[Senate Hearing 117-274]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                           
  .                                                      S.  Hrg. 117-274

                 OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN USING
                 CLEAN HYDROGEN IN THE TRANSPORTATION,
                    UTILITY, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL,
                        AND RESIDENTIAL SECTORS

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               ----------                              

                           FEBRUARY 10, 2022

                               ----------                              


               [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 





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

      OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN USING CLEAN HYDROGEN IN THE 
   TRANSPORTATION, UTILITY, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND RESIDENTIAL 
     
                             SECTORS
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                             



                                


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-274
 
                 OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN USING
                 CLEAN HYDROGEN IN THE TRANSPORTATION,
                    UTILITY, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL,
                        AND RESIDENTIAL SECTORS

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                           FEBRUARY 10, 2022
                           
                           
                           
                   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                               __________
                               
                               
                               


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

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
               
               
               
                          ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 47-752              WASHINGTON : 2024 
         
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               

                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                     ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas

                      Renae Black, Staff Director
                      Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
            Armando Avila, Senior Professional Staff Member
             Luke Bassett, Senior Professional Staff Member
             Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
              Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
                     Kate Farr, Republican Counsel
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West 
  Virginia.......................................................     1
Lankford, Hon. James, a U.S. Senator from Oklahoma...............     3

                               WITNESSES

Satyapal, Dr. Sunita, Director, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell 
  Technologies Office, Hydrogen Program Coordinator, U.S. 
  Department of Energy...........................................     5
Murrell, Dr. Glen Richard, Executive Director, Wyoming Energy 
  Authority......................................................    16
Lewis, Jonathan, Senior Counsel and Director of Transportation 
  Decarbonization, Clean Air Task Force..........................    23
Graff, Michael J., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, American 
  Air Liquide Holdings, Inc......................................    41
Hlavinka, Brian, Vice President, New Energy Ventures, Corporate 
  Strategic Development, Williams................................    51

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

(The) Chemours Company:
    Letter for the Record........................................   396
Columbia School of International and Public Affairs, Center on 
  Global Energy Policy:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   399
ENGIE North America, Inc.:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   462
Graff, Michael J.:
    Opening Statement............................................    41
    Written Testimony............................................    43
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   386
Hlavinka, Brian:
    Opening Statement............................................    51
    Written Testimony............................................    53
    Attachment to Written Testimony: Pipeline Research Council 
      Report entitled ``Emerging Fuels--Hydrogen: SOTA, Gap 
      Analysis, Future Project Roadmap...........................    58
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   389
Lankford, Hon. James:
    Opening Statement............................................     3
Lewis, Jonathan:
    Opening Statement............................................    23
    Written Testimony provided by Mike Fowler, Director, Advanced 
      Energy Technology Research, Clean Air Task Force...........    25
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   382
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
    Letter from the Governor of Alaska addressed to Energy 
      Secretary Granholm.........................................   317
    Letter from the Governor of Alaska addressed to Chairman 
      Manchin with attached opportunity description..............   319
Murrell, Dr. Glen Richard:
    Opening Statement............................................    16
    Written Testimony............................................    18
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   378
Northern California Power Agency:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   465
Satyapal, Dr. Sunita:
    Opening Statement............................................     5
    Written Testimony............................................     7
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   358
Wabash Valley Resources LLC:
    Letter for the Record........................................   470


                    OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN



                      USING CLEAN HYDROGEN IN THE



                  TRANSPORTATION, UTILITY, INDUSTRIAL,



                  COMMERCIAL, AND RESIDENTIAL SECTORS

                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in 
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin 
III, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

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

    The Chairman. Before we kick off today's hearing, I want to 
note that Senator Barrasso is not able to be with us today 
since he is back home caring for his wife, Bobbi. I wish her a 
speedy recovery. I think everybody is up to speed on the 
seriousness of her illness, and our prayers are with Bobbi, the 
entire Barrasso family, and we will make sure that we take care 
of John's seat until he gets back. We have good people here. 
Okay.
    Today, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will 
discuss the growing opportunities for hydrogen in our clean 
energy future. Clean hydrogen is a game-changing fuel that we 
can produce right here at home from our abundant resources and 
use to decarbonize different sectors of the economy while 
supporting energy independence. So I am very excited for this 
conversation today and to hear from our witnesses who are 
experts in their fields. I want to thank all of you for being 
here today.
    This is a topic that has received a lot of attention from 
Committee members from both sides of the aisle, and I know many 
of you are interested in the opportunities for hydrogen in your 
home states--for good reason. As I said, clean hydrogen is a 
versatile fuel that has the potential to significantly 
decarbonize many sectors of our economy, including the power, 
transportation, and industrial sectors. We have made a lot of 
progress decarbonizing the power sectors, but the 
transportation and industrial sectors are much harder, and 
clean hydrogen could be integral to getting at those parts of 
our economy. Now, when I say clean, I am talking about all of 
the energy feedstocks and technologies that can be used to 
produce hydrogen, including fossil fuels, nuclear, and 
renewable energy. With advancements in technologies like carbon 
capture for fossil and electrolysis, using electricity, we can 
ensure hydrogen is produced from all of these domestic sources 
in the cleanest way possible with low or zero carbon emissions.
    Our industrial sector uses energy-intensive processes that 
today mostly rely on energy-intensive fossil fuels. But 
hydrogen can also deliver the heat required for these processes 
and has already been put to the test in refining and chemical 
plants. And with industrial sources contributing about 23 
percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, clean hydrogen can 
help companies tackle the challenges of addressing the thermal 
and electrical energy needs while also serving as a potential 
feedstock. I also believe that we must look for ways to clean 
up our transportation sector in an efficient way, given that it 
is responsible for the largest amount of greenhouse gas 
emissions in this country. We should seriously be considering 
the potential of hydrogen use in vehicles and other modes of 
transport, like shipping and aviation. It is easy to see why 
there is a lot of enthusiasm for hydrogen.
    Clean hydrogen can be used to decarbonize our intense 
energy sectors, promote domestic economic prosperity, and 
maintain energy security. However, we have some challenges to 
tackle in order to build a clean hydrogen economy. Producing 
hydrogen without emissions is two to six times the cost of 
current production methods. Also, retrofitting end-use 
applications to use hydrogen as a feedstock for everything from 
chemical plants to cars and trucks will take huge investments 
from both the public and private sectors. This is the demand--
that we need to develop hydrogen markets that can sustain 
themselves. The other big challenge is the safe and efficient 
transport and storage of large volumes of hydrogen, given its 
physical properties. There is a lot of promising work being 
done in this space that will allow us to leverage our vast 
natural gas pipeline network to transport hydrogen to market. I 
know we will hear about some of these efforts today.
    As with many emerging technologies, we need to invest in 
the entire hydrogen value chain to bring down the cost and 
overcome deployment barriers. That is why I made research, 
development, and demonstration of these technologies a central 
part of the Energy Infrastructure Act, which this Committee 
reported with bipartisan support last year, and which was 
subsequently included in the recently enacted Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law. In that bill, we fund $9.5 billion in 
research, development, and demonstration of clean hydrogen, and 
we tasked the Department of Energy to develop a national 
strategy and a roadmap to get us to a clean hydrogen economy. 
This includes $8 billion for hubs across the country to 
accelerate hydrogen production from all energy sources and 
facilitate its delivery and utilization across all sectors of 
our economy. This is an all-of-the-above fuel that can be made 
with whatever resource you have on hand. For example, we sit on 
an ocean of gas in West Virginia, along with the growth of 
renewables, and as of this week, the ban on nuclear power has 
just been repealed in West Virginia. That is good news. We are 
also in close proximity to hydrogen end-use applications, 
including power plants and refineries. So we are well-
positioned for one of these hydrogen hubs, just like most of 
our Committee caucuses on both sides of the aisle. I look 
forward to seeing the Department of Energy (DOE) get the 
hydrogen hub selection process underway.
    We have to get moving. The bill also includes $1 billion 
for research and development to bring down the cost of 
electrolysis, allowing for cost-competitive hydrogen production 
from electricity. We align with this investment to ensure the 
Department of Energy has the resources needed to meet the goal 
of driving down the cost of clean hydrogen by 80 percent within 
the decade--80 percent. And we invested another $500 million in 
the manufacturing and recycling program to ensure that we can 
develop these technologies here and support the domestic supply 
chains that are needed to advance a clean hydrogen economy. 
More will need to be done in the future, but these investments 
are a down payment to innovating--not eliminating--our way to a 
cleaner climate. I look forward to hearing from our panel of 
witnesses on these topics and how we can take advantage of this 
exciting technology to power our future.
    With that, I am going to turn to Senator Lankford for his 
opening remarks.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES LANKFORD, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA

    Senator Lankford. Chairman Manchin, thank you and thanks 
for holding this hearing as well. The future of hydrogen energy 
is exceptionally important for us to be able to address here, 
to be able to talk through it. I am honored to be able to sit 
in for Ranking Member Barrasso and join you and our family 
praying for Bobbi and for her quick recovery.
    Hydrogen is one of the simplest and most commonly occurring 
elements on earth. The reason we are here discussing it today 
is that it burns cleanly, with the byproducts being heat and 
water. Hydrogen has many potential uses. One of the most talked 
about possible uses for hydrogen is in the transportation 
sector, and as a power especially for heavy trucks. NASA has 
been using hydrogen fuel since the 1950's to power rockets into 
space. They were one of the first to use hydrogen fuel cells to 
support electrical systems on spacecraft. It is time that we 
learn from their experience and their applied lessons to solve 
transportation and heavy-industry challenges here on earth.
    Despite the promise of hydrogen, there are some challenges 
on releasing its potential. Hydrogen has to be freed from 
compounds it commonly occurs in, like water (H2O) 
and methane (CH4,) to get it into a state where it 
can be used as an energy source. The process to separate the 
elements requires significant power itself. The process to 
continue this process, whether we put it into a liquid form 
requires a tremendous amount of power to be able to keep it 
that cold. Hydrogen also does not produce as many BTUs as 
methane does. But beyond production challenges, there are many 
logistical questions that need to be answered as to the use of 
this technology and how it grows. One such question is how to 
best transport hydrogen from where it is produced to where it 
will be used. Our existing natural gas pipeline network holds 
promise for transporting and delivering hydrogen across the 
country, and provides an incredible example of how we can 
leverage existing infrastructure to meet future needs rather 
than starting from scratch. The natural gas pipeline 
infrastructure has developed over decades.
    To have this kind of infrastructure available for future 
hydrogen, we need to make investments now. Unfortunately, 
investment in natural gas pipelines, all too frequently, is met 
with opposition, despite natural gas playing a key role in 
lowering emissions, and despite the critical roles pipelines 
may play in empowering a broad adoption of low- and no-emission 
hydrogen. There are efforts already underway to grapple with 
how to best produce and deploy this resource of hydrogen. I am 
particularly proud of my home State of Oklahoma's efforts to 
grow the hydrogen industry. In the spirit of its long history 
of being an energy leader and having a very diverse energy 
economy, my state put together a task force to determine how it 
can use its deep experience in the energy industry to pioneer 
the hydrogen frontier. The report of the task force was 
released last year, and outlined a roadmap for how we can 
combine our existing resources, like abundant natural gas and 
renewable power, with our energy expertise to grow the hydrogen 
economy.
    I am glad we have witnesses here today who are familiar 
with this effort and I am always glad to be able to see some 
Oklahomans here as well. Although there are states and regions 
that have the building blocks for the hydrogen industry, its 
growth and broad success is far from guaranteed. Government 
policies--unfortunately sometimes unfairly or unintentionally--
prevent technologies that should be winners from floating to 
the top. I am concerned that the conversation around green 
versus blue hydrogen will pit technologies against each other 
rather than working together to establish a robust hydrogen 
marketplace. The simple truth right now is that 95 percent of 
hydrogen produced in the United States is made from natural 
gas. If our goal is to determine whether hydrogen is a viable 
alternative to some of our existing energy technologies, we 
cannot discount a method that could drive the need for--and 
development of--other parts of the supply chain. We really need 
an all-of-the-above approach to give this effort the best 
chance of success, and I am hoping this is a topic we will 
discuss today.
    Finally, hydrogen provisions in last year's Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, including the $8 billion to stand up 
regional, clean, hydrogen hubs, have generated a lot of 
interest in many states represented on this Committee. I look 
forward to hearing how the Department of Energy plans to spend 
this funding and how they define a hub. Always glad to see all 
of you here. I am grateful for the time that you have spent 
actually writing and preparing for this time period and doing 
the research, and we look forward to the conversation.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
    I would like to turn to our panel of witnesses. We have 
with us Dr. Sunita Satyapal, Director of the Hydrogen and Fuel 
Cell Technologies Office and the Hydrogen Program Coordinator 
at the U.S. Department of Energy.
    Dr. Glen Murrell, Executive Director of the Wyoming Energy 
Authority.
    Mr. Jonathan Lewis, Senior Counsel and Director of 
Transportation Decarbonization at the Clean Air Task Force.
    Mr. Michael Graff, Chairman and CEO of American Air Liquide 
Holdings.
    And we have Mr. Brian Hlavinka, Vice President, New Energy 
Ventures at Williams Companies.
    I want to thank you all again for joining us today. Dr. 
Satyapal, we will start with you.

 STATEMENT OF DR. SUNITA SATYAPAL, DIRECTOR, HYDROGEN AND FUEL 
 CELL TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE, HYDROGEN PROGRAM COORDINATOR, U.S. 
                      DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    Dr. Satyapal. Thank you, Chairman Manchin and Senator 
Lankford, Ranking Member, and members of the Committee, thank 
you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Sunita 
Satyapal and I am the Director for the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell 
Technologies Office at the U.S. Department of Energy, where I 
direct research, development, demonstration, and deployment 
activities on hydrogen and fuel cells. I also serve as the DOE 
Hydrogen Program Coordinator for multiple offices across DOE, 
involved in hydrogen, including renewables, fossil, nuclear, 
basic science, and others. This is a historic time for hydrogen 
and a unique opportunity for the United States. With 18 years 
at DOE and previously in industry, dedicated to advancing 
hydrogen and fuel cells, I am honored to serve the nation to 
the best of my capacity to accelerate progress in hydrogen 
technologies. Clean hydrogen is one part of a comprehensive 
energy strategy to enable clean, secure, and equitable energy--
a future for all Americans. I have three points today.
    First, the status and the opportunity. Hydrogen offers 
versatility and flexibility, both in terms of production and 
end use. You can make it from renewables, nuclear, fossil, and 
with carbon capture and sequestration. You can store it as a 
gas, a liquid, or a chemical carrier and use it to produce 
electricity or as a fuel or a feedstock. It can reduce 
emissions, especially for hard-to-decarbonize sectors, like 
heavy-duty transportation and industry, such as producing 
fertilizer and steel manufacturing. It can provide reliable 
power and long-duration energy storage to enable resiliency and 
a renewable grid. DOE funding enabled more than 1,100 U.S. 
patents, over 30 commercial technologies, and more than 65 that 
we think could be commercial in the next few years. Today, 
there are thousands of commercial fuel cells in the market for 
stationary power and transportation, and over 10 million tons 
of hydrogen produced in the U.S., mostly for oil refining and 
ammonia production. Analysis shows the potential for two to 
four times more hydrogen demand in the 2040 timeframe, and we 
continue to assess various scenarios, and industry has 
projected the potential for 700,000 jobs in the U.S. by 2030 
based on market success.
    My second point is that despite progress, there are still 
significant challenges, including cost as well as the lack of a 
hydrogen infrastructure, the lack of manufacturing at scale, as 
well as durability and reliability and supply chain issues. We 
have about 1,600 miles of hydrogen pipeline, but we will need 
significantly more. We have three geological caverns for 
hydrogen storage, but that is insufficient for the scale of 
hydrogen required. We had about 170 megawatts of electrolyzer 
capacity as of June of last year, but Europe alone has a 40-
gigawatt target by 2030. We must reduce cost and ramp-up scale 
of clean hydrogen production, delivery, storage, and use to 
achieve the benefits of hydrogen.
    Finally, third is how are we addressing these challenges? 
We must remain laser-focused and accelerate progress. Last 
June, Secretary Granholm launched the Hydrogen Energy 
Earthshot, with a bold, ambitious goal of $1 for one kilogram 
of clean hydrogen in one decade and 80 percent less than the 
cost of renewable hydrogen today. Our strategy from research to 
deployment will help to achieve that goal. So thanks to 
Congress, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and sustained 
annual appropriations, which includes $400 million in the 
President's 2022 request, provide a tremendous opportunity for 
the nation. This will accelerate manufacturing and rollout of 
hydrogen technologies and enable a competitive, sustainable 
market and ensure the United States is not just a technology 
leader in hydrogen, but also a leader in its deployment and 
use. Now, stakeholder engagement, collaboration, coordination, 
and metrics for success are all key to ensure the most 
effective, cohesive, and efficient implementation of our 
programs.
    I know there is a lot of interest in the hubs. So today, I 
am pleased to share that we will soon release two requests for 
information to solicit feedback on the hydrogen hubs as well as 
the electrolyzer and clean hydrogen manufacturing and recycling 
provisions.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and for your 
interest in hydrogen. I look forward to working with you to 
decarbonize our economy, while ensuring equitable access to 
low-cost, reliable, and resilient clean energy. I look forward 
to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Satyapal follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor.
    
    
    Now we will have Dr. Murrell.
    

  STATEMENT OF DR. GLEN RICHARD MURRELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 
                    WYOMING ENERGY AUTHORITY

    Dr. Murrell. Chairman Manchin, Senator Lankford, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
participate today on this important topic. My name is Dr. Glen 
Murrell and I am the Executive Director of the Wyoming Energy 
Authority. The Wyoming Energy Authority plays a key role in 
strategically positioning the energy economy of Wyoming for the 
future. It is one of our missions and mandates.
    Chairman, in early 2021, Wyoming adopted an energy strategy 
focused on moving the state toward an all-of-the-above, net-
zero economy. This strategic ambition is full of opportunities 
and challenges. Opportunities, obviously, for our rich 
renewable resources and our nation's nuclear industry in the 
state. That is clearly a challenge for our hydrocarbon base--
which brings us, of course, to hydrogen. Regardless of the 
feedstock used, hydrogen can be produced in a manner that it 
can be either zero or low emissions in profile. That is 
obviously very important for Wyoming to meet our goal and it is 
clearly, obviously, important because the value associated by 
society and decarbonizing energy reforms today.
    Second, hydrogen is also extremely flexible and can be 
transported and consumed in multiple fashions. We can use gas 
pipelines, liquid pipelines, rail, and highway to move it and 
it can be used as a residential and industrial heat power, 
transportation fuel, or industrial feedstock. This flexibility 
creates multiple opportunities for an energy economy, and in an 
energy economy like Wyoming we are looking to go from natural 
gas to hydrogen, utilizing existing pipelines to continue to 
provide low emissions fuel to large population demand centers 
where our markets are. We are also looking to use it to co-fire 
existing thermal fleet and realize an immediate reduction in 
emissions on our coal and natural gas-burning turbines. We are 
also looking to the future and thinking about how to synthesize 
net-zero fuels and petrochemicals, like coupling a hydrogen 
system with a nascent CO2 management system as well. 
We are also looking at how we can use it as an alternative 
storage and transmission method for our renewable base. So it 
is not just about hydrogen. It is not just about a gas. It is 
truly a transformative opportunity for an entire energy sector.
    Shifting gears a little to Wyoming, some analysis shows 
that Wyoming has something in the order of 25 percent of the 
nation's feedstock for hydrogen production, whether it's 
material or energy based. We also have abundant infrastructure 
through the I-80 corridor. We have pipelines, rail, highway, 
transmission, and others. We are geographically very well 
located to deliver hydrogen--clean hydrogen--into various 
markets either in the Denver metropolitan area or further 
afield up the West Coast. We also have significant 
CO2 management infrastructure and we are one of only 
two states with Class VI primacy. These characteristics 
obviously position Wyoming well for hydrogen development and I 
am very proud today to be able to have the privilege to work 
with companies like Tall Grass Energy and Black Hills Energy on 
co-firing turbines in the Cheyenne area. We are working with 
North Shore Energy in Southwest Wyoming and with Jonah Energy 
on synthetic natural gas. We are working with Anschutz Power 
Company of Wyoming on renewable-based hydrogen and we're 
working with my co-panelist here from Williams Companies on 
their plans for hydrogen in the state as well. We're also 
working with our neighboring states in recognizing a shared 
vision and a clear potential for development of a hydrogen hub 
and infrastructure in the region.
    Bringing up hubs again, the 2021 Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act contains dozens of programs that are beneficial 
for Wyoming and obviously the most pertinent one today is the 
Clean Hydrogen Hub program. Given the previous characteristics 
I just mentioned, it is clear that Wyoming should be considered 
a good candidate for the location of one of these hubs and we 
certainly intend to submit an application, likely in 
partnership with our neighboring states. A successful 
application would carry multiple benefits, not just in Wyoming, 
but Wyoming is going to help preserve jobs and it is going to 
create new higher-quality jobs with the added value opportunity 
there. It's also going to benefit some of the service 
companies--the small businesses in the state as well. The 
benefits extend beyond our borders and look to our neighboring 
states and even further afield to our geo-commodity markets 
like California and elsewhere. It provides them an opportunity 
to immediately recognize progress toward their own 
decarbonization goals. There is even a potential export 
opportunity there where Wyoming clean hydrogen could be 
exported to countries in Asia and help them. There is also a 
strategic opportunity through the establishment of critical 
infrastructure through the I-80 corridor, creating, 
essentially, a trans-continental hydrogen transportation system 
linking east with west.
    Mr. Chairman, in summary, any discussion around hydrogen, 
be it in relation to hubs or not, should include Wyoming 
because Wyoming is a microcosm of our energy industry overall. 
We believe our practices and intent mirror that or reflect that 
of the industry overall with respect to hydrogen. Furthermore, 
any success of developing a hydrogen infrastructure in the 
state will benefit not only Wyomingites and our neighboring 
states, but potentially, literally millions of Americans across 
the country.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Murrell follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
    Now we will have Mr. Lewis.

  STATEMENT OF JONATHAN LEWIS, SENIOR COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR OF 
      TRANSPORTATION DECARBONIZATION, CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE

    Mr. Lewis. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lankford, 
and distinguished members of the Committee. My name is Jonathan 
Lewis. I am Senior Counsel and Director of Transportation 
Decarbonization at Clear Air Task Force (CATF). CATF is a 
global, nonprofit organization working to safeguard against the 
worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid 
development and deployment of low-carbon energy and other 
climate-protecting technologies. CATF has submitted written 
testimony from Mike Fowler, our Director of Advanced Energy 
Technology Research. Today, I will share CATF's thoughts on how 
hydrogen can help meet the challenge of fully decarbonizing the 
U.S. economy by mid-century--which sectors are likely to 
require hydrogen to be decarbonized and what types of research, 
development, demonstration, and deployment programs for 
hydrogen will help the United States meet its ambitious climate 
goals.
    First, the climate challenge is vast and urgent. Achieving 
net-zero emissions across the energy system within several 
decades will require transitions in both energy production and 
many varied end-use sectors. Much of that transition will occur 
through electrification and vast expansion of renewable energy 
resources. Electrification is essential to decarbonization, 
however, it is not by itself sufficient. Today, 80 percent of 
end-use energy is provided by fuel molecules. Some of those end 
uses can be electrified, but not all of them, so we will need 
zero-carbon fuels, like hydrogen. Hydrogen is a versatile 
carbon-free energy carrier that can substitute for some 
conventional fossil fuels. We already have considerable 
industrial experience making and using hydrogen and we are 
developing and innovating improved techniques for producing 
very low carbon hydrogen.
    In the United States, hydrogen provides an enormous 
opportunity for decarbonization in certain sectors and could 
contribute to reducing CO2 emissions by one billion 
metric tons per year or more. Hydrogen could be essential in 
decarbonizing heavy transportation, such as heavy-duty 
trucking, marine shipping, and aviation. Hydrogen will also be 
needed to decarbonize heavy industry, for example, combustion 
of fuels for process heating and in iron making. Finally, 
hydrogen might also have a role to play in the power sector as 
a load balancer to help enable a renewables-heavy grid. Demand 
for clean hydrogen is projected to grow globally due to net-
zero carbon goals and demand in the United States could be 10 
quadrillion BTU or more by mid-century. To meet decarbonization 
goals, that hydrogen will need to be clean.
    Clean hydrogen can be produced in multiple ways, most 
notably by electrolysis using zero-carbon electricity or by 
methane reforming using natural gas with carbon capture. 
Requirements for how clean this hydrogen must be will depend on 
the context and should evolve over time. What we know now is 
that hydrogen produced with natural gas must include a very 
high level of carbon capture for reformers, and extremely low 
methane loss rates for natural gas used in the production, as 
well as low CO2 intensity of electricity used in 
those production processes. Likewise, hydrogen produced with 
electrolyzers needs to utilize electricity that is clean and 
additional to existing and planned zero-carbon electricity 
generation.
    The road to decarbonization with hydrogen is not entirely 
clear today. So it is important that we proceed with multiple 
clean production pathways simultaneously. Federal R&D and 
demonstration programs will play a key role in building scale, 
industry learning, and seeding growth. Policies that support 
deployment of clean hydrogen will also be essential. Developing 
and commercializing the technologies needed for affordable and 
clean hydrogen production, transportation, and use across 
varied supply chains will require sustained and committed 
financial support from the U.S. Government. And although RD&D 
support is extremely useful, it will not likely be enough to 
overcome cost and build-out challenges for hydrogen. To 
maximize the hydrogen decarbonization opportunity, support for 
broader clean hydrogen deployment will also be needed. This 
support may take a variety of forms, with tax incentives for 
hydrogen--a key tool currently under discussion in Congress. 
Production tax incentives are especially important and can be 
calibrated to provide greater support for cleaner hydrogen 
production. With deployment we can expect clean hydrogen costs 
to come down dramatically.
    Clean Air Task Force looks forward to continued engagement 
with this Committee on issues related to clean hydrogen. I look 
forward to your questions. Thank you for your time today.
    [The prepared statement of Mike Fowler of CATF follows:]
    
    
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
    
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Graff.

  STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. GRAFF, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
          OFFICER, AMERICAN AIR LIQUIDE HOLDINGS, INC.

    Mr. Graff. Chairman Manchin and members of the Committee, 
on behalf of Air Liquide's more than 23,000 U.S. employees, 
thank you for highlighting hydrogen's role in the energy 
transition. Thank you also for the opportunity to testify 
today. My name is Mike Graff and I am the Chairman and CEO of 
American Air Liquide. We are a world leader in the production 
and distribution of industrial gases, including hydrogen.
    Air Liquide, a proud founding member of the Fuel Cell and 
Hydrogen Energy Association, entered the hydrogen market over 
60 years ago, leading industry efforts on investment, research, 
and technology development. With more than $1 billion already 
invested in hydrogen activities in the U.S. and more than $5 
billion worldwide, Air Liquide is actively building the 
hydrogen future. In fact, we have committed to an additional 
investment of nearly $10 billion in low-carbon hydrogen by 2035 
to more than triple sales of hydrogen and help substantially 
curb emissions. Importantly, hydrogen can ensure that the U.S. 
remains a leader in the energy economy of the future. By 2030, 
the U.S. hydrogen economy could generate $140 billion per year 
in revenue and support 700,000 local jobs. Globally, Air 
Liquide operates in 78 countries and we see countries making 
comparable and sometimes greater investments in hydrogen. I 
hope that much of the nearly $10 billion mentioned will be 
invested here in the U.S.
    As I often say, hydrogen alone will not drive the clean 
energy transition. But the energy transition will not happen 
without hydrogen. It will take the concerted efforts of both 
industry and government to help achieve the nation's goal of 
net-zero emissions by 2050. For our part, the private sector is 
ready to lead. The government's development of a flexible 
policy portfolio that rewards outcomes, allows for market 
growth, and drives innovation and private investment can help 
ensure a self-sustaining market and rapid adoption at scale 
while promoting smart climate policy. Programs like DOE's 
Earthshot, which is focused on reducing the cost of clean 
energy, illustrate the importance of the public-private 
partnership. Additionally, rapid implementation of the hydrogen 
hubs will help grow the ecosystems needed to develop the entire 
hydrogen value chain at scale, galvanizing a national hydrogen 
market. Proposed policies like the Hydrogen Infrastructure 
Initiative and Clean Hydrogen Production Act will incentivize 
the production and deployment of low-carbon hydrogen and help 
create high-paying jobs and lower CO2 emissions 
across many sectors.
    Air Liquide is an active participant in all of these 
government efforts, which are essential for catalyzing 
hydrogen's role in the energy transition. As the policy 
framework develops, we must ensure that the U.S. can lead in 
hydrogen production. Hydrogen is versatile. This versatility 
enables us to leverage our vast and varied natural resources 
and develop the right combination of investment, production 
pathways, and end uses to meet our nation's needs. For example, 
Mr. Chairman, as you well know, in Appalachia, there is an 
abundant supply of natural gas. We can produce hydrogen from 
that supply, dramatically reducing transportation emissions 
compared to gasoline or diesel. And Air Liquide's Cryocap, a 
suite of carbon capture solutions, can further reduce 
CO2 emissions by over 90 percent at a steam methane 
reformer. Or, in a state like New Mexico, which as Senator 
Heinrich knows, there is abundance of solar power, and that 
abundant solar power and electrolysis can be used to create 
low-carbon hydrogen. The same is true in regions with abundant 
wind and hydropower. Air Liquide operates the world's largest 
proton exchange membrane electrolyzer utilizing hydropower from 
the Canadian side of Niagara Falls to produce and supply the 
Northeast U.S. with low-carbon renewable hydrogen.
    The government should consider all options for hydrogen 
production to help reach the nation's net-zero climate goal. By 
focusing on the outcome of hydrogen use, we can address the 
carbon intensity of hydrogen and enable producers to provide a 
robust supply of low-cost hydrogen while minimizing the 
environmental impact. Hydrogen is also very versatile in all 
its applications. For instance, in industrial applications, 
like supplying the chemical industry in Senator Cassidy's 
Louisiana, carbon capture, biogas, and hydrogen can be used to 
reduce the carbon footprint of this hard-to-abate sector. As 
renewable power grows throughout the nation, hydrogen can 
address the intermittency issues of renewable power sources by 
producing hydrogen from low-carbon power when grid supply 
outpaces demand and then storing it for later use. 
Transportation is another exciting application. In Nevada, as 
Senator Cortez Masto knows, we will soon start up a $250 
million hydrogen production facility that will use biogas to 
supply the mobility market in California and provide fuel for 
up to 40,000 fuel cell vehicles.
    As I said in the beginning, hydrogen alone will not drive 
the clean energy transition, but the energy transition will not 
happen without hydrogen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 
the Committee. I will be very happy to address any questions 
you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Graff follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Hlavinka.

    STATEMENT OF BRIAN HLAVINKA, VICE PRESIDENT, NEW ENERGY 
 VENTURES, CORPORATE STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT, WILLIAMS COMPANIES

    Mr. Hlavinka. Chairman Manchin, Senator Lankford, and 
distinguished members of this Committee, my name is Brian 
Hlavinka. I am the Vice President of New Energy Ventures for 
Williams Companies. I lead a team of business developers 
focused on creating decarbonization solutions for the future. I 
am also the Vice Chairman of the Clean Hydrogen Future 
Coalition. We are a diverse industry group focused on an all-
of-the-above approach to the development of a clean hydrogen 
economy.
    I want to start by saying thank you very much for having 
us. We believe at Williams that hydrogen is a very important 
topic and one that--if we're serious about decarbonization, it 
has to be top-of-mind. Williams is one of the nation's largest 
natural gas infrastructure companies. Today, we deliver about 
30 percent of the nation's natural gas on a daily basis. Over 
the last century, we have built out an energy delivery platform 
that really is second to none. And moving forward over the next 
century, we expect to continue doing that. We also realize that 
we can continue to improve our business. We can focus on 
sustainability and we can look toward things like hydrogen that 
can work toward decarbonization of the overall grid.
    In 2020, Williams was the first North American midstream 
company to make a climate commitment. We have set very specific 
targeted goals that we plan to achieve to lower our emissions 
footprint, but also enable our customers, many of whom are 
facing the same decarbonization challenges, to do the same. We 
have set near-term goals to reduce our footprint by 56 percent 
by 2030, employing ``right here, right now'' strategies to 
lower our footprint, but also have an eye toward a net-zero 
ambition by 2050. And this is where we turn our focus to 
hydrogen and other similar technologies. We believe hydrogen 
has the ability to be scalable, to ultimately achieve real 
changes when it comes to decarbonization. And we think that our 
infrastructure at Williams plays a very important part in that 
role. Senator Lankford mentioned the ability to utilize 
existing infrastructure to move clean molecules from where they 
are produced to where they are used. We think our natural gas 
infrastructure is perfectly situated to provide such a 
solution.
    A cornerstone of my team's work is based on hydrogen. We 
are looking at the entire value chain of hydrogen, not just 
production, not just end use, but also how to cost-effectively 
and efficiently move molecules to market. We believe that our 
infrastructure will provide that solution. In the near term, we 
can begin blending hydrogen at low percentages, and over time, 
move that percentage up to really push toward higher and higher 
decarbonization efforts. We are currently developing and 
executing real projects along our existing footprint that 
include states like Wyoming and Oklahoma. It includes 
Appalachia, the Pacific Northwest, the Southeast, and Gulf 
Coast regions. The breadth of our footprint really gives us the 
ability to take multiple approaches to hydrogen, both on the 
production side and the end-use side. We do believe that carbon 
intensity is the important part here. We have to focus on not 
just colors, but really on how to continue to lower the carbon 
intensity of the hydrogen that we are producing and using. A 
color-blind approach is very important. It is one of the key 
cornerstones of the Clean Hydrogen Future Coalition.
    We think we can do projects today--and we are doing 
projects today--that can reduce emissions in the near term. But 
we also know that to get to scale we are going to need help. We 
are going to need new partnerships. We are going to need 
industry. We are going to need academia. We are going to need 
regulators. We are going to need the people in this room to put 
together solutions for the future. That is why this hearing is 
so important. We need help. The RD&D dollars that are available 
are a great start. We believe other incentives are needed to 
really kick-start the development of a clean hydrogen economy.
    Williams is making a very big push toward a clean energy 
future and hydrogen is a very important part of that. We 
believe it provides scalability that no other options can 
provide. Thank you again for the time today. I look forward to 
the conversation and addressing your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hlavinka follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    

    
    
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    I want to thank you all for your testimonies. Now we are 
going to begin our questioning. I have been trying to gather 
some information here, but I am more excited about this hearing 
than I have been for many because I truly believe that we are 
going down a path--if we do not correct ourselves on what we 
can do in America to become a clean-climate society using all 
the resources we have available to us--shame on us. And right 
now, there is a movement on EVs. I have nothing against EVs, 
except we do not produce any of the raw products or refine 
anything that goes into them. This scares the bejesus out of me 
because I am old enough to remember standing in line in 1974 
waiting to buy gas. I do not want to stand in line waiting to 
buy a battery.
    So I am very much concerned about that. Let me tell you 
what we have done and about the transformation that has gone on 
for renewables. It has been unbelievable. Think about what we 
have done with wind and solar in the last ten years. We see how 
it has come down in cost and become so competitive, and I think 
it is wonderful. We have big wind projects in West Virginia. 
Solar has not been as much. We should be doing a lot more. Wind 
generation cost has fallen 74 percent and utility-scale solar 
has dropped 82 percent. LED light bulbs have dropped 95 percent 
in cost. Congress invested just $9.5 billion in clean for 
energy and for hydrogen. First time.
    In the last ten years, we have given about $10 billion to 
DOE for R&D for renewables such as wind and solar. In the last 
ten years for hydrogen, we put $2 billion. Let me tell you what 
has happened for credits. In the last 10 years, production tax 
credits for wind and solar have been $25 to $30 billion. 
Hydrogen? Zero production tax credits. We have got to get off 
the dime and start doing something. If not, we are going to be 
left behind and be totally, totally, subservient to China. I 
believe we are putting ourselves in one hell of a mess.
    So I want to thank you all. Dr. Satyapal, you are renowned 
for your knowledge and your expertise. Tell me how we are able 
to accelerate and advance to get up to speed. And do you think 
we can do it in a decade? In one decade can we make the same 
transformation that has been made in wind and solar in 
hydrogen?
    I am going to go to you next, Mr. Graff, because you are on 
the front lines in the real world.
    Dr. Satyapal. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, and again, thank 
you for your tremendous support for hydrogen. I would say that 
right now we are really positioned to accelerate progress 
thanks again to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and that $9.5 
billion. In addition to the continued, sustained annual 
appropriations, I think we are exactly positioned to cover the 
R&D, but need to very rapidly accelerate both manufacturing to 
get to scale as well as deployment. So for instance, the hubs, 
obviously, will really provide that launching point, but I 
think it is to your question of, you know, are we going to be 
able to catch up within those ten years? I think we really need 
that very comprehensive approach. It is not just about the R&D 
or the deployments--that holistic view. So we are definitely 
very well versed in what is happening globally.
    The Chairman. Can it be done in ten years? One decade?
    Dr. Satyapal. Within ten years there is a lot of 
opportunity if we get things right.
    The Chairman. Mr. Graff.
    Mr. Graff. Mr. Chairman, I think that there is already a 
lot of effort and a lot of work that has been proven at scale 
in industry. I think the private sector has the technologies, 
the know-how, and we ourselves and others have already built at 
scale, whether that is to utilize carbon capture and utilize 
natural gas to produce hydrogen or electrolysis as well as the 
carbon----
    The Chairman. With blue we need carbon capture. With green 
we need not.
    Mr. Graff. So exactly.
    The Chairman. Correct?
    Mr. Graff. I think with the low carbon aspect, we have the 
clear ability to take steam methane reformers utilizing natural 
gas and utilizing technologies like our Cryocap to reduce the 
total carbon emissions by more than 90 percent. And so you end 
up with a very low-carbon source of hydrogen. We also are able 
to produce the renewable sources of hydrogen as well.
    So I think industry--I think the private sector is ready. 
But it can't be done alone. I think there has to be a clear 
role and a public-private partnership with the government to 
have smart climate policy that incentivizes the need to build 
the infrastructure to make this occur. And as I mentioned in my 
opening remarks, we see a very clear path to--basically, within 
ten years--get ourselves to a place where we have made a real 
difference. And that real difference will not solve all of the 
issues to get us to net neutral, which is the goal by 2050, 
which is also our company's goal, but we have those 
capabilities to really get off the ground within ten years.
    The Chairman. The reason I am so excited is that my state 
is about 90 to 93 percent dependent on coal-fired power. We 
know the transition is happening and it has to happen. We 
understand that. We have some of the cleanest power plants in 
the country, some of the largest at 2,500 megawatts. Those are 
big boys. And we produce an awful lot of the power for the East 
Coast. So we are a net exporter of power. With that, we have 
been blessed with an ocean of energy underneath our feet with 
natural gas, including the Marcellus shale. We have the Utica 
shale. We have the Rogersville shale that we haven't even 
touched yet. There is so much going on, and we have the ability 
for us to transform ourselves and be not just an energy hub, 
but a mass producer on top of that. We have the industrial 
experience from the history of the petrochemical plants. West 
Virginia hosted the leading petrochemical plants producing 
during World War II. That got us some of the nylon, which was 
invented in West Virginia. You can go on and on and on--what we 
have been able to do.
    We need to transform those areas, whether it be Wyoming, 
which is a big coal producer. Us, as the largest right now as 
far as still being dependent on coal power, but those are where 
your hubs can be to produce the energy. We have the pipeline 
system, maybe we can at least get our environmental friends to 
help us build a pipeline that will carry clean hydrogen. They 
are stopping everything we have. Now we cannot get a product 
out to the market. We need that help, but what I am saying is 
this is so vital. I think I am fine and willing to go down a 
two-path system. EV is fine, to a certain extent, but we have 
to make sure that we understand that we cannot get Thacker 
Pass. That's not going to happen, I do not think.
    Senator Cortez Masto. There are two lithium----
    The Chairman. But I am just saying, enough to produce what 
we are----
    Senator Cortez Masto. But that's the goal----
    The Chairman. Right, but with that, the refining of it and 
the processing of it. I do not see any of that in America. I do 
not see any of that happening soon in America. That is the 
problem. So with being as dependent as we are, that is what my 
concerns are.
    I have taken more than enough time and I will turn it over 
to Senator Lankford.
    Senator Lankford. Well, I am going to go ahead and defer my 
questions to the very end so we can get some of the folks that 
are here on the panel. I am going to be here the whole time and 
some of these folks are going to come in and out.
    The Chairman. If that is the case, then we will go right to 
Senator Cassidy, by WebEx.
    Senator Cassidy. Thank you and thank you for your 
graciousness, Senator Lankford.
    You know, the interesting thing is it appears that we have 
bipartisan agreement that hydrogen hubs are something that can 
point us toward a lower carbon future. Ms. Satyapal, I 
apologize because I am going to ask you about something which 
in one sense you cannot answer, but I think I can express my 
frustration.
    Our witness from Wyoming spoke about how they are one of 
two states with primacy in terms of permitting for CCUS, and he 
spoke to that as a facilitator of development that will lower 
our carbon footprint as we continue to power in a modern 
economy. Now, I guess my plea, if you will--Louisiana has an 
application to permit and site carbon capture sequestration 
wells. They have primacy. By the way, I think we have 26 
geologists on the staff of our Department of Natural Resources, 
and Region VI has six for the entire region. It has been 
complete since October, and EPA has told the state they require 
no further edits to the application. But instead of accepting 
the application and forwarding it to the EPA here in 
Washington, Region VI has sat on it. They will not forward it. 
They will not say, ``oh, we need these edits.'' They just sit 
on it.
    And so instead of facilitating the development of these 
CCUS projects, which is bipartisan common ground, it is sitting 
on an application and we do not know why. And I know that this 
puts you in a difficult position, but do you think it is right 
that Region VI should be sitting on this application and not 
forwarding it?
    Dr. Satyapal. Thank you, Senator Cassidy. And first of all, 
thanks for your interest in hydrogen. We had your participation 
in the Hydrogen Shot summits as well. And so we are committed 
and I will take the action to go back to DOE and see what we 
can do to expedite--understand what the situation is regarding 
the permit. Thank you.
    Senator Cassidy. Thank you, I appreciate that because we 
want to move forward on this and we have an industrial corridor 
that can benefit from it. As long as it is held up in a 
bureaucratic kind of, ``We are not going to move it and we are 
not going to tell you why,'' it is kind of the worst example of 
government not at work.
    Mr. Hlavinka or Mr. Graff--let me start with Mr. Graff.
    Mr. Graff, 45Q--what is its importance in terms of 
facilitating these projects for blue hydrogen or for otherwise 
sequestering products and what do you think about proposals to 
increase that? I am kind of begging an answer, but please give 
your perspective.
    Mr. Graff. Senator, thanks for the question. Clearly, 45Q 
is one of the policies, one of the laws that will help 
incentivize carbon capture and incentivize the use of natural 
gas in hydrogen production. There are a lot of estimates. I 
believe the National Petroleum Council had issued a report 
about two years ago. We were a part of that development, where 
it talked about incentives in order to go ahead and drive, at 
scale, and also to drive the conversion of up to 25 percent of 
all heavy industrial capacity to a low-carbon state. And 45Q 
today provides roughly $50 per ton. I think that study 
suggested to get to $90 was where you needed to be to drive the 
real investments at scale and $110 to really begin to 
decarbonize at least 25 percent of the industrial 
infrastructure.
    But I don't think that it is 45Q alone. I think the Clean 
Hydrogen Production Act, which is under consideration today, is 
another big piece of what we can do. And if we can put these 
together, we can fully utilize natural gas resources. We can 
provide and produce hydrogen of low carbon content and preserve 
natural gas liquids and the production of those liquids for the 
chemical sector.
    Senator Cassidy. Mr. Lewis, let me ask. One of the issues, 
and I understand that if we push, if we transport hydrogen by 
pipeline, it is much more efficient than putting it in 
pressurized tanks. It is less energy intensive. But there has 
been a problem getting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC) to approve pipelines. Another example of ``We have met 
the enemy and he is the Federal Government.'' What is the 
importance of regulatory certainty in terms of permitting these 
pipelines that would then allow the promise of a decarbonized 
or relatively decarbonized future using hydrogen as a means to 
relatively decarbonize?
    Mr. Lewis. Thank you for your question, Senator Cassidy. It 
is a great question. Regulatory certainty is clearly important 
for many of the industries and other stakeholders in this 
sector to make the major investments that we are going to need 
to make to achieve the objectives that Chairman Manchin 
mentioned for over the next decade. With respect to pipelines, 
there is a lot of work that needs to be done to understand the 
extent to which existing pipelines--natural gas pipelines, 
existing natural gas rights-of-way--might be used to move 
hydrogen. We hope that using that existing infrastructure is 
possible, but we are closely watching that space to see what 
can be done safely and what can be done efficiently.
    Senator Cassidy. So Mr. Chairman, I just want to end. Thank 
you for your graciousness, Senator Lankford, and just to say, I 
began and I ended with the fact that the executive branch is 
putting brakes upon the desire of the private sector to build 
out to a lower carbon future. And so for an Administration that 
claims they want a lower carbon future, they could begin by 
giving the regulatory certainty and facilitating the states 
doing their own facilitation to make that promise real.
    Thank you. I yield.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Heinrich.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
    I want to keep things brief because I have a long list of 
questions I would love to get to, but for any of you, what can 
we do to bring down the costs of electrolysis faster and 
further, or further and faster, I should say?
    Go ahead, Doctor.
    Dr. Satyapal. Thank you so much, Senator. We have already 
launched the H2NEW consortium with our national labs. Today we 
are at about $1,000 to $1,500 per kilowatt. We need to be about 
ten times less. And so we have already mobilized our resources, 
and with Hydrogen Shot, we really have a good shot at getting 
there within a decade.
    Senator Heinrich. Do you have any opinions on the future of 
the direction of electrolysis--proton exchange membranes (PEMs) 
versus alkaline water electrolysis?
    Dr. Satyapal. Yes, and we believe that we need the 
portfolio. So some of the conventional alkaline will be able to 
be deployed right away. We still need to reduce cost with PEM 
and then we have even more advanced electrolysis like high 
temperature. So we have the entire portfolio.
    Senator Heinrich. Great. Super.
    Mr. Lewis, Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects that 
hydrogen from electrolysis is going to be cheaper than hydrogen 
with carbon capture and sequestration by around 2030. If that 
is even remotely accurate, talk to me about whether hydrogen 
with carbon capture and sequestration projects risk being 
stranded assets.
    Mr. Lewis. We need a lot of clean hydrogen quickly. We need 
it to be cost competitive, and taking that hydrogen from any 
one particular energy source is going to be very difficult. So 
we think we need to deploy all the clean energy resources we 
can to produce hydrogen that has sufficiently low carbon 
intensity. Our expectation is that hydrogen made from natural 
gas with carbon capture sequestration is significantly cheaper 
than green electrolytic processes right now. We are going to 
see improvements on both of those, probably steep improvements 
on the electrolytic side, but we think that in order to really 
take advantage of the benefits that hydrogen can provide to the 
decarbonization effort, we need as much of it as possible. We 
are going to need more----
    Senator Heinrich. What I am getting at is if you do it big, 
not a distributive project, and electrolysis is small and 
distributed and iterative, whereas, if you do a big, expensive 
project that requires carbon capture and sequestration, you 
really need 20 or 30 years to make that money back. So Mr. 
Hlavinka, do you have thoughts about that--how we avoid, in the 
interest of doing things in steps--how do we avoid making long-
term investments that end up being non cost-effective in just a 
few years?
    Mr. Hlavinka. Sure, thank you for the question, Senator.
    We believe that the ability to quickly scale the production 
of hydrogen does lean toward SMRs with CCUS. And so this is 
really where we also think the ability to locate those next to 
existing sequestration sites and next to existing 
infrastructure is incredibly important to alleviate some of 
those costs that would be required for new build-out of 
infrastructure. And so the report you referenced around the 
development of green hydrogen and electrolysis and bringing 
that cost down over the next ten years, we think that is very 
aggressive and we think that there is near-term opportunity to 
produce large amounts of clean hydrogen without the use of 
electrolysis.
    Senator Heinrich. Dr. Satyapal, given the issues we 
struggle with, including in my state in great degree with 
fugitive methane in the natural gas supply chain, how do we 
measure the carbon intensity of technologies like steam methane 
reform with CCS to accurately reflect the entire carbon 
intensity? So not just the reductions that we have heard about 
today, but you have to account for upstream emissions as well.
    Dr. Satyapal. Thank you, Senator and we are definitely 
cognizant of the upstream emissions issue and committed to 
reducing that. Right now, we have significant analysis underway 
and we look forward to working on the clean hydrogen standard, 
which is in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, but upstream 
emissions is obviously a significant issue. Our focus is clean 
hydrogen.
    Senator Heinrich. So one of the things we have not talked 
about today is the debate about where best to deploy hydrogen, 
and to some degree the market will decide that. I am curious of 
your thoughts on, you know, ten years from now are we going to 
see hydrogen primarily as a solution to the decarbonization of 
these hard sectors--heavy shipping, heavy trucking, 
industrial--or as a storage medium for electric generation, or 
both?
    Any of you. Mr. Graff.
    Mr. Graff. Senator, I think there are a couple key points 
to be made. First of all, I would say in terms of the sectors, 
I believe in ten years you will see the benefits of hydrogen, 
first of all in transportation. There is already an element for 
light-duty vehicles, but I think the real benefit is going to 
be for commercial vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles, return-to-
base-type operations, warehouse-type facilities as well as the 
Class-A tractor trailer that is on the road. The utilization of 
hydrogen fuel cells and utilizing storage of hydrogen on board 
takes minimal space and much less weight than a full battery 
array to accomplish the same goal. So you preserve the payload, 
you preserve the ability to manage that, and recognize that the 
usability of hydrogen is very similar to what you have today. 
For a passenger vehicle, you pull into your refueling station 
and five minutes later you are on your way to drive another 
300, 400, 500 miles, whatever the case may be for your vehicle. 
There is not a long-term charging aspect to that. And you have 
something even better----
    Senator Heinrich. Yes, I'll give you that, but the reality 
is we do not have the infrastructure anywhere today and all of 
us have a plug in our homes. So it is not really inconvenient 
for me to plug in my electric vehicle.
    Mr. Graff. I think if we----
    Senator Heinrich. It is a different situation with tractor 
trailers, obviously.
    Mr. Graff. Fair. I believe though, if you think about 
commercial vehicles and we think about the heavy duty and 
return-to-base operations, and you begin to go ahead and set up 
significant infrastructure to meet those needs, then I believe 
it is a real solution.
    Senator Heinrich. Great.
    Mr. Graff. I think also for industry, you will see it in 
chemicals and you will see it in steel over that time. And for 
the grid, definitely for backup for solar and for wind. We have 
already built the world's largest hydrogen storage facility in 
Beaumont, Texas and it contains enough hydrogen energy to go 
ahead and back up a new, full-scale nuclear power plant for one 
to two weeks, if you built out the infrastructure. So I think 
there is a lot of capability.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Graff. And I apologize, 
Chairman, for running over for a couple minutes here. I 
appreciate----
    The Chairman. It is extremely important, very important. 
Thank you.
    And now we have, by WebEx, Senator Hoeven. Early. God bless 
you.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you 
holding the hearing.
    Let me start with Dr. Murrell. You know, Wyoming and North 
Dakota are two states that have both the state and EPA 
regulatory approval in place to actually store CO2 
through carbon capture and sequestration as well as the geology 
to do it. And so my question to you is, what do you think has 
to happen for us to take our coal-fired electric plants and 
capture that CO2 and then either continue to produce 
electricity or even produce hydrogen? What are the things that 
you think have to happen? What kind of help has to be there for 
our industry-leading companies to do that?
    Dr. Murrell. Thank you, Senator. The answer is simply to 
continue what we're doing with the large pilots, the 
demonstration projects, the prove-out of the technology itself. 
If we look historically at CCUS across the country, it has been 
a story of technical success and economic failure, and that 
brings up the role of 45Q in the future as well and the 
boosting of that from where it is at $50 per ton perhaps up 
to--I believe $85 per ton has been mentioned in passing before. 
Those things have to be implemented and executed in the field 
and get these things proven out as real and viable 
technologies, not just for the preservation of our thermal 
fleet, but also in the context of development of a blue 
hydrogen economy.
    Senator Hoeven. And where do you see the first hydrogen 
going in bulk? Provided that we can do this, where do you see 
that fuel going?
    Dr. Murrell. So if I can speak to the examples in Wyoming, 
it is mostly--there are nodes of interest. There is a 
southwestern area of interest around the Opal and Echo Springs 
natural gas processing facilities and there is a southeastern 
node around the Cheyenne area, which is mostly, predominately a 
renewables source and they are looking more toward the--they 
are good production centers there obviously looking for a 
value-chain integration in terms of consumption. So the 
southeast port around Cheyenne is obviously looking toward 
delivering hydrogen into the Denver metropolitan area. The 
southwest pool is looking more toward Salt Lake City, even 
further afield, utilizing our existing natural gas pipelines to 
deliver it further to the west coast and perhaps even beyond.
    There is a lot of competition. Not just Wyoming and North 
Dakota, but Texas. This area around here in Chairman Manchin's 
region is also having great progress with development, and a 
lot of it hinges on that value-chain integration, connecting 
the generation with the consumption centers.
    Senator Hoeven. What do you see as the use of that hydrogen 
in those nodes? What is primarily a good use?
    Dr. Murrell. Yes, it is going to be multiple use. If you 
look into Denver, it will be a combination. Probably first of 
all as a transportation fuel, but there is also great 
opportunity to step forward into more of a utility-based 
consumption model and then further after that, it will be more 
into the advanced technologies around synthetic fuels and 
petrochemicals and others. I think for the most part it will be 
led by a combination of either transportation fuels or the 
utility power sector.
    Senator Hoeven. How soon could we be making this happen in 
your opinion?
    Dr. Murrell. In Wyoming we have nine projects--real 
projects--in development. The first hydrogen--we are probably 
looking in the next 18 months or so.
    Senator Hoeven. 18 months?
    Mr. Hlavinka, kind of the same question--where do you see 
this product going? Who is going to get it done first in your 
opinion and can we use the existing pipelines, like natural gas 
pipelines?
    Mr. Hlavinka. Thank you for the question, Senator. Kind of 
tacking on to what Dr. Murrell said, we have at Williams a real 
project in the State of Wyoming that is focused in the Opal 
region where we are taking wind power produced in the state and 
generating clean hydrogen that we plan to put into our pipeline 
system. We own an asset called Northwest Pipeline, which moves, 
currently, natural gas from Southwest Wyoming up to the Pacific 
Northwest into states like Washington and Oregon. We see the 
ability to blend that hydrogen into our existing systems as a 
great start to really begin the development of a clean-hydrogen 
economy. Our customers, many of whom are power generation 
customers, many of whom are local distribution companies or 
other industrial users, are trying to find ways to decarbonize 
their fuel supply as well. And so we see this as a great way to 
start using our existing assets.
    We also see the ability for ourselves to utilize hydrogen 
as a fuel. We run a number of compressor stations along our 
pipelines that consume fuel. And we think hydrogen is a great 
way for ourselves to decarbonize as well.
    Senator Hoeven. Dr. Satyapal, shouldn't we be doing more to 
make sure that we are deploying carbon capture technologies as 
part of developing this move to hydrogen?
    Dr. Satyapal. Thank you, Senator Hoeven, and I would also 
like to thank you for your leadership on the Hydrogen and Fuel 
Cell Caucus. First of all, on all the support for hydrogen, and 
as you know, in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we have 
tremendous opportunity for CCS as well. So our office is 
committed to accelerating progress there as well.
    Senator Hoeven. We want to work with you on the CCUS. We 
are a long way down the trail and look forward to continuing to 
make sure that we make it commercially viable and want your 
help in doing that.
    Senator Lankford [presiding]. Senator Cortez Masto.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    First of all, just let me just say, I so appreciate this 
panel and the discussion today. I am sorry the Chairman had to 
step out because I do think, to put this in perspective, we are 
all saying the same thing here. It is the opportunity to--
depending on where we live--identify what clean energy 
portfolio works best for us based on our geography and minerals 
and background with the outcome of reducing the carbon 
footprint and taking into consideration investments and 
technologies that are going to help us do that. One of the 
things that I think is important for all of us to remember--we 
have all supported this--was that innovation economy is also 
going to be beneficial for us, but we also have to ensure we 
continue to focus on the critical minerals that are important 
for that innovation technology. I think it is an all-hands-on 
approach.
    So to me, it is not just about making sure we invest in 
solar and geothermal and other opportunities. It is investments 
in everything that is going to help us reduce the carbon 
footprint. Not one of them is competing against the other. They 
are compatibles. That is my understanding.
    Mr. Graff, let me just ask you this and it is great to see 
you. We are so excited that you are in North Las Vegas, and we 
are looking forward to continued collaboration because you are 
going to bring incredible opportunities for jobs as well in 
this sector. But sometimes there is this idea that electric 
vehicles compete with hydrogen fuel-celled vehicles and 
technically, they really do not. They are compatible with the 
goal here of reducing a carbon footprint, right? So we should 
continue the investment in both, but making sure that 
investment here in the United States is happening because other 
countries are already doing it. Is that correct?
    Mr. Graff. That is correct, Senator. There is no doubt that 
I think that there is a clear path forward for both to be used 
in the right uses, the right places, and the right ecosystem. 
It is already proven that the light-duty vehicles are already 
working with batteries. You have to make sure you continue to 
bolster the grid--provide that capability. There is no doubt 
that there is a real place--as I mentioned before in all the 
ways, which I won't repeat--for the use of hydrogen as well.
    Globally, there is a huge effort in this regard. I think 30 
countries around the world have already developed a clear 
hydrogen strategy and pathway for their countries. And there is 
probably a level of $70 billion plus incentives from various 
governments to go ahead and help incentivize that to occur. 
There are somewhere in the order of 230 large-scale major 
projects announced, of which 85 percent are in Europe, Asia, or 
Australia. The others are a mix between the Americas and the 
Middle East. And so I think that there is a real focus on this. 
Those projects, as announced, that have come out, are $300 
billion in investment of which, I think, about $120 to $130 
billion is already in engineering or in construction.
    So I think it's real. I think we have to recognize those 
pathways and I would fully agree that we have to look at this 
as an ecosystem for a given geography. And we have to make sure 
we tailor the use and the benefits to reduce the carbon 
footprint in any way possible with that ecosystem and even 
utilizing renewable forms of natural gas from landfills and 
biodigesters, which we know how to do.
    Senator Cortez Masto. That's right. Thank you.
    Let me ask you, Dr. Satyapal, I thank you for your work and 
leadership at the Department as well. When it comes to hydrogen 
jobs--you talked a little bit about this--because I think this 
is another opportunity to really grow our workforce, and you 
highlighted the need for the U.S. to develop that robust 
workforce. Can you please talk to us about what types of 
background or professional experience or what types of jobs 
will come with this investment in hydrogen fuel?
    Dr. Satyapal. Thank you so much, Senator. We did actually 
launch a new project called H2EDGE, which will help us to look 
at the workforce needed and training, accreditation, and 
because it is so diverse, we have the entire value chain, so 
production, construction, engineering, maintenance, repair, 
hydrogen tanks, 
infrastructure, dispensers, the actual fuel cells, membranes, 
electrolyzers. So there is just tremendous opportunity across 
the entire supply chain.
    So the 700,000 jobs opportunity was mentioned, and we will, 
as we launch the hubs and get more deployments, we will have 
more awareness of where exactly are those jobs and how to 
ensure that they are sustainable.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, again. This is 
a great discussion. Thank you to the panelists.
    Senator Lankford. Senator Marshall.
    Senator Marshall. All right, thank you, Senator.
    And certainly, we all do agree here--the panel and the 
members here on the dais--that we share the same goals. We do 
not always agree how to get there, and I think we disagree 
sometimes on how we environmentally score the impacts of these 
different technologies.
    Mr. Hlavinka, I grew up in a small oil town. We had three 
oil refineries, and a Williams pipeline had a large presence 
there--several friends whose fathers worked there, and they 
were really good jobs, well paid. My grandfather was a welder. 
I could weld, but welding for a pipeline is a very special 
skill, and I have seen the technology improve through the 
years. I am told it is 95 percent more efficient--95 percent 
less gas is released or fuel spillage, those types of things 
from pipelines today. Most all of our land, farmland we own, 
has pipelines running through it and the environmental impact 
is nothing. We graze cattle back where the pipeline is. We farm 
over them. The pheasants, the quail, don't seem to mind that 
there is a pipeline under there.
    On the other hand, in the last 25 years we have had an 
explosion of wind energy in Kansas and I am grateful for that. 
I think 45 percent of the electricity in Kansas is generated 
from wind. But I have seen their environmental impact really be 
significant. The power lines that carry these, the towers are 
50 percent taller, I am guessing. They are made out of steel 
rather than wood. They are thicker. They are bigger. And as 
solar farms come in behind them as well, that--there is a 
significant environmental impact of getting that energy, the 
wind energy or solar energy out of Kansas because we don't need 
it all. We are selling it as well.
    How do you score environmental impacts of your industry 
pipeline versus something from wind energy or solar energy on 
the transportation part of it?
    Mr. Hlavinka. Sure, thank you, Senator Marshall.
    I would say to start, we agree that the most efficient and 
safe way to move energy is through pipeline infrastructure. It 
is why we are focused on finding ways to make sure that as the 
hydrogen economy develops, we can utilize existing 
infrastructure to do just that. That said, I think we are very 
big believers in an all-of-the-above approach. We think that 
wind and solar do have a role to play in the future of energy, 
both as just power producers, but also suppliers to hydrogen 
production. And so as part of our base business, we are very 
focused on ensuring we can continue to deliver.
    Senator Marshall. Do you have a way to score environmental 
impact of pipelines versus transmission through power lines for 
solar and wind? I cannot find that.
    Mr. Hlavinka. In terms of scoring, there are definitely 
life-cycle analyses that can be done. I kind of relate it back 
to efficiency as well, of how much energy you are losing 
through those processes. And so I do believe that there are 
metrics that can be shown to compare the two, yes.
    Senator Marshall. Okay.
    Dr. Murrell, I wanted to continue down this pipeline of 
environmental footprints from cradle to grave. In Wyoming, you 
consider the cradle-to-grave impact--environmental impact of 
hydrogen versus coal versus natural gas. How do you guys look 
at that--not just tail pipe emission, but the total 
environmental impact? How do you score that?
    Dr. Murrell. Thank you, Senator.
    It is a difficult question to answer because it is such a 
broad context. Mr. Hlavinka mentioned life-cycle assessments. 
Life-cycle assessments are extremely sensitive to the model 
that you are trying to understand. So being able to compare one 
to another is literally the apples and oranges problem. But we 
take it as very much a holistic view. That is why we are 
attempting a net-zero aspiration in the state, which is scope 
one, of course, which is our direct emissions. It allows us to 
have portions of the economy that are emitting CO2 
and other greenhouse gases, and that allows us to accommodate 
those varying economic parameters and industrial parameters 
within the state.
    Senator Marshall. Okay. Any time left? Yes.
    Dr. Satyapal, any thoughts on how you score environmentally 
cradle-to-grave hydrogen energy?
    Dr. Satyapal. Yes, thank you so much for the question. We 
do have quite a bit of effort also coordinating 
internationally. We are a co-lead of international partnerships 
with over 20 countries. So developing common methodology, also 
looking at, for instance, dig-once policies, how to use 
existing conduits, trying to minimize the risk. And with our 
national labs, we have consortia--HyBlend and H-Mat materials 
consortium--to help, again, identify how to reduce the risk, 
appropriate materials for the pipeline----
    Senator Marshall. So right now do you have a cradle-to-
grave environmental score for hydrogen energy?
    Dr. Satyapal. Right now, again, as we look at the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we would be looking at those 
types of criteria.
    Senator Marshall. If you have some data that could show me 
the environmental impact, cradle to grave, of hydrogen energy, 
how you are going to measure this going forward, I would love 
to see it, not just the carbon score, but the environmental 
footprint.
    Dr. Satyapal. Yes, we have already started looking at 
sustainability-screening tools and I would be happy to follow 
up with you.
    Senator Marshall. Do you have data now that I can look at?
    Dr. Satyapal. Well, we have various analyses. I think the 
validation will be really important. We will get the data as we 
look at the hubs and the build-out. We don't have sufficient 
scale yet.
    Senator Marshall. Okay, thank you. I yield back.
    Senator Lankford. Senator King.
    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to see 
you in that seat. I compliment you on your meteoric rise.
    I think there are a couple of general points. Number one, 
this is a very important hearing. Number two, a general point 
is--research is key. We have just got to keep investing in 
research and that is where the Federal Government can play an 
important role. As we all know, the shale gas revolution 
started with Department of Energy support for basic research 
that George Mitchell then used to develop the fracking 
technology. So the investment by the Federal Government, by the 
Department of Energy, I think, is absolutely critical.
    Number three, in response to Senator Marshall, I completely 
agree. We need cradle-to-grave analysis. One issue on the blue 
hydrogen analysis that I think we have to bear in mind is not 
only the methane and other costs at the production point, but 
the upstream methane that is released now in production and 
transportation. That has to be a major concern. As you all 
know, methane is 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than 
CO2. So I think that is something, when we are 
talking about blue hydrogen and assessing environmental cost, 
we have to talk about fugitive emissions upstream until we get 
those under control.
    I am a huge believer in renewables--in solar and wind. On 
the other hand, I am also a huge believer in reality. And right 
now, I just checked, in New England about seven percent of our 
electricity is being generated by solar and wind. In order to 
achieve a fully decarbonized economy through renewables, in 
other words, we would have to have ten times the solar and wind 
capacity that we currently have. That is a big deal. If you 
drive around Maine, you see a lot of big solar farms now, and 
the idea of multiplying it by ten is something we have to think 
about because we are going to have to over-build solar and wind 
in order to produce the excess energy to store, whether it is 
hydrogen, batteries, or others. So we have to have 100 percent 
capacity.
    A couple of specific questions.
    Mr. Graff, are we going to see a cost curve on 
electrolyzers that is equivalent to what has happened with 
solar and wind over the last ten years?
    Mr. Graff. Senator, there's a lot of work and a lot of 
effort right now to work on electrolysis and the cost to 
produce by electrolysis, certainly, with the support of DOE and 
some of the programs and research ongoing there, along with the 
incentivization of the Clean Hydrogen Production Act to further 
build at scale and start to demonstrate how this can work. So 
we will see that pathway. We will see it evolve. It will take a 
while with that research and that effort and to build at scale 
to get it down to parity with the production costs of hydrogen 
as we know today without carbon capture.
    Senator King. Right.
    And it is also going to be competing with batteries and 
pumped storage and all the other storage technologies.
    Mr. Graff. It definitely will. I think as all of these 
elements grow, we certainly need to go ahead and reinforce and 
grow simultaneously to achieve our needs. As we electrify 
everything from the grid standpoint, we also have to look at 
the infrastructure there and how we source that and what we do. 
And that's why, I think to your point, if we are going to use 
solar and we are going to use wind, we don't only need to 
produce excess, but we also need to store it. I mentioned 
before what we can do with a storage cavern to make that work 
as well.
    Senator King. One question, a quick technical question. You 
talked about trucks using this. Isn't hydrogen significantly 
less dense in terms of energy than gasoline, and how big a tank 
would you need on a truck to get 200 miles or 300 miles of----
    Mr. Graff. So it is definitely less dense, but you are not 
utilizing it in an internal combustion engine. So it is far 
more efficient in its delivery of power to go ahead and drive 
the vehicle.
    Senator King. Would it be delivered to an electric motor? 
Is that the--that's the technology? Are we talking about a fuel 
cell, effectively?
    Mr. Graff. Exactly. Basically, they are all electric 
vehicles.
    Senator King. Right.
    Mr. Graff. It's just a question of do I have a battery that 
I charge from the grid----
    Senator King. Right.
    Mr. Graff [continuing]. Or do I actually produce the power 
on board?
    Senator King. But a fuel cell that would give a truck 
significant mileage wouldn't be as big as the truck is what I 
am asking.
    Mr. Graff. No, no, it would definitely be small enough that 
it would be comparable to what we have today, and it would be 
leveraged in a way that you would be in a place where you would 
maintain the usability of that freight capability and utilize 
the full capacity of those trucks and those vehicles.
    Senator King. I may follow up with you in questions for the 
record because I am running out of time.
    Mr. Graff. Sure.
    Senator King. On pressure, temperature, practicality of 
storage, transportation, those kind of things.
    Senator King. Mr. Hlavinka, quick question. If you have a 
wind project, is there potential here for a package project 
where you have a wind project and then you have an electrolyzer 
onsite? Because when you have a wind project, by definition, 
you have the transmission system. You have the wires already 
there. So you do not have to transport. You could make the 
hydrogen right on the site, have a generator based upon the 
hydrogen on the site so you have, essentially, a base-load 
plant. Is that a feasible engineering concept?
    Mr. Hlavinka. Yes sir, and thank you for the question, 
Senator.
    It definitely is, and it is a concept that we are currently 
putting into practice through the Wyoming project that I 
mentioned earlier. I would say taking that power and making it 
into hydrogen and then moving it long distances is much more 
efficient than moving it on a wire long distances in terms of 
energy losses. And so really the question comes down to where 
is the end use? Where is the market for that molecule? And that 
would kind of dictate what is the best outcome.
    Senator King. Sure, you have line losses, but if it is 
going into the local grid, then that is not a terribly 
significant factor as opposed to pipeline and the 
infrastructure development.
    Mr. Hlavinka. Agreed. I guess what I would say is, 
typically when it comes to wind and large-scale wind and solar, 
they are not usually located next to or adjacent to large power 
demand.
    Senator King. Right.
    Mr. Hlavinka. So that is really our approach--to find where 
is the demand.
    Senator King. So your project would be wind, electrolyzer, 
hydrogen, pipeline?
    Mr. Hlavinka. Yes, sir.
    Senator King. Great. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What happened to Lankford?
    The Chairman [presiding]. We sent him out.
    Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Time was up.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Murkowski. Senator King, I always love listening to 
your questions because it is just such a free range of 
exploratory ideas. So thank you for that.
    Good hearing this morning, and I am sorry that I missed 
your testimony that you provided here to the Committee. I read 
what you had submitted and again, this is an area where we 
think we have great, great promise. I note that the Department, 
just today--or maybe, I guess it was, yes, last night--is 
announcing some restructuring to help facilitate and streamline 
the implementation under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 
which is good and I think notable and certainly timely.
    Question for you, Dr. Satyapal. Has the Department of 
Energy identified any regions that it believes would be 
suitable for a hydrogen hub? This is the criteria that we had 
outlined in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. I have 
received two letters from our Governor. One was directed to 
you, Mr. Chairman. The other one was directed to Secretary 
Granholm, talking about Alaska's clean hydrogen potential, 
outlining the substantial resources that we have, really 
superlative--sequestration basin, access to certainly the Asia 
markets there. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit these 
letters for the record from our Governor that highlight these 
potentials.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
    [Letters from the Governor of Alaska follow:]
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
    
  
    Senator Murkowski. Dr. Satyapal, what work has been done to 
identify these regions? Is Alaska being considered? Can you 
tell me where you are with that?
    Dr. Satyapal. Thank you so much, Senator Murkowski. It is 
an honor to meet you. We have done significant analysis. We 
have three reports that have been published looking regionally 
at resources. We announced just today, I mentioned before you 
came in, that we will be issuing two requests for information 
to get more feedback and we also launched a tool, H2 
Matchmaker, which is public and which will allow producers and 
users to identify themselves. So there is significant activity 
underway. And I should just mention that my sister office, the 
Arctic Office, as you may know, we are planning a workshop on 
hydrogen in your state and the Governor has been engaged. So we 
really look forward to engaging.
    Senator Murkowski. Great. Well, again, I would hope that 
some of the attributes that the Governor has mentioned would 
certainly be considered as you are making those determinations.
    Continuing with you, can you share what the 
Administration's policy is with regard to converting natural 
gas to hydrogen? We recognize that there are some within the 
Administration--certainly some groups that may have influence 
on the Administration--who are very, very firm about not using 
fuel sources like natural gas. So the question is, is there a 
role for conversion to play, and what might we anticipate with 
regard to support and funding that might come with it?
    Dr. Satyapal. Thank you, again, for the question, and as 
mentioned with Hydrogen Shot, we are really looking at all of 
the pathways. It is really about clean hydrogen. So whether it 
is natural gas, carbon feedstocks, nuclear, renewables, you 
know, any pathway to get to the low carbon intensity, we are 
really pivoting away from the colors. There is a lot of 
complexity--green, blue, purple, turquoise.
    Senator Murkowski. Right.
    Dr. Satyapal. Pyrolysis is another approach. In fact, our 
loan program office just announced financing of $1 billion. 
Solid carbon, which is another value-added product--no need for 
the CCS portion. So definitely an all-of-the-above strategy is 
needed to meet all of our goals.
    Senator Murkowski. And that sounds like it certainly 
includes natural gas.
    So this may be directed to you, Dr. Satyapal, or perhaps 
Mr. Lewis. I am focusing on the enormous potential that we see 
in Alaska with hydrogen, and particularly we are looking at 
ways to decarbonize our fishing industry. We have a strong 
commercial fishing industry. We have commercial marine 
navigation. We have transportation marine fleets. Can either of 
you speak to the feasibility of utilizing hydrogen as a clean 
source of propulsion for our ships and whether or not you are 
aware of any work that is being done with regard to 
commercialization of technology. I am asked when I am back home 
what the prospects might be, and if either of you could speak 
to that?
    Dr. Satyapal. Yes, I am pleased to say that we actually 
have a project--first of its kind--the first hydrogen ferry in 
the Western Hemisphere. We are funding an electrolyzer on the 
pier that would actually refuel the ferry and then also a fuel 
cell. So once we generate electric power, we will also be able 
to charge a battery electric vessel, and we are coordinating 
internationally as well. There is significant activity there.
    Senator Murkowski. Where are you doing this with the ferry 
pilot?
    Dr. Satyapal. The current project that applied and was 
selected will be in California.
    Senator Murkowski. Because we have, I think, a very unique 
marine highway system, and again, something interesting to 
explore.
    Mr. Lewis, did you have anything further that you wanted to 
add?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, in addition to the great work that is being 
done on hydrogen fuel cell propulsion for marine vessels, 
another way of accessing hydrogen energy is through ammonia. 
Ammonia-powered internal combustion engines are being developed 
for long-haul, transoceanic shipping, and may be quite useful 
for deep-sea fishing. And so there is a lot of work being done 
on that front, mainly for container and freight ships, but I 
think there is going to be a lot of learning that will also be 
applicable to long-haul fishing.
    Senator Murkowski. So just a point of clarification on 
that. Do you think that ammonia would be easier to do when it 
comes to commercial fishing?
    Mr. Lewis. We think it will be because you can store the 
ammonia energy more readily than you can store enough hydrogen 
to get across an ocean, for example.
    Senator Murkowski. Yes, Yes. Okay, good.
    Well, thank you, I appreciate that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Very interesting.
    Senator Hirono.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Lewis, Hawaii has a goal of reaching a 100 percent 
carbon-neutral economy by 2045. I think we have the most 
ambitious standards in that regard. As islands, Hawaii is 
highly dependent on marine shipping. You described in your 
testimony the potential for hydrogen or hydrogen-based ammonia 
to serve as a low-carbon fuel in long-distance marine shipping. 
What are the next steps that companies and the Federal 
Government need to take to determine the usefulness of low-
carbon hydrogen in marine shipping?
    We would love to see more commercial demonstrations. We 
have been working with the marine industry to encourage and 
promote the development of hydrogen-based shipping for several 
years now, and the deployment period is typically still a year 
or two away, but we are getting to the point where there are 
companies that are saying that deployment of clean ammonia-
fueled vessels should be in the water next year. There is a 
mining company in Australia that expects to deploy an ammonia-
powered freight vessel by the end of this year. And so we are 
getting to the point where it's becoming a viable commercial 
option. We would love to see more support though, to 
demonstrate that technology and to test that technology. There 
are still key questions about using ammonia as fuel that need 
to be answered.
    Senator Hirono. Well, when you say that you would love to 
see more support, what kind of support?
    Mr. Lewis. Investments in pilot demonstration projects, 
investments in the development of ammonia bunkering systems at 
key ports around the world, particularly in the United States.
    Senator Hirono. Did you say you have been working with some 
private companies?
    Mr. Lewis. We have, yes.
    Senator Hirono. Is Matson one of those companies?
    Mr. Lewis. We have not been working with them. One of the 
efforts that we are involved in that we are most excited about 
is actually working with retail companies that are the cargo 
owners, companies that move their goods from production regions 
of the world to places like the United States. Many of those 
companies have corporate-wide decarbonization goals, and to 
reach those goals they need the Scope 3 emissions from the 
shipping to be eliminated. So we are working with those 
companies through an effort called the Cargo Owners for Zero 
Emission Vessels, or coZEV, to signal demand to the market for 
zero-carbon shipping. That coZEV effort, which includes 
companies like Amazon, Patagonia, and IKEA, coming together and 
trying to figure out how to communicate that demand to the 
market and look forward to engaging with cargo owners to 
provide zero carbon shipping.
    Senator Hirono. So you do not do that much with the marine 
shipping side of shipping?
    Mr. Lewis. With the carrier companies?
    Senator Hirono. Yes.
    Mr. Lewis. We have yet to engage closely with the carrier 
companies--no, that's not true, I'm sorry. We have worked with 
Maersk a little bit to understand what they are doing, and they 
are doing quite a bit.
    Senator Hirono. My next question is for Dr. Satyapal. I 
apologize if I am mispronouncing your last name.
    Again, we have a goal in Hawaii of 100 percent renewable 
power by 2045. Hawaii's biggest utility, Hawaiian Electric, has 
identified green hydrogen made with renewable power as one 
potential source for achieving Hawaii's goal of 100 percent 
renewable power. Hydrogen would serve as a way to store 
renewable power for later use to complement the variability of 
solar and wind power. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill 
includes $1 billion for the demonstration, commercialization, 
and deployment of electrolyzer systems. Doctor, could you 
elaborate on how you plan to use the infrastructure bill 
funding to develop hydrogen from renewable power and then 
determine how it could be used to help use higher levels of 
renewable power?
    Dr. Satyapal. Thank you so much, Senator, for the question.
    If I may also just mention, we have projects in your state 
related to the marine. In fact, we demonstrated the world's 
first pier-side fuel cell instead of a diesel generator to 
power vessels along with the Maritime Administration, and also 
have other activities--a shipping mission, ammonia, liquid 
fuels, hydrogen, electrification--an an all-of-the-above 
portfolio. And then, I mentioned before you came in that we're 
very excited to announce that we plan to release two requests 
for information to solicit feedback. We already have a very 
comprehensive electrolysis program and have cut the cost 60, 80 
percent already. We still need much more. Durability, 
efficiency, so again, we have a pretty comprehensive effort and 
really appreciate the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Kelly.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Great that we are 
having this hearing on clean hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells. 
It is the way we generate our electricity aboard the space 
shuttle. So I have a little operational experience with these.
    Dr. Satyapal, thank you for testifying today. The 
Department of Energy has a tremendous opportunity that I do not 
want overlooked in today's hearing. In the Southwest, we can 
produce and transport substantial amounts of clean hydrogen. 
For starters, our solar potential is exceptional and we have 
the Palo Verde generating station, which is the largest nuclear 
power plant in the country that is producing hydrogen by 
electrolysis. So we have the energy capacity to be well 
involved here.
    And then the I-10 and I-40 corridors are perfectly situated 
to transport hydrogen from the East Coast and Rocky Mountain 
states into California and then even overseas. New Mexico is 
expanding their carbon capture and storage capacity. Arizona 
and New Mexico are looking into the $8 billion in the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for the development of clean 
hydrogen hubs across the U.S. If the Department of Energy 
designates the Southwest as a hydrogen hub, it would help the 
country meet our climate goals. It would also provide badly 
needed jobs for the Navajo Nation, which is the largest 
indigenous population in the country. Hundreds of Navajo 
workers have been displaced as coal plants on the Navajo Nation 
began to shut down. The Navajo government is looking at 
hydrogen as a way to build their economy.
    So Dr. Satyapal, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law directs 
DOE to establish at least four hydrogen hubs. Would you 
estimate that there is a need for more than just four hydrogen 
hubs?
    Dr. Satyapal. Thank you so much, Senator. I should just 
mention that before I joined DOE 18 years ago, the company I 
worked for--every American manned space mission used our fuel 
cells.
    Senator Kelly. Great.
    Dr. Satyapal. So it's an honor. In fact, I brought a sample 
here, but as you know, only water is the product. Astronauts 
can even drink that water, so----
    Senator Kelly. Well, we wind up with so much water from 
these fuel cells that we have to dump it overboard. I mean, we 
will transfer some of it to the space station, but if we are 
not docked to the space station, our fuel cells generate 
electricity and they also, you know, we wind up with heat and 
water and the water we have to--there is so much of it--we have 
to dump it overboard and that is actually a good thing.
    Dr. Satyapal. Yes. And again, going back to the leadership 
issue that the Committee has raised going back to the Gemini, 
the Apollo, the United States was the leader in hydrogen and 
fuel cells, so again, I really appreciate the interest. And as 
I mentioned before you came in, we will be issuing a request 
for information on getting feedback from the communities, all 
the stakeholders on how best to implement the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law including the bill and the hubs and the 
other provisions. And I do want to mention that we did also 
just award $20 million, which will use the Palo Verde nuclear 
power.
    And going back to Senator King's question, we really cannot 
avoid stranded assets. So if you are going to have intermittent 
renewables--solar or wind--one of the concepts is a hybrid 
system where you come in with baseload nuclear so that you have 
higher utilization of the electrolyzer, and that is what will 
help us to get the cost down as well. So again, it is very 
complex and those hybrid approaches, again, we are really 
excited. We have five nuclear hydrogen projects, and this was 
just announced as well. So I wanted to highlight again the 
value of these demonstrations, these pilot demonstrations, and 
they will help to ensure that the hubs and the next generation 
of deployments will really be market-successful and 
sustainable. So thank you.
    Senator Kelly. Do you think we need more than four?
    Dr. Satyapal. We will definitely look forward to the 
feedback from stakeholders as we design the most effective 
strategies.
    Senator Kelly. And then I have one request, if you and the 
Department of Energy would engage in some tribal consultation 
as we develop this hydrogen hub initiative, because this could 
be a real benefit to the Navajo Nation.
    Dr. Satyapal. Yes, and our Office of Indian Energy has 
already spoken with the Navajo Nation. In Section 815 it also 
specifically mentions engaging tribal, Native Hawaiian--and so 
again we look forward to coordinating.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    That wraps up our first round of questioning. We are going 
to have to be going to vote, but let me just thank you all for 
your wonderful testimony and participating in this panel, which 
is extremely, extremely informative.
    I would like to say just one thing on behalf of all of us 
that have an interest in these hydrogen hubs. I think you have 
made abundantly clear where the hydrogen economy can go. I did 
not know if any of you all could comment, but if you were in a 
state that was trying to secure a hydrogen hub, what would you 
recommend as the selling point of your state that you would 
like to see or like to make sure people know within your 
application that could be of help?
    You start, okay, Mr. Hlavinka.
    Mr. Hlavinka. Sure, and thank you for the question, 
Senator.
    I would say we are looking at multiple hub opportunities, 
but specifically we are a company based in Oklahoma. I think 
Oklahoma has a lot of fantastic attributes that fit the 
criteria for the hub. You have a great wind resource. You have 
a great natural gas resource. You have a great existing 
infrastructure to leverage. You also have proximity to the 
transportation hubs that the corridors use for moving large 
vehicles east and west across the United States and proximity 
to the Gulf Coast. And so if you put all those together, I 
think it's a great fit. It checks a lot of the criteria boxes 
that have been asked for in the hubs.
    The Chairman. Mr. Graff, what are you looking for to move 
one in?
    Mr. Graff. Senator, we are in all 50 states. We are already 
active in every state in many respects, and I would build on 
Brian's comment, and I think that in addition to that I think 
another benefit of a hydrogen hub is not just the ecosystem 
that is available in terms of the energy resources and how we 
would manage that, but how do we integrate this among different 
users? Is there a way to integrate this capability into 
industry, into transportation, into power as appropriate? We 
see this happening in other parts of the world where you see 
the beginnings of infrastructure being built that is able to be 
leveraged into multiple needs and multiple places, and they 
would look at a basin or a hub type concept for themselves in 
order to do that.
    So I think we would look at all of those things in any 
state and look for the opportunities of working with that state 
or that group of states to make that work.
    The Chairman. Mr. Lewis, do you have any comments?
    Mr. Lewis. Yes, thank you. We think that the attributes of 
a good hub, in general, are lots of potential off-takers for 
hydrogen, like major truck depots, ports and industrial 
facilities, opportunities for strong public engagement, and a 
commitment to delivering near-term environmental benefits, such 
as reductions in diesel emissions. At a natural gas-based 
production hub, we think that there needs to be supply of 
affordable natural gas, of course, good access to high-quality 
carbon sequestration reservoirs, and a strong system in place 
for detecting and eliminating methane leaks from the gas 
production and transport infrastructure. And if it's an 
electrolytic production hub, we would like to see, obviously, a 
surplus of renewable energy, or a surplus of nuclear energy, or 
both.
    The Chairman. Sure. Dr. Murrell.
    Dr. Murrell. Well, I represent one of those states, and my 
advice would just be everybody else just give up and let us 
win.
    [Laughter.]
    Dr. Murrell. No, but in seriousness, I think it is more 
about diversity of fuel sources or renewables plus others as 
well, other hydrocarbons and nuclear and critical pieces, of 
course, are the value-chain integration. It is all well and 
good if you can produce a lot of hydrogen. You have to have 
off-take as well. So integrating with demand centers.
    The Chairman. And Doctor.
    Dr. Satyapal. I will just say that we have spent a 
significant amount of effort looking at how best to implement 
both strategically and tactically. So again, we really look 
forward to working with all of you, all of the stakeholders, to 
design the best possible approach.
    The Chairman. Well, let me just say you all have whetted 
everybody's appetite as far as why we should be moving to 
something that we can do in America. We do not have to depend 
on our foreign supply chains to continue to transform and 
transition to this clean energy technology. So we appreciate it 
very much, and with that, Senator Lankford.
    Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, you all, thanks. This has 
been extremely helpful, being able to walk through all the 
issues with hydrogen today. I appreciate all the engagement on 
this.
    I do want to drill down on the transition. We have talked 
about possibilities, but this panel knows extremely well how 
this conversation about hydrogen being the next thing has been 
the conversation for about 25 years. And so there is a lot of 
dialogue about how does that transition actually happen? How do 
we get down to efficiencies? So I have some questions on that 
portion of it.
    Mr. Hlavinka, thanks again for your testimony and your work 
in this area. The existing natural gas pipeline covers the 
entire country. As Dr. Satyapal mentioned earlier, we have 
about 1,600 miles of hydrogen pipeline. That is not close to 
what would actually be needed. What do you see as the 
transition for moving hydrogen? We are not going to put it on a 
truck and drive it around. That is not going to be efficient. 
What is going to be needed? What do you see as that transition 
for the existing natural gas pipeline structure?
    Mr. Hlavinka. Yes, thank you, Senator Lankford.
    I would say that is really why we are so interested in 
hydrogen. We think the ability to utilize the existing 
infrastructure that really covers the entire Lower 48 is 
incredibly important. We are doing near-term blending projects 
to start proving that concept out. As part of our testimony, we 
submitted a report from the Pipeline Research Council 
International that talks about the state of existing natural 
gas infrastructure--how much can we blend now? What needs to be 
done? What do we need to address to continue to move that blend 
higher? So we are very excited about that. We have near-term 
projects to go prove that and show what our asset base can do.
    Senator Lankford. Okay, so when you talk about blending----
    Senator King. Excuse me, so I am confused. Can you put 
hydrogen in a pipeline with natural gas?
    Senator Lankford. That is exactly where I was going next on 
this, yes.
    Senator King. Okay.
    Mr. Hlavinka. Yes, Senator, that is exactly right. So the 
idea would be to blend hydrogen into the existing natural gas 
infrastructure to create a decarbonized product moving forward.
    Senator Lankford. So you are talking about something 
equivalent, what we knew and talk about all the time, about 
gasoline being mixed with ethanol to be able to deliver that, 
and that product to be burned in the same way but having a 
mixture of natural gas and of hydrogen, and that being an 
initial way to be able to use existing infrastructure to feed 
hydrogen into the line and have a blend at the other end, so it 
reduces the carbon footprint but it is not total hydrogen.
    Mr. Hlavinka. That is exactly right.
    Senator Lankford. So just to clarify as well--I would 
assume there is not a day where we are all natural gas in this 
pipeline and then on Thursday and then Friday it is all 
hydrogen the next day. Orifices would have to be different to 
burn it. Everything on the other end of it, in the delivery has 
to be different to be able to handle hydrogen than they do 
handling methane on that. What do you see as a transition? And 
my next question is going to be on the regulatory side of that. 
Are there regulatory barriers this Committee needs to know of 
if we are going to move hydrogen? Is that a different 
regulatory issue than moving natural gas? What are we facing?
    Mr. Hlavinka. Yes, great question, Senator.
    So I will start with the downstream impacts that you 
mentioned. It is definitely a key part of our analysis, is 
understanding today's natural gas users--how would a hydrogen 
blend impact them? The challenge around that is that the 
natural gas infrastructure touches a lot of different end 
users. It's liquefied natural gas. It's power generation. It's 
utilities that are ultimately sending gas to local distribution 
companies that go to your home. So there are a number of 
downstream impacts that we want to make sure we understand and 
that we can address so that we can continue to safely and 
efficiently operate our existing business without jeopardizing 
that moving forward.
    In terms of the regulatory side of things, we believe that 
there are challenges now about building any kind of 
infrastructure. We think that if we want to continue to grow a 
clean-hydrogen economy, it is going to take incremental 
infrastructure that today can be built for natural gas, that 
tomorrow could be used for hydrogen. So we will look for 
continued support around permitting, and around the ability to 
build out infrastructure that is needed for the future.
    The Chairman. Let me ask, if I can jump in here, just one 
second?
    Senator Lankford. Go for it, yes.
    The Chairman. And put this into a comparison of ethanol 
with gasoline. You go to the pump and there could be as much as 
a ten percent ethanol blend, okay? Some people say that they 
want nothing with an ethanol blend because of the water in it 
that harms their engine. Especially marine engines. Okay, you 
know that. So I am able to still have a clean source of 
gasoline without ethanol. You do not know if blending has the 
same effect in hydrogen blended with natural gas coming in the 
same pipeline--if it would have a detriment to the using it in 
your household heat that is delivered through the natural gas 
pipelines or any other use of the natural gas? We haven't 
gotten that far with it to know what the affects may be. Is 
that what you're saying?
    Mr. Hlavinka. Senator, there are studies going on now to 
address that question of what would be the percentages where 
you would start to have those concerns and how would you 
address that.
    The Chairman. Got you. So we are not down there yet, but we 
are getting there. And that, I know, Doctor, I want to hear 
from you from the research end of it.
    Senator Lankford. But it is the same issue really to be 
able to with ethanol because----
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Lankford [continuing]. Hydrogen also does not burn 
as hot as methane does. Is that correct? So the British thermal 
units on methane are higher than they are for hydrogen. So same 
for gasoline and for ethanol. Your ethanol is not as fuel 
efficient as gasoline is.
    The Chairman. So----
    Senator Lankford. So that is also a factor in this. Am I 
correct or not correct on that?
    Mr. Hlavinka. Yes, you are correct.
    The Chairman. Dr. Satyapal.
    Dr. Satyapal. Thank you. Just to add--in agreement there. 
There are many studies ongoing, so general consensus so far is 
that maybe about 5 to 15 percent blends may be appropriate. It 
depends on the materials of the pipeline. You can have 
embrittlement and issues, and you are exactly right, the end-
use applications, the burners, there may be some modification. 
The UK is looking, in fact, at completely 100 percent hydrogen 
as some of their pilots in some cities--we're coordinating 
internationally.
    We also have an initiative called HyBlend. There are now 
over 40 companies, along with our other consortium, to look 
exactly at what types of materials should be used. The flame is 
actually hotter with hydrogen, but again, what I was going to 
mention is that I was in Germany about four years ago, and the 
world's largest--at the time--wind-to-hydrogen plant was six 
megawatts. Now they are substantially larger, but they were 
injecting ten percent--that was the blending limit--into the 
natural gas pipeline for three years. And so there were no 
issues. And so there, in terms of looking at our safety codes 
and standards subprogram, our R&D is really helping to inform 
the right codes and standards, having the right injection 
standard both in terms of the pipelines. And so we are working 
with the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration, which regulates safety of 
pipelines and also really informing what should those limits 
be. So I really appreciate that question.
    Senator Lankford. Yes, okay.
    Mr. Graff.
    Mr. Graff. I know we are short on time, so I will be very 
brief just to add to the comments. I think it is clear that 
there is a lot of effort underway, as has been said, to look at 
what you can blend in the existing pipeline system. But you are 
going to be limited as to what you can do, ten percent or 
whatever the case may be, and a lot of work is going on on 
that. I don't know where that ends up.
    We operate some of those pipelines of pure hydrogen today, 
and they are constructed with a totally different metallurgy. 
They are constructed with different types of fittings and 
different types of operations and are really point-to-point for 
those that actually need that for a specific purpose so that 
you avoid some of these other issues. So I would be happy to 
follow up on that.
    Another point is when you get to a very high purity, 
another part of use is not just the BTUs, but it is also the 
fact that hydrogen burns totally clean. You can't see it when 
it burns. And so you reach a point where fire eyes and other 
things no longer work.
    The final point I will make is that we see the opportunity 
to build more localization of facilities, so you aren't having 
to ship across great distances because each ecosystem may have 
the availability, as we spoke of before, for renewable power to 
generate hydrogen with electrolysis--to produce it with natural 
gas and capture the carbon, and you are able to reduce the 
transportation footprint and actually provide jobs in that 
locality that are very good jobs.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you. Are there any experiments on 
blending hydrogen into coal-fired units in the boilers? We have 
been able to reduce the NOX in there. Can we do the 
same thing by introducing hydrogen to reduce the emissions?
    Anybody? Do you know if we have done that?
    Mr. Lewis. I don't think it is happening in the United 
States, but Japan is pursuing that.
    The Chairman. So Japan is pursuing adding hydrogen into 
their coal-fired units?
    Mr. Lewis. What they are testing is introducing ammonia as 
a hydrogen barrier into the coal-fired boiler.
    The Chairman. I got you. Okay.
    Whenever you get any results, please pass them on. I will 
look for them also.
    Senator Lankford. I do want to come back to Mr. Hlavinka on 
the regulatory side as well and then I have one other question 
just on distribution network and then we will wrap it up. Is 
that all right?
    The Chairman. Yes, go ahead.
    Senator Lankford. Alright, let's do it.
    So the regulatory sector, you were halfway through that 
question before the Chairman appropriately interrupted.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Lankford. But the challenge that we have in this 
Committee is trying to be able to determine what issues are 
going to come at us that literally we have to resolve around 
this dais if we are actually going to move forward on hydrogen. 
And my perception is, if there is not clarity on the regulatory 
issue, who is handling the pipeline? Who is permitting it? If 
we end up blending fuels like this, does that change the 
regulator on it? All of those issues that are out there and we 
need to know if there is something that you all know at this 
point that we have to deal with statutorily.
    Mr. Hlavinka. Sure, great question, Senator.
    And so I would say we are asking those same questions now. 
And I think the regulators are trying to figure out where their 
scope starts and stops. Specifically when we think about 
natural gas blending, we deal with FERC on a natural gas--on 
the NGA side of it. And so at how much of a blend does that 
stop being a natural gas pipeline and start being a hydrogen 
pipeline? Who is going to regulate that? Those are questions 
that we are trying to get answered. We need that clarity to be 
confident in our investment and confident in moving forward in 
these things. And so----
    Senator Lankford. Well, if at some point the regulators are 
not clear on that, obviously, we have to make clarity on that 
to be able to provide statutory clarity and to be able to say 
that you do not have to guess because that could change from 
Administration to Administration. That does not provide 
stability in investment. We are not going to get capital coming 
into the market if people do not really know where the 
investment is on this.
    My last comment was--15 years ago, 12 years ago, multiple, 
different trucking companies, basically, that handle the fuel. 
Truck stops--they started investing in natural gas, getting 
into their spot. So when the transition happened for heavy 
vehicles going to natural gas, they would be ready to be able 
to sell fuel. Now a lot of those have million-dollar 
investments sitting in a station that is not used because the 
Federal Government was going to push toward natural gas for 
heavy trucking. I would assume those same truck stops are going 
to pause significantly before they start moving to hydrogen or 
electricity to charge batteries or whatever it may be because 
they just got--excuse the pun--burned ten years ago by 
investing millions of dollars into what the Federal Government 
told them was happening and where it is going next.
    How do we avoid that same thing again? And how do we get 
those companies to say, okay, this is really the investment 
without basically the federal taxpayer doing that. Because that 
was private investment that did all the natural gas stuff. Now 
we are talking about either federal grants doing it and the 
taxpayer having to be able to pay for that mistake or something 
else, or loans or whatever it may be. So how do we get to a 
point where there is some certainty in it so we do not have 
that same mistake again?
    The Chairman. There is not much of an answer to that one 
because the Federal Government will jump in. I have been 
pushing back on--I said this is simple--that I never recalled 
reading in the history books that the U.S. Government built 
filling stations when Henry Ford invented the Model T. We just 
did not do it. The market usually jumped in and did it. The 
market is skittish right now because of what--that is what he 
is saying.
    We will prime the pump. It will be some very attractive 
low-interest loans, no-interest loans, trying to get these 
markets primed up, but it is going to be a money source sooner 
or later and the Federal Government and the taxpayer and the 
Treasury should not be left holding the bag, but I am willing 
to wait five or ten years to get that back just at our cost, 
that is all. So I think that would be enough without you all 
putting your capital in jeopardy right now. That is what we are 
hoping will happen.
    Senator Lankford. Yes, I would agree. I do not think the 
federal taxpayer should be involved in that, but that is one of 
those challenges out there. R&D is one thing. Distribution is 
something entirely different, but we have to win some folks 
over that are still ticked.
    The Chairman. Let me thank you all again. I know you have 
been very, very kind with your time and we appreciate you 
making the effort to be here and it has been very, very 
helpful.
    Members are going to have until the close of business 
tomorrow to submit additional questions for the record.
    The Chairman. The Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]