable better 
scenario planning and longer-range decisionmaking for Federal 
agencies and managers in a range of U.S. sectors, including 
insurance, agriculture, water resource management, to name a 
few.
    In closing, NASA continues to drive advances in science, 
technology, aeronautics, and space exploration to enhance 
knowledge, education, innovation, economic vitality, and 
stewardship of the Earth. We are committed to using our 
advanced planning techniques afforded by these scientific 
advancements to protect its assets and capabilities from the 
growing challenges of climate extremes and climate-related 
changes posed to our environment.
    I thank the Committee for this opportunity to testify 
before you today and look forward to the Q&A period. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Carney follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     
    
    
    Chairwoman Stevens. Thank you. And with that, we're going 
to hear from Mr. Gomez.

           TESTIMONY OF MR. ALFREDO GOMEZ, DIRECTOR,

               NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT,

                GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

    Mr. Gomez. Chairwoman Stevens, Ranking Member Lucas, and 
Members of the Committee, good morning. I'm pleased to be here 
today to discuss GAO's work on Federal climate adaptation and 
resilience.
    The rising number of natural disasters and increasing 
reliance on Federal assistance is the key source of Federal 
climate-related fiscal exposure. This issue has been on our 
high-risk list since February 2013. Enhancing climate 
resilience to help limit the Federal Government's fiscal 
exposure to climate change could reduce the need for far more 
costly steps in the future.
    The Administration is taking some actions to implement 
recent climate-related executive orders, including the 
development of agency climate adaptation and resilience plans, 
which we've heard about from some of the witnesses. These plans 
describe steps agencies can take to bolster adaptation and 
increase resilience to the impacts of climate change. We are 
monitoring the implementation of these efforts.
    Madam Chairwoman, you asked about best practices that 
agencies could adopt to identify climate vulnerabilities and 
incorporate climate risks into their ongoing planning and 
program implementation. My statement today will discuss the 
Disaster Resilience Framework, which GAO issued in October 2019 
and several reports on climate resilience.
    Congress and Federal agencies can improve Federal climate 
resilience planning and implementation by pursuing 
opportunities related to three guiding principles of the 
disaster resilience framework: information, integration, and 
incentives. For the first guiding principle of information, 
Congress and Federal agencies can improve Federal climate 
resilience by helping decisionmakers access information that is 
authoritative and understandable to identify climate risks and 
the impact of risk-reduction strategies. Our past work shows 
how improvements are necessary across the entire Federal 
Government and within specific programs. For example, the 
Federal Government needs a governmentwide approach for 
providing Federal, State, local, and private-sector 
decisionmakers with the best available climate-related 
information and assistance with translating climate-related 
data into accessible information.
    For the second guiding principle of integration, Congress 
and Federal agencies can improve climate resilience planning 
and implementation by helping decisionmakers integrate analysis 
and planning into their actions. We have previously recommended 
many ways to reduce Federal fiscal exposure by better 
coordinating and directing Federal climate resilience efforts 
toward common goals and developing a strategic approach for 
targeting Federal resources. Currently, the Federal Government 
makes ad hoc investments and does not have a strategy for 
prioritizing projects that could have the most impact. For 
example, in June 2019 we recommended that the military 
departments update criteria for installation master planning to 
incorporate climate risk and that DOD (Department of Defense) 
issue guidance on incorporating climate projections into 
installation master planning and facilities project designs.
    For the third guiding principle of incentives, Congress and 
Federal agencies can improve Federal climate resilience by 
making long-term risk-reduction investments more viable and 
attractive among competing priorities. Federal incentives could 
also encourage risk-reduction investments in State and local 
infrastructure projects. In a GAO report from last year, we 
provided several options to enhance the climate resilience of 
federally funded roads. Specifically, we identified and 
analyzed several policy options such as expanded Federal grants 
or additional funding requirements to incentivize States and 
localities to enhance the climate resilience of federally 
funded roads and reduce Federal fiscal exposure.
    In summary, investments in adaptation and disaster 
resilience are a promising avenue to address Federal fiscal 
exposure because such investments offer the opportunity to 
reduce the overall impact of disasters. We're also monitoring 
ongoing efforts to improve the integration of Federal climate 
resilience activities, and we will report on these activities 
as part of next year's high-risk list report.
    Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Lucas, and Members of the 
Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I'd be pleased 
to respond to questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gomez follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Chairwoman Stevens. Great. OK, at this point, we're going 
to begin our first round of questions, and the Chair is going 
to recognize herself for five minutes.
    So it's obvious and clear that, you know, the big picture 
of what the risks are and how they're threatening the agency's 
ability to achieve the various missions is documented. You 
know, Kolb talked about the fires, you know, we're getting a 
sense of the cost from NASA. And thank you, Mr. Gomez, for 
talking about the incentives.
    I think the question, though, is around, you know, as you 
all are--at the agency level are working on your individual 
agency's resiliency strategy, sustainability strategies, how if 
it all are you coordinating through the Federal Government? Is 
there an interagency clearinghouse, or is this really taking 
place in isolated fashion? And, you know, Ms. Kolb, I'd 
certainly like to start with you, given your extensive 
background. I'm really quite fascinated that you spent time at 
DHS and now have this great post at DOE because we can sort of 
start to see the national security components that Mr. Gomez 
talked about. And he mentioned, you know, the military's 
involvement. But have you had interagency discussions at this 
point?
    Ms. Kolb. Yes, absolutely. As a matter of fact, the Council 
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has a Chief Sustainability 
Officers Council. We meet regularly. It's chaired by the 
government's Chief Sustainable--Sustainability Officer. And we 
talk about these very issues, how we're going to handle 
adaptation and resilience and sustainability as a government. 
And I really like the approach that CEQ is taking. You've heard 
some of my colleagues talk about a whole-of-government 
approach. And so there is quite a bit of coordination not just 
at our level but as levels as you go through the--you know, the 
government.
    So, for example, on the climate adaptation and resilience 
plans that we were all required to prepare, those plans were 
developed by each agency, and then they were reviewed by panels 
with representatives from various agencies. So that gave all 
the agencies an opportunity to see what the others were doing 
so that they could then incorporate best practices into those. 
So it's been a very collaborative process, and I give CEQ high 
marks for the way that they have designed it.
    Chairwoman Stevens. Yes, that's great. And, Dr. Spinrad, I 
know with NOAA, we oftentimes just look to you for so much 
guidance on climate change and how to deal with it, but 
obviously, your testimony talking about how you're dealing with 
this as an agency. I was just wondering if you could share a 
little bit more about just the risks that your agency is facing 
as it pertains to, you know, the need for resilience.
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes, thank you, Chairwoman. The agency--NOAA 
has 620 facilities, buildings that we occupy around the 
country. And by virtue of our mission responsibilities, many of 
those are exposed to the threats of climate change. So what we 
have undertaken over the last couple of years is a rigorous 
regional footprint analysis for each of those facilities. It 
turns out that more than 1/3 of them are over 65 years old, so 
not only are they subject to the climate impacts but just the 
inherent vulnerabilities of being aging buildings as well. 
We're finishing up those regional footprint studies. We've got 
two more to do in the mountain States and the Midwest over the 
summer. And subsequent to those, what we're doing is a business 
case analysis of where investments should be prioritized so we 
can optimize our capability to perform our mission in 
recognition of the impacts of climate change.
    So I mentioned, for example, an example of what we're doing 
with our port facility in Ketchikan, Alaska. We recently moved 
our aircraft operations center where we fly our hurricane 
hunters from MacDill Air Force Base to Lakeland. In so doing, 
we constructed the facility, taking advantage of our 
understanding of what's going to happen to hurricane intensity 
in that part of the country. So through these analyses, through 
business case analysis, we're able to asset-by-asset make a 
determination of where we can apply resources most effectively.
    Chairwoman Stevens. Yes. And, Dr. Carney, you talked about 
the cost and obviously threw out a huge figure with $1 billion, 
but obviously costs come down, just hearing Dr. Spinrad, right, 
that the human capital cost, the time that it takes, the 
orientation. So just with the remaining time, I mean, best 
practices, ways in which you've found success, given your 
budget?
    Dr. Carney. Right. It's a tough obstacle, and, you know, I 
think--I would describe ours as a methodical approach that 
balances a lot of different risks to our infrastructure. Dr. 
Spinrad mentioned the age of facilities. I'm sure DOE has the 
same issues, right? And so we have that natural vulnerability 
there, as well as I mentioned 2/3 of our facilities are at or 
near the coastlines that are vulnerable to flooding and some of 
the other coastal storms. So we really balance all that in 
terms of putting together a master plan that brings in all the 
aspects of cost and condition and mission criticality, in 
addition to our climate risks.
    Chairwoman Stevens. Fabulous. Well, thanks. You know, I'm 
going to yield back the time I don't have any more but--to 
myself. And as the Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Mr. 
Lucas for five minutes of questions.
    Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Administrator Spinrad, it's good to see you again. And I'm 
sure you won't be shocked that my question today relates to a 
question I asked you in the Fiscal Year 2022 budget hearing we 
had back in September on commercial weather data program. Since 
we wrote the Weather Act of 2017, there have been a lot of 
developments in the weather data world, including new types of 
commercial products and services, as we face a future with many 
different environmental challenges. How does NOAA plan to 
evaluate and update the commercial weather data program?
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes, thank you for that question, Ranking 
Member Lucas. And yes, I'm glad we're following up on that 
because we've actually been able to undertake a number of 
additional initiatives. I'm trying to lean forward as hard as 
we can because we recognize it's a changing world. The world we 
knew 20 years ago where the government owned all of the assets 
and capabilities is changing fundamentally.
    So just a few months ago I signed the agreement to continue 
a pilot project to access privately provided weather data as a 
demonstration of how we can do the quality control on it, 
incorporate it into our models, and improve our forecasts. And 
in fact, as a result of that effort, we're getting something 
like 3,000 profiles a day of humidity in the atmosphere. I 
firmly believe that using a pilot such as the one I just 
described and working closely with the private sector, we can 
be much more aggressive about the incorporation of private 
commercial data into our weather products.
    My concern of course is balancing that to make sure we have 
a sustainable capability that if the private sector, for 
whatever reason, chooses not to provide those data and 
information down the line, that we have ways of accommodating 
that, that we have a robust infrastructure if you will for 
incorporating commercial data into our public products and 
services.
    Mr. Lucas. Are there any new authorities you think that 
NOAA needs in the future for the success of the program?
    Dr. Spinrad. I think----
    Mr. Lucas. Is there anything else we need to do to enhance?
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes, I think--I basically say give me a bye on 
that until we see how this works with the current pilot 
projects. I think the answer to your question may very well be 
yes, there are some things that we need to improve on, but it 
is a bit early in the game right now to unequivocally say we 
need one of these and two of those in terms of authorities. I 
think we can come back to you after we've been able to 
demonstrate this project.
    Mr. Lucas. And I'm sure we'll discuss it.
    Dr. Spinrad. Very good, thank you.
    Mr. Lucas. Ms. Kolb, I want to shift my focus to you and 
DOE work force. In January of this year, the Department 
announced the launch of the Clean Energy Corps. Part of this 
announcement was that DOE plans to recruit an additional 1,000 
employees. And I don't mean this in a combative way, but isn't 
solutions to climate change already baked into DOE's mission 
and everything you already do? And while you're thinking about 
that, what exactly is this new corps going to do that is 
unique?
    Ms. Kolb. So in addition to the new team that we're going 
to be bringing on--and it's going to be about 1,000 new 
people--the reason we need these people is because we also 
received $62 billion in funding from the Congress in order to 
fund a number of very important initiatives. And so we need 
sufficient staff to make sure that that funding is spent 
properly and appropriately. That's one of the points that was 
made early on in this hearing, and that is extremely important 
to us. So the funding, you know, there will be competitions 
that are held, and we need experts who can analyze the 
applications that come in for the various funding and for the 
projects to make sure that we are funding projects that are 
worthwhile and are really going to make a difference in 
addressing climate change.
    Mr. Lucas. As hard as resources are, I just worry that 
trying to hire 1,000 new employees, and I worry maybe just for 
the sake of hiring a specific number of people is going to 
create a lot of bureaucratic headaches for the Department, 
massive might also be the word, and might distract from DOE's 
other work. Those are my concerns. So what is DOE's plan to 
ensure that these new positions aren't duplicating other 
Federal efforts like NOAA or clashing with other existing 
agency efforts?
    Ms. Kolb. So a lot of the work that we're going to be doing 
is around, for example, demonstration and research. So we're--
our plan is to establish demonstration and research hubs, use 
our laboratories in many instances to demonstrate promising new 
technologies. There is substantial funding in the IIJA 
(Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act), for example, for 
hydrogen research and testing, carbon capture and 
sequestration, advanced nuclear. These are very targeted. And 
so we are going to make sure that, again, we are spending this 
money responsibly and that we have experts who can help make 
that happen.
    Mr. Lucas. I very much appreciate that. And I suspect we, 
too, will revisit this issue in the future several times. With 
that, I yield back the balance of the time I don't have either, 
Madam Chair.
    Staff. Ms. Bonamici is recognized.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much to the Chair and Ranking 
Member, and thank you to the witnesses for your testimony and 
your expertise. Thank you, Mr. Lucas, for raising again the 
issue of our Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act, 
and I look forward to working with you, your question to Dr. 
Spinrad, let me know, and I'm happy to collaborate again.
    Administrator Spinrad, it's very good to see you again. Our 
Federal agencies, in particular NOAA, are tasked with the 
critical responsibility of capturing and disseminating data to 
support adaptation and resilience. And, as you mentioned in--
especially in your written testimony you expanded on the public 
and all levels of government rely on NOAA's science, 
observations, and data. So, Dr. Spinrad, how can NOAA improve 
the usability of and access to its climate data, research, and 
models across all levels of government?
    Dr. Spinrad. Thank you, Congresswoman Bonamici, and it's a 
pleasure to see you as well. NOAA is, I would say, always 
chasing the capability to get our information, products, and 
services into the hands of decisionmakers and users. And so 
what we have really pushed with respect to our activity in the 
last few months is engagement, building a whole set of new 
activities. We've done eight climate and equity roundtables 
with--all over the country with different communities. We've 
begun a series of industry listening sessions. And of course we 
have the capabilities in Sea Grant in our regional integrated 
sciences and assessments in our regional climate coordinators.
    So the main thrust in getting the products out is, first of 
all, reaching the communities that need the help, especially 
the most vulnerable communities, but also not simply saying, 
OK, we heard you, now we're going to throw over the transom 
what we think you need but work in a co-development mode. And 
so this is where our efforts with tribes--and incidentally, we 
just brought on a full-time advisor for tribal consultation at 
NOAA specifically----
    Ms. Bonamici. Right.
    Dr. Spinrad [continuing]. For that reason. We have an 
equity advisor as well. It's about reaching out and co-
developing products with those communities.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. That's really helpful. How would 
improved consistency in climate data collection and sharing 
practices across the Federal Government, how would that benefit 
Federal adaptation efforts?
    Dr. Spinrad. In short, I think that sort of leveling of the 
playing field if you will or standardization can best be 
demonstrated by what's happening with weather where there no 
longer is a question of, well, which weather product, which 
temperature prediction is most appropriate. This is something 
we feel very strongly about at NOAA, which is why we believe 
this authoritative--the role of being an authoritative source 
is critical. We work very closely with our partners, with DOE, 
with NASA, with all of the other Federal agencies. And I think 
having a clear definition of the roles and responsibilities in 
that regard can help ensure that there is no question about the 
authoritative nature of the data products and services.
    Ms. Bonamici. That's great. Thank you so much, Dr. Spinrad.
    Director Kolb, in your testimony you highlighted a number 
of grid-hardening measures implemented at various DOE assets. 
And you specifically mentioned the resilience efforts that the 
Bonneville Power Administration has undertaken to prevent 
powerlines from igniting. We just had our first drought 
declaration in Oregon a few days ago, and we're obviously 
concerned of course about wildfires and extreme heat as we 
experienced last summer. To what extent are resilience efforts 
such as those implemented at Bonneville developed through 
engagement with grid operators and other nongovernmental 
experts? And to what extent is DOE sharing lessons learned with 
grid operators, facility managers, and other stakeholders on 
the efficiency of its grid resilience strategies?
    Ms. Kolb. Well, thank you very much for that question. The 
Bonneville Power Administration, I have to say, has done an 
incredible job in really preparing for any threat of wildfire. 
They have a wildfire mitigation plan that they have executed. 
They are using vegetation management as a strategy. They are 
also replacing a lot of their equipment to make sure that it is 
fire-resistant, and they have put in extensive monitoring 
capacity so that they can detect a wildfire early on. They have 
done a lot of work with the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as 
the Bureau of Reclamation, to study the impact of drought. And, 
fortunately, there's no serious impact at this time, but 
they're very much staying on top of that. So they are working 
with these other agencies very closely and making sure that, 
you know, they're continuing to stay on top of the situation so 
that wildfires are not a threat. They also work with our other 
power marketing administrations. We also have the Western Power 
Marketing Administration that covers much of the Southwest. And 
so that relationship between Bonneville and Western Power is 
extremely important so Western Power has the benefit of the 
expertise from Bonneville.
    Ms. Bonamici. And thank you very much. And as Dr. Spinrad, 
a fellow Oregonian knows, the Bonneville Power Administration 
is located up in the Columbia Gorge. And the fires we've had 
over the last several years have just been devastating, so 
thank you for your work to prepare for those.
    It looks like there's still time on the clock, but I 
believe it stopped for a bit, so I'm going to yield back the 
balance. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Staff. Mr. Posey is recognized.
    Mr. Posey. I appreciate you holding this hearing, 
Chairwoman Stevens.
    And I ask unanimous consent to include in the record 
Executive Order 14008: ``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home 
and Abroad.''
    Chairwoman Stevens. So moved.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you. Dr. Spinrad, Ms. Kolb, and Dr. 
Carney, in section 103, part C, of the Executive order it 
states that appropriate Federal agencies that include in part 
NOAA and NASA should coordinate with the Secretary of Defense 
to develop and submit to the President within 120 days of the 
order an analysis of the security implications of climate 
change, a climate risk analysis that can be incorporated into 
modeling, simulation, wargaming, and other analysis. Has this 
analysis been completed and submitted to the President? And, 
beyond that, what role did each of your agencies contribute to 
the analyses, and how will your agencies' analyses be used to 
model, simulate, or otherwise assist wargames for the 
Department of Defense?
    Dr. Spinrad. I would be glad to jump in, sir. Thank you, 
Congressman, for that question. By way of a little color 
commentary, I spent at least half of my career working for the 
Department of the Navy, so I was encouraged when I saw that 
language in the executive order. And in fact DOD has moved 
quite aggressively. They have developed--our colleagues at DOD 
have developed a climate assessment tool to be applied to the 
national security assets. NOAA data are fully incorporated in 
that tool, and that is part of the product that DOD has 
prepared. Thank you.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you. Ms. Kolb?
    Ms. Kolb. I am not personally familiar with the work that 
DOE may have performed on this effort, but more than likely our 
national laboratories, our nuclear security national 
laboratories that work very extensively with DOD may have been 
involved, but that is something that I can provide for--as a 
follow up.
    Mr. Posey. OK, thank you. Dr. Carney?
    Dr. Carney. Yes, sir. Similarly, I'm not familiar with the 
detailed response to the President on this topic, but, again, 
we are in for, you know, sharing of data, open-source data, 
working with our colleagues here on the panel to get a 
consistent voice and a consistent set of data that we can help 
use across the whole Federal agency so we can definitely follow 
up on that progress down that path. Thank you.
    Mr. Posey. And I have submitted a request for that 
information to your agencies, so I'm sorry they didn't touch 
base with you on it.
    Dr. Spinrad, in the same Executive order, section 216, 
states that NOAA will be one of the main agencies to elicit 
input from stakeholders in identifying strategies that will 
encourage broad participation in the goal of conserving 30 
percent of our lands and waters by 2030. Since this goal has a 
deadline of only 8 years away, what are the strategies NOAA has 
identified to conserve 30 percent of our lands and waters?
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes, thank you. So there are a number of 
aspects of the America the Beautiful Initiative, one of which 
is getting a clear definition of what conservation means. And 
we've spent a lot of time talking about that, especially in the 
context of an agency like NOAA where we're balancing 
conservation and environmental stewardship with economic 
development, so we want to make sure that definition is well in 
hand with respect to how we identify those plans.
    We are also, across the agencies through the interagency 
mechanisms that we've got, identifying those areas that qualify 
for consideration under the 30 by 30 designation. And in NOAA, 
for example, one of our primary efforts is associated with the 
designation of natural marine sanctuaries. So this past summer 
we designated a new national marine sanctuary in Wisconsin. We 
also designate national estuary research reserves and have done 
that around the country as well. So for us it's using existing 
authorities to establish reserves and sanctuaries in the 
context of what the definition of conservation means.
    Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Dr. Spinrad. I want to 
thank the witnesses. I see my time is expired. I yield back. 
Thank you.
    Staff. Mr. Bowman is recognized.
    Mr. Bowman. Mr. Gomez, thank you for your testimony. You 
discussed the need for enhanced working relationships between 
Federal, State, and Local governments. In Westchester County in 
New York, which I represent, there's a group of local, county, 
and State officials called United Westchester that coordinates 
on storm planning and response efforts. They have been issuing 
and updating detailed recommendations on what local utilities 
need to do better to deal with extreme events like Hurricane 
Ida, for example. I'd like to ask what opportunities you see 
for not only better information flows in one direction but also 
for genuine collaboration between different levels of 
government on climate resilience. How can the Federal 
Government learn from what communities in Westchester and 
elsewhere are already doing, better understand their needs, and 
feed that information back into national strategy making? What 
can we in Congress do to build more capacity for this?
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you for that question. And yes, you raise 
a really good point, that there is a need for continued Federal 
involvement to help State, local, tribal, private folks better 
understand what their risks are through information that's 
provided but also making sure that that information is 
translated, right, so that they can understand it.
    You know, we do know of many partnerships that Federal 
agencies play with local communities. And you mentioned the 
utility area, so that is also an area where the Department of 
Energy has partnered up with utilities to make sure that they 
are building, for example, resilience to a changing climate.
    But in our work, we--when we go out and talk to State, 
local, and tribal folks, they always say the need for more--
better information from Federal agencies, and that is part of 
our disaster resilience framework as well is to make sure that 
we're providing the information that decisionmakers need not 
just at the Federal level but all levels of government.
    Mr. Bowman. Mr. Gomez, as you know, this kind of 
collaboration is crucial for embedding equity and justice in 
our resilience efforts. In my district and around the country, 
community groups often work closely with universities and 
government agencies on environmental justice issues, including 
NOAA. Dr. Spinrad, you spoke to this in your response to 
Representative Bonamici. Do you have anything to add here, 
given your agency's extensive work with local communities?
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes, thank you for that question. I referred 
to the climate and equity roundtables that we had conducted, 
each of which was focused on a particular concern, heat in the 
Southwest, flooding in the Northeast, and we made a special 
effort because it was about equity--that is to say roundtable 
discussions--to bring in clergy, community workers, local 
emergency managers. The outcome of this is we now have eight 
pilot projects that we are undertaking to demonstrate how we 
can deliver products and services more equitably and 
effectively for the communities that we began engaging with in 
these roundtables.
    Mr. Bowman. I have a question for Ms. Kolb. Thank you, Ms. 
Kolb, for your testimony. I'm wondering if you could elaborate 
on how DOE thinks about the relationship between resilience and 
decarbonization strategies and how to integrate the two. At 
last week's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 
report--as last week's IPCC report reminded us, if we fail to 
cut emissions much more quickly, it will be harder and harder 
to figure out how to adapt. So, for example, if we are going to 
invest in protecting our K to 12 students from climate 
disasters, I think we should be installing solar panels and 
heat pumps in public school facilities as part of the same 
effort. You gave several other examples in your testimony. Can 
you talk about how DOE is seeking out co-benefits between 
mitigation and adaptation?
    Ms. Kolb. Well, absolutely. Thank you for this question. 
This is a great question because there are so many linkages 
between resilience and sustainability and those co-benefits 
that you talk about because the more we can reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions, the--you know, it just helps with our resilience 
efforts.
    So at the Department of Energy of course, you know, we are 
committed to meeting the President's goals that he has set 
forth in the Executive order just last December. But there are 
three areas that I really want to highlight. The first one is 
making sure that we are using carbon pollution-free 
electricity. And at the Department of Energy we are committed 
to doing this by the year 2030, which is going to be quite a 
challenge. But we're going to do that through--you know, we're 
talking about solar panels, so onsite renewable energy is going 
to be an important piece of that. Also working with utilities 
to make sure that they are providing electricity that is 
sourced from clean energy sources. And then also an important 
part is making sure that we are reducing the amount of energy 
we need by making our facilities more energy-efficient, so 
that's really important.
    Another piece has to do with zero-emission vehicles. The 
Department of Energy and all other energy--all other agencies 
are committed to making sure that we are moving to zero-
emission vehicles. And for our light-duty vehicles, our goal is 
to accomplish that by the year 2027, which is just around the 
corner.
    And then finally, we're focused on our buildings. Like some 
of my colleagues have already mentioned, at the Department of 
Energy we have a lot of very old structures. They are not 
energy-efficient, and so we need to make sure that our new 
facilities that we construct are energy-efficient and do a lot 
of work to renovate the old buildings to make sure that they 
come up to standard. So those are just some of the things that 
we're doing. And also through, you know, the funding that has 
been provided through the IIJA, we will be helping the 
communities across the Nation achieve these same sort of goals. 
So thank you for your question.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you. I yield back my time. Thank you.
    Staff. Mr. Weber is recognized.
    Mr. Weber. Thank you. Ms. Kolb, these questions will be for 
you. You say that--or can you talk about--you talked about 
retrofitting facilities versus building new facilities, and you 
say climate risks should be incorporated into both but it's 
going to be different challenges to adapt existing buildings 
compared to factoring in risks as you build new ones. So my 
question is is there--has there been a study done on that 
difference?
    Ms. Kolb. I'm not aware of a specific study, but, for 
example, if you can, you know, start from scratch, you can use 
the latest building codes, which is what we are doing, and make 
sure that you are constructing an energy-efficient building, 
zero-emissions building. But you if you have an old building, 
it's much harder to retrofit. You can change out the HVAC 
(heating, ventilation, and air conditioning), you can change 
out, you know, the underlying utilities, but it is much more 
expensive to have to renovate an older building. I mean, that's 
just----
    Mr. Weber. Well, you know, I was an air-conditioning 
contractor for 35 years, so the cost of property, the cost of 
the building, and the cost of everything, that all has to be 
decided, and I would think--I would hope there would be a study 
done as to the existing facilities and what that would look 
like.
    I'm going to change to another question. You said carbon-
free electricity by 2030.
    Ms. Kolb. Yes.
    Mr. Weber. Are you aware of last year Texas went through a 
winter storm in February that was the coldest from the Gulf 
Coast we'd seen in probably hundreds and hundreds of years? 
I've lived there 68 years and had never seen it. I just look 
hundreds of years old. But do we take into account any of the 
effect--when you talk about carbon-free electricity, you talk 
about windmills and solar panels, windmills failed in Texas. 
They froze up, they did things. And it's 20 percent of Texas' 
electricity. As you know, Texas is the No. 1 windmill State, 
we're No. 2 in solar panels. California has edged us out in 
solar panels. When you talk about going carbon-free electricity 
by 2030, is there any information--any--another study done on 
how that affects the actual energy market itself in the 
economy?
    Ms. Kolb. I'm sure studies have been done. I am not 
familiar with them. But at the Department of Energy it's not 
just renewable energy but also clean energy sources. And that's 
why we're working very hard on, for example, microreactors. Our 
Idaho National Laboratory, which is our nuclear laboratory, is 
focused on those, as well as small modular nuclear reactors. 
Our National Energy Technology Laboratory in West Virginia, 
Pennsylvania, and Oregon is busily working on carbon capture 
and sequestration technologies. So those are all other ways 
that we are going to be able to meet our goal of carbon- and 
pollution-free electricity.
    Mr. Weber. Yes. Well, I have the largest carbon capture 
sequestration storage facility in my district over at Port 
Arthur, Texas. When you talk about windmills and stuff, you're 
aware of all the amount of rare earth metals and stuff that 
goes into the production of windmills. What's the extent--the 
expected life of a windmill? Do you know?
    Ms. Kolb. I don't know what the expected life is. But, 
again, I think that we----
    Mr. Weber. Has there been any discussion about----
    Ms. Kolb. There may have been. I think what we need to 
focus on though, too, is there's not just one answer. There 
are--you know, there's solar technology, there's wind, there's 
biomass, there's, you know, carbon capture----
    Mr. Weber. OK.
    Ms. Kolb [continuing]. And sequestration, nuclear. We need 
to make sure that we have--you know, we're drawing from all of 
these different energy sources----
    Mr. Weber. OK. Last question. I've got a minute left. Last 
question.
    Ms. Kolb. OK.
    Mr. Weber. Given the geopolitical situation that's 
happening over in Russia and Ukraine and the attack that's 
going on and the fact that we are beholden to Russia for their 
oil and gas, has there been any discussion at the Department of 
Energy that we really ought to be thinking about this from a 
strategic standpoint of national security and I'll add energy 
security and I'll add domestic security, economic security? 
Because if you don't have a lot of strong fuel available, 
you're not going to power tanks and jet airplanes. Is there any 
thought that the DOE has given to the discussion of what that 
means to national security?
    Ms. Kolb. I have not been involved in those discussions, so 
I don't feel----
    Mr. Weber. Yes.
    Ms. Kolb [continuing]. Like I can comment on that.
    Mr. Weber. Yes, I expected so. I yield back.
    Staff. Ms. Stansbury is recognized.
    Ms. Stansbury. Thank you so much, and good morning to 
everyone. And thank you, Madam Chair, for convening this 
important hearing this morning.
    As some of you know, I've actually spent my entire career 
working especially on water resources and climate resilience 
and adaptation and drought issues. I'm a bona fide water nerd 
to my core, and so I'm excited to be here with you all this 
morning.
    And, you know, this hearing couldn't possibly be more 
timely with the release of the IPCC's adaptation report that 
came out last week, which not only highlighted the actions that 
we need to take as a world to prepare our communities for 
adaptation and resilience but the urgent call to action to 
address our carbon footprint immediately before we pass that 
threshold and we have such irrevocable damage and change to our 
planet that we can't turn back.
    And similarly, a couple of weeks ago, a very important 
study was released that identified that currently the American 
Southwest is experiencing the worst drought conditions that 
have occurred in over 1,200 years. And I think what these 
reports really reveal is that climate change is already here. 
Our communities are already experiencing it, and I know in my 
home State of New Mexico nowhere is this more clear than in our 
hydrologic and our water systems. And really, as I often say, 
water is ground zero for climate change. And so while we have 
to take urgent action to cut our carbon footprint, to cut 
emissions to prevent climate change from worsening, we have to 
actually engage and prepare our communities for the change 
that's already here.
    So I've spent much of my career thinking about and working 
on these issues, working as a researcher. I'm an 
interdisciplinary science nerd working between social and 
natural science on water resources planning. I was a State 
legislator during the Obama Administration. I worked at OMB on 
a number of the resilience and adaptation Executive orders that 
some of the folks here worked on. And I also worked on the Hill 
before being elected to Congress on the Energy Committee 
working on climate adaptation and resilience. So this is really 
a lifelong passion.
    But I think like some of the other questions that have been 
asked this morning and the comments that have been made is 
where the rubber really hits the road on climate adaptation is 
in our communities. It's how do we translate science data 
information into useful tools and resources that our 
communities and individual decisionmakers can actually use to 
make decisions that help our communities be more resilient?
    And to that end in the State legislature I sponsored a 
Water Data Act, and we're planning to unveil a Federal water 
data act soon, which will help to create more integration and 
interoperability in the way that our Federal Government brings 
data together and helps to unlock the power of big data to help 
our communities.
    But I want to just take a moment to say that, you know, I 
think that oftentimes when we talk about climate adaptation and 
resilience, we focus on the action and not as much on the need 
to integrate the science and data to make it possible to take 
meaningful action. And that's why think it's so important that 
we're having this hearing in SST (Science, Space, and 
Technology) this morning.
    So, you know, we have to make sure that we are downscaling 
our climate models to actual local level models and tools that 
our communities can use. We have to take existing data sets 
that already exist, translate those into meaningful tools that 
our communities can actually use, and then we need to be 
providing resources to our communities to actually take those 
actions because the scale of what we're talking about, whether 
in New Mexico we're talking about a tribal community being able 
to manage their water resources, looking for the next several 
generations, acequias that have been managing their water 
resources for hundreds of years, or a farmer who's trying to 
decide what do I plant this season, what kind of loans do I 
take out, what kind of debt can I incur, will there even be 
water for me to plant my trees or my chilies or whatever I'm 
planning to plant. We need tools to be able to inform our 
communities so that they can make those kinds of decisions at 
the granular level that really affects the kind of everyday 
choices that people have to make.
    So to that end, Dr. Spinrad, Administrator, I'm so grateful 
that you're back in service. Could you talk a little bit about 
the need and what it would take to develop more sort of 
community-based tools using science and data and what that 
looks like and how we in Congress can help to support that 
enterprise?
    Dr. Spinrad. Thank you for that so much, Congresswoman. And 
thank you also for all of your support through the years on 
these issues. If I go to a product like the National Integrated 
Drought Information System (NIDIS)--and I know you're very 
familiar with NIDIS--I would argue that's an example of how we 
can work with stakeholders, figure out what the products and 
services are that we need to develop, and then iterate on that. 
Part of this is educating the user community. Part of it is 
also being able to have that user community express their 
requirements in ways that we can translate into science, into 
research and development. So we don't have a lot of time now to 
go into the details of it, but my basic argument would be let's 
take what works in NIDIS as an example, expand on that, 
bringing in the social sciences as you indicate, working with a 
broader set of users and stakeholders, and then the last 
element I put into this is I actually believe this is a great 
place for private-sector development as well because the 
Federal Government will never be able to provide that fine 
granularity of products and services that you alluded to for 
every user and stakeholder. But if we work closely with the 
private sector, we can have an effective relationship to get 
people what they need to make decisions.
    Ms. Stansbury. Absolutely. Thank you, Dr. Administrator. 
You know, I think that that kind of role for the Federal 
Government in convening and making its more--its own data and 
tools more community-based and available are really crucial in 
helping to stimulate that private-sector activity. And another 
great example--and I know I'm out of time here--is the Weather 
Service, right? The tools at the Weather Service and all of our 
science agencies bring together to make big data available to 
plan your day out in partnership with the private sector really 
are a great demonstration of how we can do this. And I think if 
we're going to prepare our communities for climate change, we 
need those kinds of partnerships across our country, across the 
planet, across every sector, and it's--that is what's going to 
be a crucial building block to helping our communities adapt to 
climate change.
    So I really appreciate your testimony this morning. And 
with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
    Staff. Mrs. Bice is recognized.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you. As Ranking Member on the 
Environmental Subcommittee, I understand the importance of 
increasing our resiliency to extreme weather events and more 
frequent environmental hazards. Through this Committee we 
heavily emphasize the efforts to discover new technologies and 
prepare humans for environmental changes.
    Ms. Kolb, you mentioned earlier in questioning from Mr. 
Lucas that, you know, you were hiring what I would consider to 
be a large work force that is being established through the new 
Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. My concern here is that 
this work force is actually taking away dollars that we could 
be investing in technology innovation and research to be able 
to really find clean energy solutions with the private sector. 
Can you tell me how you're sort of, you know, working through 
that process?
    Ms. Kolb. So we are just beginning the hiring process, and, 
as a matter of fact, we established a portal and invited, you 
know, experts to apply for positions. We received 10,000 
applications, and we've been systematically going through those 
applications because we really want to get the very best 
people. But we were really----
    Mrs. Bice. Then why are we not partnering with other 
agencies? There are so many other agencies, including DOE, that 
have the capability to sort of take this and run with it. Why 
are we adding another layer with a large work force to 
government?
    Ms. Kolb. So within DOE we have, you know, a substantial 
work force, and they have a lot of responsibilities. So, as I 
mentioned, we received $62 billion in new responsibility, and 
we need a good team, a good set of experts in order to make 
sure that this money is spent appropriately, properly, and for 
projects that are really going to make a difference.
    Mrs. Bice. So 1/3 of the money that you've been 
appropriated is going just for staff, is that correct?
    Ms. Kolb. I don't know how much is going to be spent on 
staff.
    Mrs. Bice. It says $20 billion is looking to be spent to 
stand up the Committee. I would assume a significant portion of 
that would be to hire this 1,000-person work force.
    Ms. Kolb. I don't know how much it costs for a 1,000-person 
work force, but I can't imagine that it's that much.
    Mrs. Bice. OK, thank you. Administrator Spinrad, when you 
testified in September, you mentioned about NOAA's efforts to 
work closely with communities to implement preparedness plans 
for extreme weather events. And certainly Oklahoma knows a few 
things about extreme weather events. I'd like to hear more 
about how NOAA advertises its services. Do you think that 
there's public awareness for the agency and the work that 
you're trying to do?
    Dr. Spinrad. Thank you for that question. The short answer 
is some. And I actually do an informal poll as I go around the 
country to just test the waters and see how well-informed the 
public is about what we can and cannot do. Obviously, local 
emergency managers and a lot of county commissioners are well 
familiar with what we do but not enough. And so that's why 
programs like Sea Grant, like our regional coordinators, like 
our cooperative institutes all around the country through 
universities serve more than just the delivery function for 
products and services. They are also an engagement group.
    And so we have actually started a program called NOAA 
Ambassadors to encourage our work force to, if you will, get 
out more and talk the talk about what we can do with school 
groups, with church groups, local communities, local industry, 
chambers of commerce. We just started that. We have a few 
hundred Ambassadors now. I'm optimistic that this will help get 
to the issue that you've identified.
    Mrs. Bice. So you have these Ambassadors. Are you also 
utilizing State and local government entities to be able to 
spread the message? Because I feel like there might be some 
sort of disconnect with educating the general public about the 
services that you're providing.
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes, I've personally taken a campaign to 
engage, so I've worked with the National Governors Association, 
National State Floodplain Managers, all of the various groups. 
I've worked with a number of mayors' groups as well. So I'm 
trying through example at my level to get our regional folks--
and most of our work force is around the country; they're not 
in D.C.--to get them to understand that that's an important 
component of outreach for us. And thus far I think we've had a 
lot of success. The measure of success of course is how much 
are they reaching back to us for the products and services, and 
I think we're doing better on that.
    Mrs. Bice. Great, thank you. I--Madam Chair, I am about out 
of time, and I yield back the balance.
    Staff. Mr. McNerney is recognized.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair. I thank the 
witnesses. Your testimony here is very important to me and to 
the country, so I thank you.
    Dr. Spinrad, in your testimony you discuss how NOAA's 
climate data, including data for solar radiation management, is 
instrumental in the development of a number of risk assessment 
and exercises, as well as climate action plans for Federal 
agencies. In your view, are there still major gaps or 
weaknesses in the data or technology used in these risk 
analyses?
    Dr. Spinrad. I would argue that in terms of the variety of 
data that we collect, greenhouse gases, temperatures, vertical 
profiles, humidity, I think we're doing well in terms of the 
variety of different observations. I could throw ocean 
acidification in there and sea levels and that sort of thing. 
The challenge for us is the quantity of the data, the 
resolution if you will. So if you look at something like 
greenhouse gas observations, we do those. We actually do it 
around the world. Do we have enough resolution? Are there 
enough measurements around the world to adequately be able to 
predict the variability? No. And so I would argue that we're 
doing pretty well on the types of measurements. We could do 
better on the quantity and granularity if you will of those 
measurements.
    Mr. McNerney. Are there--were there big gaps in sort of 
regions like the polar region that have a big impact on the 
weather and impact on other parts of the climate system?
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes, polar would be one. I could tell you that 
one of the challenges we're dealing with is enough observations 
in the middle of the ocean. It may sound strange, but a lot of 
the heat that has been generated--in fact probably 90 percent 
of the heat that has been added to this system is in the 
oceans, but we don't have observations throughout the oceans 
adequately enough to know exactly where it's going.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Ms. Kolb, in your testimony you 
discuss the various climate hazards that put DOE facilities at 
risk, including the loss of electricity as a result of 
wildfires, which we're experiencing in the Western part of the 
country. What is the agency, the DOE doing to make facilities 
more resilient and able to function if grid connectivity is 
lost?
    Ms. Kolb. So one of the ways that we want to make sure that 
we have--is have redundant power sources, so whether that's a 
microreactor, a micronuclear reactor, or if it's onsite 
renewable energy sources such as solar or wind, that's going to 
be really--that's a key part of our sustainability and our 
adaptation and resilience strategy, making sure that we have 
those redundant sources.
    Mr. McNerney. How many--I mean, you don't have any 
micronuclear reactors ready to go, do you?
    Ms. Kolb. Not yet, but we will. And----
    Mr. McNerney. OK.
    Ms. Kolb. Yes, and also one of the things to keep in mind, 
at the Department of Energy a lot of our sites are in fairly 
remote areas. And one of the assets that we have, we have a lot 
of land. We have acres upon acres, thousands of acres of land 
that are vacant right now. And so one of our thoughts is that 
we need to put at least some of this land to better use by 
using it for renewable energy sources.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. As the Federal agencies create 
climate adaption plans to protect the infrastructure and 
employees and data and so on, it'll be important to create 
metrics to track the process. So I'd like to ask each of the 
panel members or anyone that really wants to step up, has your 
agency developed metrics to assess resilience, and how do you 
plan to measure your progress? Maybe Ms. Kolb would be the best 
to answer this one.
    Ms. Kolb. Yes, I will go ahead and start. That is a 
challenge, and I listed in my testimony as, you know, metrics 
for determining, you know, our success and resilience to be a 
challenge for us that we are focused on because the question is 
how do you know when you're resilient enough? What does that 
look like? How do you measure that? So that is something that 
we're working on, and we'll be looking to our colleagues at 
NOAA and NASA and other places to help us with this question.
    Mr. McNerney. Dr. Spinrad?
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes, I echo what Ms. Kolb just said. I've got 
to agree that knowing where the thresholds and objectives are 
in resilience is important. I'd add simply from NOAA's 
perspective, as you saw in my testimony, I talk about lives, 
livelihoods, and quality of life. So there are metrics with 
respect to lives saved or property that did not get damaged as 
a result of a major storm. There are quantitative assessments 
we can put in there. And we are seeing progress in that regard 
by applying some of these measures already.
    Mr. McNerney. So as I run out of time, it sounds like 
metrics is an area where we have got some significant focus in 
planning for the future. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Babin is recognized.
    Mr. Babin. Thank you. I really appreciate this and 
appreciate the witnesses today as well.
    I'm going to start out with Dr. Carney. NASA's authority to 
enter into new enhanced use leases, or EULs, expired at the end 
of last year. EULs allow NASA centers to lease underutilized 
property to the private sector and use those funds collected to 
upgrade and maintain those NASA facilities, very important.
    The House passed a decade-long EUL extension in December, 
which I was an original cosponsor. The Senate changed that bill 
to only extend that authority until this month in March of '22. 
When considering the Senate's amendment, the House hijacked the 
language, stripped the EUL extension, and turned it into a 
controversial voting rights bill that is now dead in the 
Senate.
    In the meantime, California's Department of Forestry and 
Fire Protection (Cal Fire) sought to use the underutilized NASA 
Ames Research Center facility to support firefighters and their 
equipment. Because of the lapse in EUL authority, it appears as 
though NASA used a different agreement to allow Cal Fire to use 
those NASA facilities. The result is that NASA Ames was unable 
to recoup funding to upgrade and maintain their aging 
infrastructure to meet their growing needs. That means had we 
used the opportunity to pass our bipartisan bill in the first 
place, NASA would've had more money to be able to spend on 
updating infrastructure and better preparing its facilities, 
plain and simple, a missed opportunity. So, Dr. Carney, are 
there any other projects at NASA that are suffering the same 
fate?
    Dr. Carney. Yes, sir. Thank you for bringing this topic up. 
It is, you know, one of the few levers that we do have to, you 
know, really focus on our underutilized facilities because we 
do have them. And the rate at which we can demo some of our 
underutilized facilities is a little bit slow in terms of our 
budgeting opportunities. So the enhanced use lease authority is 
something that really gives us an opportunity to improve those, 
partner with, you know, space community and/or any others that 
could use the facility for rocket tests or what have you.
    So the one you mentioned, so Cal Fire and the Ames Research 
Center, that is a specific example of an EUL that's an 
opportunity missed. I think we may be, you know, trying other 
ways to try to help because we do want to help with our 
wildfire situation and bring to bear the--both the data and the 
ability that we have to inform the community about wildfires 
and work on that relationship.
    One--another one--and so that's specific toward climate 
and, you know, forwarding the climate studies. Virginia 
Commercial Spaceflight Authority and the Goddard Space Flight, 
Wallops Flight Center--or Wallops Flight Facility is another 
example of an EUL that's in--you know, that's in consideration 
right now that can help us prepare and prepare for shoreline 
restoration issues and to protect against erosion. So the 
inability for us to enter in that EUL is inhibiting our ability 
to gain traction there is another example. Florida Power & 
Light with Kennedy Space Center is another example, so we're 
trying to use EUL proceeds to promote investments in new power 
and new substations.
    Mr. Babin. All right.
    Dr. Carney. So----
    Mr. Babin. I appreciate you bringing those out because it's 
not just an isolated incident. This has a ripple effect all 
across, so thank you very much.
    Now, I'd like to go to Administrator Spinrad. NOAA has 
extensive and advanced modeling and data that are used to 
support and enhance capabilities in many different ways, some 
of which have military capabilities. NOAA also has many 
international partners and collaborates on a global scale. What 
is NOAA doing to make sure this data has protections in place 
to ensure bad actors do not have access to sensitive 
information? And should we be doing more?
    Dr. Spinrad. Thank you, sir. I really appreciate that. As I 
indicated earlier, just starting a response from a personal 
perspective, having spent a good portion of my career working 
for the Navy, I am particularly sensitive to the issues that 
you have identified. So we have undertaken a number of specific 
efforts under the direction of my Chief Information Officer. 
We've created a research security team specifically to look 
into these kinds of concerns. And the very first thing we've 
done is develop what we call a foreign national internal risk 
mitigation plan, which basically provides training and tools to 
ensure that we are protecting the assets and information so it 
doesn't go into the wrong place, let's put it that way. These 
have recently been stood up and already have been briefed twice 
on this, and I'm convinced this will be an effective tool to 
build the sorts of screens that your question alludes to.
    Mr. Babin. OK. I had some more to talk about, but I see 
that my time is up, so I will yield back my time, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Stevens. Great, thank you. And we're going to 
pass the Chairwomanship over to the great Congresswoman from 
North Carolina, Congresswoman Deb Ross will take over the 
Chairmanship. I need to head to the floor for remarks. But 
thank you to our witnesses again for today's really important 
hearing. It was a delight and honor to be with all of you.
    Ms. Ross [presiding]. Great. OK. Is Congressman Casten 
next?
    Mr. Casten. Happy to be if you'll allow me to be.
    Staff. Yes, Mr. Casten is recognized.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got to admit I 
am--you know, the longer I am in this line of work, the more 
speechless I am at how many of my colleagues think that we can 
debate the law of physics and put people's lives at risk. The 
IPCC report just came out and said that climate change is 
outpacing our ability to adapt. We had $160 billion in insured 
losses last year. Forty percent of Americans faced extreme 
weather events, and my colleagues think we should stop 
investing in wind because Texas failed to winterize them. My 
God, what is our job here? To embarrass our grandchildren? 
These are serious issues. This is massive.
    So, Dr. Spinrad, I want to thank you for the NOAA report 
you just issued on sea-level rise. It scared the bejesus out of 
me. That report, if I'm following it right, you know, included, 
among other things, predicting 14 to 18 inches of sea-level 
rise on the Gulf Coast by 2050, 12 inches in Sarasota County 
and Manatee County in Florida by 2050. Do I have those numbers 
about right? Am I--I don't want to misrepresent it. But----
    Dr. Spinrad. They're very close. And the important point if 
I can is that the accuracy of those numbers, the ranges are 
very small. That's really the important point. There is no 
longer any equivocation about this happening.
    Mr. Casten. Well, thank you for scaring me more. Do you 
have a sense of how many homes are at risk of loss at that 
level of sea-level rise?
    Dr. Spinrad. Not that number specifically, but I do know 
that the number we use often is that 40 percent of the U.S. 
population resides in coastal counties, so one can get some 
indicator from that number.
    Mr. Casten. OK. Well, your--I don't know the number either, 
but your report drove me to spend a lot of time looking at 
topographical maps of the United States. And, you know, if I'm 
just eyeballing it, it looks like most of Louisiana south of I-
10 is at risk of loss. It looks like, you know, significant 
portions, you know, certainly--maybe not 10 percent but getting 
close to 10 percent of Manatee County looks like it's within 
that sea-level bend. This is by 2050.
    Now, I really appreciate your report. I really appreciate 
your effort to sort of localize this within communities. I am 
troubled by the interagency communication. I served on the 
Financial Services Committee. We had Chairman Powell before 
us--Chair Pro Tem Powell I should say--last week, and when I 
read those numbers to him, I asked him whether Fannie and 
Freddie are making any effort to modify their lending 
agreements because an 18-inch sea-level rise on the Gulf Coast 
by 2050 means there are homes that will mortgage today that 
will be lost before that mortgage is repaid. He had a very 
short answer to me. No. I then asked him whether there was any 
reason to believe that the commercial bank sector is not going 
to look at the Federal Government and say these suckers will 
take our risk, I'm going to start offloading all my long-term 
mortgages onto Fannie and Freddie. He said that seemed 
reasonable.
    I don't want to reiterate all that, but we are looking at 
massive loss of wealth on the coasts. We have a massive 
political problem as long as my colleagues keep thinking this 
is a good problem to politicize rather than to face up to. And 
I'd like to understand to what degree are you--what is the 
interagency communication on this look like with the Fed, with 
Treasury, with the folks who have a very narrow amount of time 
but potentially an amount of time to if we can't physically 
protect ourselves, can we at least financially protect 
ourselves from some of these risks? And when the Fed isn't even 
thinking about it yet, I'm nervous about the clock. So can you 
help me out with what you've been doing on that?
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes, I think I can a bit with some information 
as recent as last Friday. So when I came onboard as NOAA 
Administrator, we established NOAA climate councils, basically 
my most senior career and political folks that are working all 
of the climate issues. And I said one of the things we're going 
to do is work in a sort of bilateral fashion with our agency 
partners. On Friday we had an hour discussion with leadership 
from the Department of Treasury talking about physical risk, 
financial risk, transition risk, and they are sharing with us 
their needs for products and services. We're doing the same 
thing with our other agency partners as well.
    I should point out the sea-level rise product you talked 
about was done collaboratively with our partners at NASA and 
many other Federal agencies, so there's both the formal 
interagency engagement and then what we are initiating in our 
respective agencies. And I am encouraged that we're having a 
meaningful dialog. I can tell you in my 35 years in Federal 
Government I could count on one hand the number of meetings 
I've had with Treasury. This was the most significant, and I'm 
encouraged there's a good way forward for co-development 
products.
    Mr. Casten. OK. Well, I'm about out of time. I'm glad to 
hear you're doing that. I would just--hopefully, you won't 
disagree with me that what we are all doing--or trying to do 
this not yet enough because as long as the Chairman's answer to 
that question is no, we've got a real problem.
    And I'll end with the way I started. We are sitting here 
right now with our colleagues in the Senate refusing to even 
confirm people to the Federal Reserve because they have the 
temerity to suggest that we should actually understand this 
math when regulating our financial system. And, as my 
colleagues have heard me say many times, I'm a firm believer 
that the only thing that matters in this life is whether your 
grandchildren can say they're proud of you. And some of my 
colleagues are failing that test right now. Thank you. I yield 
back.
    Staff. Ms. Kim is recognized.
    Ms. Kim. Thank you. I'd like to thank all of our witnesses 
for appearing before our Committee today. And I also want to 
congratulate NASA and NOAA on its successful GOES-T 
(Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite--T) launch, 
and I'm very much looking forward to its contributions to 
meteorology, including improved monitoring of wildfires on the 
West Coast.
    As you know, California, the State that I represent, is 
currently facing a record-breaking drought and continues to 
grapple with fire seasons that look more like fire years. And 
according to 2021 Cal Fire numbers, over 8,800 wildfires 
destroyed 3,629 structures and they took three lives and burned 
2 1/2 million acres.
    I know before me Representative McNerney directed this 
question to DOE, but I would like to direct the same questions 
to all of our witnesses today. So, Dr. Spinrad, Ms. Kolb, and 
Dr. Carney, what actions are your agencies taking to mitigate 
the risk of losing structures in California and in other 
Western States to wildfires? And, Dr. Gomez, what are your 
recommendations for NASA, NOAA, and DOE to mitigate the risk of 
wildfires damaging infrastructure?
    Dr. Spinrad. I would be glad to go ahead and start the 
answer. As you know, NOAA has a number of equities that we 
bring to the table with respect to addressing wildfires. The 
first, of course, is our ability to detect them, using the 
sensors on platforms like the satellite we just launched which 
has a lighting mapper on it so we can start to help mobilize 
responders to where we think the fires are going to break out. 
We also have incident meteorologists that are on scene to 
provide the up-to-the-minute forecast information that the 
firefighters and responders need. And then of course we provide 
predictions both of the larger weather picture and the micro-
weather that's happening within the fire.
    All of those efforts are standard operating procedure for 
us, but it's not good enough. So in our '22 President's budget 
we actually included some increases for more incident 
meteorologists also to build a fire weather testbed to improve 
our products and services. So we are continuing to grow that 
effort. We're continuing to work closely with our colleagues in 
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and in the State 
forestry offices and Cal Fire, for example. And so basically 
it's an enhancement of the products and equities that we have 
built over the years to provide a broader set of applications.
    Ms. Kim. Thank you. Ms. Kolb?
    Ms. Kolb. OK. Well, thank you very much for that question. 
As you know, we have four laboratories in the State of 
California, and they are laboratories that are very important 
to us. And fortunately, none of them have been directly 
threatened by wildfires except what has happened, for example, 
at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. They had to shut down 
operations because PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company) had 
to, you know, cut the flow of electricity to deal with 
wildfires. And so that meant our operations went down. And 
given the important missions that the Department is responsible 
for, you know, that's just not acceptable to us. So what we are 
doing at that laboratory, as well as our other laboratories, is 
making sure that we have redundant power sources onsite so that 
we have that backup generation if the flow of electricity to 
our site is cutoff.
    Ms. Kim. Thank you.
    Ms. Kolb. So that is the main thing that we are doing.
    Ms. Kim. Dr. Carney?
    Dr. Carney. Yes, thank you. So we have the variability also 
with three field centers in California, and we have the, you 
know, flooding concerns and Ames up in San Francisco. We have 
Jet Propulsion Lab in southern California, and then we have the 
more arid Armstrong. And so we have quite a variety of climates 
to deal with in those three centers and are interested in 
helping move that forward.
    But, you know, specific to the wildfires, both our Science 
Mission Directorate and our Aeronautics Research Mission 
Directorate are intimately involved in trying to help with the 
wildfire analysis, the data collection, and then the 
decisionmaking on--you know, based on that data and working 
with the local communities to respond and mitigate those 
wildfires. And so, you know, some of the examples are a program 
called STEReO, which is Scalable Traffic Management for 
Emergency Response Operations. We also have Global Fire 
Emissions Data base that is something we can access. And, 
again, we collaborate with many of the panel members here, as 
well as others in the community. So we have--this is one of the 
good examples, I think, where we are actually integrating with 
the local community and really informing them and trying to 
help them make decisions at the local area to try to save lives 
and save infrastructure.
    Ms. Kim. Thank you. And I will get--time is running out, 
but I want to ask a quick question to Ms. Kolb. The Department 
of Defense has stated their goal is to use technological 
developments like quantum computing, 5G, artificial 
intelligence, and data analytics to increase their capacity to 
forecast, predict, and plan for climate and national security 
risk. And that also extends to extreme weather events, food 
scarcity, water shortages, and beyond. So can you talk about 
DOE's work in these advanced technology fields and how the 
Department is applying those to assist in Federal climate 
adaptation efforts?
    Ms. Kolb. So absolutely. First of all, at a couple of our 
laboratories, Argonne National Laboratory in particular as well 
as our Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, we have some of 
the world's best climate scientists that are working on all the 
issues that we were talking about. Also at these laboratories 
and our others as well we have, you know, tremendous 
supercomputer capabilities, you know, the quantum computing 
that you were mentioning, work in artificial intelligence. I 
mean we just--our national laboratories are a tremendous 
resource.
    And they are working collaboratively to develop 
technologies, clean-energy technologies that are going to help 
build greater resilience not only at our laboratories but for 
the Nation as a whole. So they are very actively working on 
that. Some specific areas that they're really focused on are--
--
    Ms. Ross. Ms. Kolb----
    Ms. Kolb [continuing]. Nuclear energy----
    Ms. Ross [continuing]. Your time has gone well past 
expired, so if you could wrap up quickly, that would be great. 
Ms. Kolb.
    Ms. Kolb. Nuclear energy, carbon capture and sequestration 
are just a couple of examples.
    Ms. Kim. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Ross, for allowing me to 
go over time with our witness. Thank you.
    Staff. Ms. Moore is recognized.
    Ms. Moore. Thank you so very, very much. This is a very 
important hearing. And I want to thank all the witnesses for 
their expert testimony.
    And I'm really so glad that just after one week of being 
President of the United States, Joe Biden signed this Executive 
order to put together a program to tackle climate change and to 
focus on collaboration, assess our vulnerabilities, adaptation, 
and resilience. Part of that Executive order was to have 23 
agencies come together to collaborate.
    And I guess one of the things that I have not noticed at 
least in this hearing if there's been any discussion of a 
medical infrastructure. I had my very first asthma attack as a 
child shoveling coal into a furnace. And of course we do know 
the health impacts of climate change, you know, whether it's 
wildfires, you know, coal or whatever the cause, asthma, 
greenhouse gases, heart disease, heat strokes, hypothermia. So 
what can you all tell me about the collaboration you're doing 
with HHS (Department of Health and Human Services) to--in 
anticipation of this? What will you do with very, very sick 
people who suffer from climate acts? Just that--since HHS is 
not here, just shoot it to the panel to--whoever to answer that 
that may feel most qualified to do it.
    Dr. Spinrad. Congresswoman Moore, thank you for that. I'm 
not sure I'm the most qualified, but there is a very specific 
part of the answer that I wanted to share with you. And when 
the White House stood up the National Climate Task Force under 
the leadership of Gina McCarthy, we established five working 
groups, one of which is an interagency working group on heat 
health with a specific focus on extreme heat. But we're not 
limiting it necessarily to just heat health. I co-chair that 
with HHS Secretary Becerra and with EPA Administrator Regan. We 
have used this body to aggressively go after developing a 
national integrated heat health information system modeled 
after the NIDIS, the Integrated Drought Information System, to 
do exactly what you're talking about for the issues of heat 
health. That is one piece.
    The other that I can share from a NOAA perspective is we 
have begun a very active dialog with the American Medical 
Association, a group we had never talked with before. When I 
called them, their first reaction was why are you calling us? 
By the time we were done, we had agreed to have joint 
committees to work on a variety of things from dermatology to 
public health to climate impacts and environmental impacts on a 
broad array of medical issues. So there's two examples of where 
I'd say the Federal agencies are working aggressively to 
address a spectrum of heat--or health issues.
    Ms. Moore. Another question, I know that NOAA is really 
doing the technical support around map--the mapping program. 
And when we think about people who live on the water, we think 
about people who live in the mansions on the Great Lakes or 
something, but there are plenty of poor people--I mean, think 
Katrina, who live near water. And I'm wondering if your mapping 
specifically sort of disaggregates people who live--you know, 
the rich people by the waterfront and poorer communities so 
that a response can go to the most needy in terms of building 
up that infrastructure? I mean, you know, poor people can't 
just jump in their big SUV (sport utility vehicle) and escape a 
climate activity, so I'm wondering if there's a disaggregation 
of those data?
    Dr. Spinrad. Very briefly, one of the advantages of NOAA's 
being in the Department of Commerce is one of our sister 
bureaus is of course the Census Bureau, so we have worked with 
the Census Bureau effectively to develop a map of climate 
vulnerability by socioeconomic indicators so that you can do 
exactly what you're talking about. You can look at a coastal 
area and say where are those lower, more impoverished areas 
where the ones where, for example, English may not be the 
predominant language so that we know how to get information out 
attuned to the needs of those communities.
    Ms. Moore. Thank you so much. And so the Great Lakes--I got 
14 seconds. You guys--I mean, 50 percent of our trade is 
between the United States and Canada, goes through the Great 
Lakes. Is this a focus of your work? Dr. Spinrad?
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes, absolutely. We could go into a great bit 
of detail, but working with the Great Lakes Environmental 
Research Lab, with our Sea Grant programs, with the joint 
Canadian Government bilateral agreements we've got in treaties, 
absolutely, yes.
    Ms. Moore. I thought for sure the Chairwoman would indulge 
me to talk about the Great Lakes, so I squeezed it in. Thank 
you, and I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Feenstra is recognized.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman Ross and 
Ranking Number Lucas, and thank you to all our witnesses for 
their testimony and sharing your extensive experience and 
knowledge on this subject.
    Before I begin, my family and I are praying for those that 
were impacted by Saturday night's devastating tornadoes in Iowa 
and the families that were tragically lost, lost loved ones in 
this tornado. We all know these storms all too well in Iowa and 
the toll they take on our farmers and our families and our 
businesses. But in Iowa we're always resilient.
    Administrator Spinrad, it's no secret that NOAA has had its 
fair share of dissemination issues, including during the Iowa 
tornadoes this past weekend. We can collect all the data in the 
world, we can run the best models and know exactly what is 
going to happen, but if we can't get the warnings and alerts 
out to the public in a timely manner, the effort is wasted.
    Related to this tragedy, on Saturday there was a lot of 
technical issues with the National Weather Service that delayed 
wireless emergency alerts up to 7 minutes. As you know, we've 
discussed in earlier hearings quick and timely weather 
detection and alerts are absolutely crucial for those in my 
State, especially when we have deadly severe weather events 
like the tornado of this past weekend. Can you elaborate on 
what caused--what causes these delays during events like we had 
over the weekend, and what steps we can do to prevent some of 
these dissemination delays so they don't continue to occur?
    Dr. Spinrad. Thank you, Congressman. Let me start also by 
expressing my condolences and my sincere sympathies to the 
families of the seven individuals who passed away. That's 
unacceptable. We can't have deaths.
    I will share with you that for the reasons that you 
indicated we have built a lot of redundancy in the 
communications mechanisms that we've got, so it can be NOAA 
weather radio, it can be through chat, it can be through a 
variety of social media. All the--in this particular case we 
had advisories going out 5 days beforehand, and the lead-time 
for the warnings in all cases was 20 minutes, which is well 
beyond what the average is.
    Dr. Marshall Shepherd had a good piece in today's Forbes, 
which I would recommend to your staff to take a look at. The 
issue of addressing the individual delays in one of the 
redundant systems is something we're looking into. We will get 
back to you once we've done the full after-action analysis of 
what the root cause is. But fortunately, none of the--everyone 
who was in the path was--they had a warning available to them 
in the 20-minute lead-time. The full redundancy was not there 
because of the gaps you alluded to, and we are looking into 
what the cause of that was.
    Mr. Feenstra. Well, I appreciate that, Administrator 
Spinrad. And, as you said, you know, just one loss of life is 
too much. And anything that we can do collaboratively from 
Congress and working with yourselves, I'm all in because 
whether it be Iowa, Oklahoma, or whatever, you know, it 
continues to occur.
    I have one other question for you, Administrator. You 
mentioned NOAA's joint work with the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, NIST, to identify and utilize 
appropriate climate data for application and building 
standards. As the new Ranking Member on the Research and 
Technology Subcommittee, I'm interested in supporting more 
cross-agency collaborations like this. Can you give us an 
overview on how NOAA identifies and then executes research with 
other science agencies like NSF (National Science Foundation) 
and NIST? Something like NSF's Wall of Wind comes to mind and 
its usefulness to hurricane forecasts and modeling at NOAA. How 
can we increase and then sustain mutually beneficial research?
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes, thank you for that question. There is a 
lot of detail I could get into. I would love to come and brief 
you and your staff on the more detailed answer to it. But in 
short, we have a number of mechanisms in place. So what you 
alluded to is actually part of the Department of Commerce 
Climate Adaptation Plan that we're working on collectively with 
NIST. We have the benefit through the Office of Science and 
Technology Policy in having a robust interagency tool. We--
ICAMS, the Interagency Committee on Advancing Meteorological 
Services, that's where all of our agencies sitting here on the 
panel actually get to discuss plans and programs for 
coordination of efforts associated with everything from weather 
forecasting to resilience.
    We also have a number of bilateral agreements. I call out 
our agreement with NASA, for example, on how to take the data 
that NASA collects and the data that NOAA collects and feed 
them into the models more effectively, so any number of 
mechanisms. I welcome the opportunity to give you a more 
detailed explanation.
    Mr. Feenstra. Well, thanks. I'm excited to hear that, 
wonderful. And with that, I yield back.
    Staff. Ms. Ross is recognized.
    Ms. Ross. Excuse me, could you repeat that?
    Staff. Sorry, Ms. Ross, you're recognized.
    Ms. Ross. Oh, thank you very much. I thought it was going 
to be Mr. Foster, but I appreciate his patience.
    So thank you so much to our Chairwoman Johnson, who could 
not be here, Ranking Member Lucas for holding the hearing, and 
to all of our witnesses for being with us.
    As we know, the Federal Government is not immune to the 
effects of climate change. And in conjunction with our larger 
climate change objectives, we must ensure that Federal 
facilities, programs, and investments are equipped to be 
climate change-ready, resilient, and adaptive.
    As of 2020, my State of North Carolina was second only to 
Texas for the number of weather and climate-related disasters 
that cost $1 billion or more. Aside from the harmful effects 
this has had on our economy and environment, these kinds of 
consequences stretched Federal resources, facilities, and 
programs thin. I'm interested to hear today about how all of 
your agencies are working across the government to mitigate the 
harms of climate change, which we know are only expected to 
worsen.
    My first question is related to some work that's been done 
at North Carolina State University, which received a $5 million 
grant from NOAA to lead a multi-institutional effort to develop 
climate resilience solutions in frontline communities in North 
and South Carolina. And this will dovetail a little bit with 
what Representative Moore asked about.
    Dr. Spinrad, how would local projects like these help NOAA 
achieve its larger climate resilience and mitigation goals? And 
how do we ensure that the research conducted through these 
grants aligns with NOAA's climate mitigation goals?
    Dr. Spinrad. Thank you for that question. And I'll start by 
thanking Congress for the infrastructure resources that have 
been provided. You have our spend plans for review right now. 
And for NOAA, something close to $1.5 billion of those 
additional resources are going to go toward coastal resilience, 
also marine pollution. But this will leverage our investments 
and will be largely supported through grants and awards not 
unlike the one that you alluded to to NC State to individualize 
if you will what the solutions are. Are there nature-based 
solutions? Can we build out marshlands? Can we strengthen or 
nourish beaches, for example, to mitigate against sea-level 
rise? So you will see a major investment.
    I will add that all of the spend plans associated with 
resilience are being--and specifically infrastructure are being 
coordinated. The White House is starting up a climate start--
Climate Smart Infrastructure Task Force to look at how we are 
coordinating across all the two dozen roughly agencies that are 
addressing specifically elements of coastal resiliency.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much. Also, North Carolina's 2020 
Climate Science Report drew conclusions generally consistent 
with other dire climate change warnings, including the threat 
of surge flooding as a result of rising sea level. Dr. Carney, 
what kinds of immediate steps can be taken to protect NASA's 
infrastructure along the coast from rising tides, and what 
impact will inaction have?
    Dr. Carney. Right, well, thank you for that question, and a 
very timely one also. And so just I would like to say that, you 
know, our Science Mission Directorate is really leaning forward 
here, and I would have to call out the Disasters program area 
of NASA's Earth Science Applied Sciences Program as evidence of 
one area that we're leaning forward to try to provide that 
exact data that you're talking about in terms of not only 
seeing the flood--flooding data as it's happening real time but 
also be able to project what regions would be inundated, you 
know, soon after, and so help to plan with the local 
communities and move that forward.
    As I've said in this testimony, a lot of our launch 
infrastructure of course is susceptible to flooding. It's at 
least in the range. We are bolstering up those areas to protect 
from the flooding impact so that we can maintain our access to 
space throughout and even with the high-end flooding 
predictions that ourselves and NOAA have gone together to 
measure. So we feel like we're ready to sustain and maintain 
given our shoreline impacts and the efforts we've done to 
become more resilient on those shorelines.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Obernolte is recognized.
    Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My 
question is for Ms. Kolb. I really enjoyed your testimony. Can 
you talk a little bit more about the tools that the Department 
of Energy is using with respect to emerging technologies like 
quantum computing, artificial intelligence, advanced data 
analytics? Those, as we're all aware, have an incredible 
potential for allowing a more detailed and accurate prediction 
of the effects of climate change on our infrastructure and of 
our efforts to implement climate resiliency. Can you talk about 
how the DOE is catalyzing the use of those tools for those 
purposes?
    Ms. Kolb. Yes, absolutely. So, first of all, the Department 
of Energy has, you know, the fastest computers in the world. 
Our supercomputing capability is, you know, just the best in 
the world, as I said. And we are using that supercomputing 
capability to address issues with regard to climate change. And 
that is something we're very focused on, especially at our 
Argonne National Laboratory. They are using their 
supercomputers and, you know, the information that they're 
getting through their climate science work to produce models, 
and they work very closely with NOAA on this as well. And right 
now, you know, they have models. They have been refining their 
models. And very soon in the next few months they are going to 
be posting a lot of this information online so that communities 
can use this very detailed information so that they can begin 
to prepare for climate change in a more active way. So that is 
something that we are definitely doing at Argonne National 
Laboratory, as well as other laboratories like our Pacific 
Northwest National Laboratory, so a very key component to our 
efforts.
    But something else that I want to mention, too, there's 
been a lot of discussion about how can agencies work together. 
And one of the tools that the Department of Energy has is we 
have an organization called the Federal Energy Management 
Program. And the purpose of this program is to work with 
agencies on adaptation, resilience, sustainability efforts. So, 
for example, they developed a tool called the Technical 
Resilience Navigator, and that tool has been distributed to all 
agencies to help them with their vulnerability studies, to help 
them determine what actions are needed in order to address 
climate change. And they also provide technical assistance to 
help with that effort. In addition, they provide funding for 
Federal projects, so that is something that, you know, we're 
very proud of, and it's a way that we lift up the entire 
Federal community.
    Mr. Obernolte. Great. Well, I'm certainly not surprised to 
hear that the DOE is taking a leadership role in that effort. 
But I'm very happy to hear you talk about how collaborative 
these efforts are because obviously we can be the point of the 
spear in conducting research and coming up with answers here, 
but it's meaningless if we don't take a collaborative approach 
and disseminate that information and the tools that we use to 
collect it to the agencies that are going to be affected most 
by those resiliency efforts. So I'm very happy to see you 
taking a leadership role there and hope you continue.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Foster is recognized.
    Mr. Foster. Yes, thank you. Am I audible and visible here?
    Staff. You are, sir.
    Mr. Foster. Well, first, I want to express my 
disappointment that the question that Representative Obernolte 
asked was exactly the one that I intended to ask. And I want to 
say--so I guess great minds think alike here. But I was very 
encouraged, well, first off, at the centrality of Argonne's 
role in this and also the importance of collaboration. As a 
Member who represents Argonne, it always makes me smile when I 
don't have to be the one that brings up their importance.
    But I was very struck by Dr. Carney's observation about 
that 2/3 of the economic value of their assets are less than 16 
feet above sea level. And so that's an interesting point on 
what I imagine is a curve that I imagine you prepared. You 
know, what is the total amount of economic value at risk as a 
function of the sea-level rise? And is that something that 
you've mapped out for the entire range of sea-level rise 
estimates?
    Dr. Carney. Good question, thanks. So, yes, very--we have 
been thinking about that, and we have done extensive sort of 
studies to look at what are the potential impacts. Of course, 
as the reports have come out, you get a little bit more clarity 
to what some of those expectations could be. We've heard the 
numbers of 12- to 18-inch sea-level rise by 2050 as--you know, 
as an approximate value for those to expect. So we've done our 
own internal studies, for example, at Kennedy Space Center to 
try to understand what that means. And, as we all know, that's 
a low-level coastal area, and it's an area that we would 
anticipate almost 25 percent of that land being enveloped by 
water.
    We do believe that our critical infrastructure would be 
safe in these cases, but again, it's a growing concern and 
something that we're trying to address with a lot of our 
shoreline protection efforts. And, you know, so similarly, the 
Wallops Flight Facility has a, you know, a similar topography, 
right, around the coastline, so we're working toward that.
    Mr. Foster. Well, no, it's good that you're thinking about 
the whole range because, you know, even if we decarbonize our 
economy, there's no guarantee that other countries will. And so 
we really at least have to have a plan to protect ourselves 
against potentially much higher levels of rise of sea level.
    Ms. Kolb, does the DOE have a comparable estimate? Are 
there particular facilities, you know, JLab (Jefferson Lab) or 
Brookhaven that might be at risk from significant sea-level 
rise?
    Ms. Kolb. The facility that we're most concerned about when 
it comes to sea-level rise is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 
which is on the coast in Louisiana and in Texas. So they have 
already, you know, been subject to hurricanes and flooding, and 
they have been very proactive in, you know, making sure that 
they're protected for future events. So they have fortified a 
number of their facilities, and they have also, you know, 
elevated their equipment so it doesn't--you know, it's not 
subject to flooding. But that is the facility I would say that 
we're most concerned about with regard to sea-level rise.
    Mr. Foster. OK. The national labs, though, are high enough 
that they're not a cause for immediate concern?
    Ms. Kolb. We believe they are at this time, but all of our 
laboratories' sites are all doing vulnerability assessments. 
Those assessments will be completed by this September, and so 
they will, you know, determine whether or not they feel that 
they're vulnerable. And also they will be developing action 
plans that--you know, where they're prioritizing their actions. 
So we will see the results of that.
    And I just want to add because I haven't had a chance to 
add this yet, the folks at NOAA do a fantastic job. We had them 
come in and do some workshops for our teams that are developing 
these vulnerability assessments, and they provided us with the 
tools and instruction on how to use the tools so that we can 
really zero in to specific parts of the country and determine 
the vulnerability of our sites. So thank you to NOAA for that.
    Mr. Foster. Now, last year, I introduced the Restore and 
Modernize Our National Labs Act, which has a companion piece 
led by Senator Lujan. And it was recently included as an 
amendment in the COMPETES Act that provides significantly more 
funding for national labs to pursue deferred maintenance 
generally. And so are you in a position now of--if this money 
actually gets delivered by Congress to do that deferred 
maintenance and other critical infrastructure in a way that's 
consistent with this plan? Or will you need more time to think 
through the climate resilience aspects of the money that we're 
hopefully about to deliver to you?
    Ms. Kolb. We will want to make sure that, you know, we give 
a lot of thought to spending the money. We want to make sure 
that, you know, we're spending it on the right things. So we 
would take a look at, you know, the plans that are submitted, 
the prioritized actions, and would use the funding to address 
the top priorities. So--but we would take care of it. We 
definitely would.
    Mr. Foster. Thank you. My time is up, and I yield back.
    Staff. Mr. Beyer is recognized.
    Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much, whosever chairing this 
meeting right now. I really appreciate being a part of this.
    You know, I am glad we're having this conversation about 
climate resilience. I live right across the river in 
Alexandria, and it seems to be a hotspot for flooding. And it's 
not just the river which continues to rise but the fact that 
it--these 100-year rainstorms that are now happening every 
summer overwhelm the streams, they overwhelm the stormwater 
systems. You have houses that are 4 miles from the river that--
whose basements are flooding as they come back up through the 
drain systems. And I don't even live in Norfolk or Virginia 
Beach where you have to check the radio or the TV every morning 
to figure out how you're going to get to work based on the 
flooding.
    With Congressman Brian Mast, a Republican, we have the 
National Ocean and Coastal Security Improvements Act to address 
exactly this. It's dedicated funding for coastal resilience. 
You know, I'm afraid, though, it's not nearly the scale that's 
needed, but it's a start.
    Dr. Spinrad, from your NOAA perspective, can you speak to 
the National Coastal Resilience Fund and how much more demand 
there is and what the funding can support?
    Dr. Spinrad. Yes, thank you, Congressman Beyer. The issues 
you've raised are ones that are central to our investment in 
coastal resilience, and so obviously the additional resources 
being provided in the Infrastructure Act that will go to this 
are going to be critical.
    Our challenge is going to be basically to improve 
predictive capability and downscale it if you will. So it's one 
thing to say that in the East Coast of the United States we're 
going to see rainfall of a certain amount and therefore we can 
expect a probability of flooding of X percent. It's another 
thing to be able to get it down to the street level, to the 
block level and say this part of Alexandria will flood, this 
one will not, working closely with a number of other agencies, 
especially in Interior. We're trying to develop improved flood 
forecasts through improved investments in hydrology overall.
    So the national--the Coastal Resilience Fund that you 
alluded to will include solicitations specifically for 
improving the accuracy and the resolution of those forecast 
products.
    I've got to say you brought out a key point, and that is 
that we tend to think of the flooding issues in terms of these 
traumatic major tropical cyclones, but what some people call 
the nuisance flooding or sunny-day flooding or king tide 
flooding is probably an even more pernicious problem in terms 
of the increased frequency, so we're going to be putting a lot 
of effort into that aspect of the coastal flooding issue.
    Mr. Beyer. And, Dr. Spinrad, I can tell you it's often the 
No. 1 local issue for those folks who are--have the 
disadvantage of having to serve their local constituents.
    Ms. Kolb, I just want to thank you for your leadership at 
the Department of Energy, and I'm just so thrilled that the 
White House is having its first-ever summit on fusion power 
coming up on March 17th. As we think about the alternatives, if 
we can advance fusion power by 30 years, the difference it will 
make in terms of carbon is just enormous.
    And, Dr. Carney, you're still with us. The--you know, we've 
heard from Senator Administrator Nelson that his No. 1 
infrastructure goal is the bridge to Wallops Island. And as 
Virginians, we love that bridge or love the new bridge. But I'm 
worried that virtually all of our launch facilities border 
water, for good reasons, so we're worried about beach erosion 
and the ability to maintain launch capabilities at Wallops and 
Canaveral and other places. Can you talk about that a little 
bit?
    Dr. Carney. Yes, sir. It's--it is a concern. It's one of 
our top concerns. And obviously, access to the Wallops Flight 
Facility on the bridge is a big piece of our infrastructure, 
and we plan on getting that done. So, yes, I mean, again, that 
access to space is one of our critical pieces. It's our No. 1 
piece of our climate action plan is to maintain access to 
space. And obviously Kennedy Space Center and Wallops Flight 
Facility are two of our primary access points. And so we will 
do everything we can in our, you know, capability to protect 
those zones. We've done a shoreline restoration program down at 
Kennedy Space Center to actually--to build the shoreline up to 
protect those launch facilities, as well as grow grass there 
and things like that that we hope will protect erosion in the 
future as it comes in because we do expect to have more coastal 
storms and more impact. So we--it is No. 1 on our list in terms 
of, you know, making sure that launch availability is there.
    Mr. Beyer. Great. Thank you very much. I really appreciate 
it, and I yield back.
    Ms. Ross. Are there any other Members seeking to ask 
questions?
    OK. Before we bring the hearing to a close, I want to thank 
our witnesses for testifying before the Committee today. The 
record will remain open for two weeks for additional statements 
from Members and for any other questions the Committee may ask 
of the witnesses.
    The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is now 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                               Appendix I

                              ----------                              


                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions



                   Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
                   
Responses by Dr. Richard Spinrad
                   
                   
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


Responses by Ms. Ingrid Kolb

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

Responses by Dr. Joel Carney


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                              Appendix II

                              ----------                              


                   Additional Material for the Record



Document submitted by Representative Bill Posey

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]