[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]