[Senate Hearing 117-298]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-298
WAYS TO STRENGTHEN THE ENERGY AND
MINERAL PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE
U.S. AND CANADA TO ADDRESS ENERGY
SECURITY AND CLIMATE OBJECTIVES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 17, 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
-------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-960 WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
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
C.J. Osman 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
Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
Wyoming........................................................ 3
WITNESSES
Kenney, Hon. Jason, Premier, Alberta, Canada..................... 5
Camden, Hon. Nathalie, Sous-ministre associee aux Mines
(Associate Deputy Minister of Mines), Ministere de l'Energie et
des Ressources naturelles (Ministry of Energy and Natural
Resources), Quebec, Canada..................................... 13
Bradley, Francis, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Electricity Canada............................................. 26
Wilkinson, Hon. Jonathan, Minister of Natural Resources, Natural
Resources Canada............................................... 38
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
(The) Aluminum Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 94
Barrasso, Hon. John:
Opening Statement............................................ 3
Bradley, Francis:
Opening Statement............................................ 26
Written Testimony............................................ 28
Camden, Hon. Nathalie:
Opening Statement............................................ 13
Written Testimony............................................ 15
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 76
Kenney, Hon. Jason:
Opening Statement............................................ 5
Written Testimony............................................ 8
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 71
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Wilkinson, Hon. Jonathan:
Opening Statement............................................ 38
Written Testimony............................................ 40
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 88
WAYS TO STRENGTHEN THE ENERGY AND
MINERAL PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE
U.S. AND CANADA TO ADDRESS ENERGY
SECURITY AND CLIMATE OBJECTIVES
----------
TUESDSAY, MAY 17, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 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. The meeting will come to order.
Let me, first of all, welcome all of our guests. We are
just so delighted to have you all and I want to thank you again
for the gracious hospitality that was shown to me when I
visited with you all. I really, really enjoyed it. And the
weather was all Canadian.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. And I enjoyed that also. We will get started.
Today, I want to welcome our friends from the North, from
Canada, to continue the Committee's very important conversation
about how we pursue two critical goals--ensuring energy
security and addressing climate change. These two goals are not
mutually exclusive, and it is imperative that we address both.
We all agree that Putin has used Russia's oil and gas resources
as a weapon to inflict terrible pain on the Ukrainian people
and on Europe. And other energy-rich autocracies are taking
note. We would be foolish to think that Xi Jinping would not
consider using a similar playbook, leveraging China's control
over global critical minerals supply chains. But Putin's
aggression is bringing the free world closer together than
ever, setting the stage for a new alliance around energy,
minerals, and climate. Building this alliance should start here
in North America, and that is why I am excited to hear today
about how we can strengthen the energy and minerals partnership
between the United States and Canada.
Canada is our largest energy trading partner. They have
strong climate goals and they share our democratic values. This
is why I recently traveled to Alberta at the invitation of
Premier Kenney. I spent two days getting a better understanding
of our energy, minerals, and manufacturing partnership through
meetings with representatives from Alberta, Saskatchewan, and
in the Northwest Territories, the Federal Government, and
tribal and industry partners. Canadians and Americans share a
deep history and are natural partners, sharing the longest land
border on earth. Our people fought side by side in two world
wars. In fact, some of the uranium used by the Manhattan
Project was mined in Canada's Northwest Territories and refined
in Ontario. We have cultivated a strong manufacturing
partnership, particularly in the automotive industry, with
Canada today being our biggest export market for vehicles. Cars
assembled in Canada contain, on average, more than 50 percent
of U.S. value and parts. Today, we also trade over 58 terawatt-
hours of electricity, 2.4 billion barrels of petroleum
products, and 3.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year.
In fact, energy alone represents $120 billion of the annual
trade between our countries. Across all sectors, the U.S. and
Canada trade more than $2 billion daily. That is $2 billion
daily. There is no better symbol of our energy relationship
than our interconnected power grid, which is seamless and
integral for the reliable and affordable electricity citizens
and industries in both of our countries depend on.
We are here for each other during these times of need.
Electricity workers from both the U.S. and Canada regularly
cross the border during extreme weather events to help get the
power back on when Mother Nature calls. Canada has ramped up
oil exports to the U.S. to offset Russian crude, and members of
our Committee led legislation to cut off the energy purchases
fueling Putin's war machine. We know that a number of U.S.
refineries are configured to run on heavy crude. Canadian heavy
crude provides an alternative to sources like Venezuela, which
we have sanctioned due to Nicolas Maduro's anti-democratic
actions. Canada is also a leading supplier of uranium and
critical minerals to the U.S., including those used in advanced
batteries, such as cobalt, graphite, and nickel.
The U.S.-Canada energy partnership is strong, but also not
without its challenges. I have not been shy in expressing my
frustration when the Biden Administration canceled the Keystone
XL Pipeline. In light of Putin's war in Ukraine and the global
energy price surge, I think a lot of us wish that project had
moved forward today. But to be clear, I am not holding this
hearing to relitigate the past. We are here to advance a
stronger and a cleaner U.S.-Canada energy partnership for the
future. Our allies and trading partners in Europe are begging
for North American oil and gas to offset the reliance on
Russia. There is no reason whatsoever we should not be able to
fill that void and do it cleaner than the alternatives. That is
because American oil and gas is cleaner than what is produced
in Russia and certainly in Iran and Venezuela. We can do better
and learn from our Canadian neighbors and all of us working
together.
On average, Canada produces oil with 37 percent lower
methane emissions than the U.S. That is technology we can use
also. And the Canadian Federal Government has set even more
aggressive methane reduction targets. That is what I mean by
climate and security not being mutually exclusive. Replacing
Russian product has added the benefit of reducing the emissions
profile of the energy Europe needs today. I also strongly
believe that we need to be taking security into account as we
invest in climate solutions. According to the International
Energy Agency, stationary and electric vehicle batteries will
account for about half of the mineral demand growth from clean
energy technologies over the next 20 years. Unfortunately,
China controls 80 percent of the world's battery material
processing, 60 percent of the world's cathode production, 80
percent of the world's anode production, and 75 percent of the
world's lithium-ion battery cell production. They have cornered
the market, and we allowed it to happen.
It makes no sense whatsoever for us to be so heavily
invested in electric vehicles as a climate solution when that
means increasing our reliance on China because, right now, we
are not simultaneously increasing our mining, our processing,
and recycling capacity at the same rate in the United States.
The Canadians are ahead of us on critical mineral refining and
processing, and we have much to learn from them about how they
are able to responsibly permit these activities in times that
blow our timetables out of the water. I believe there is much
that we can collaborate on with Canada to create a powerful
North American critical minerals supply chain instead of
increasing China's geopolitical leverage. I am sure our
Canadian friends are happy to export minerals to us, but let me
be clear, the United States also needs to contribute our part
to a North American minerals alliance. So I am very interested
in discussing how we can create an integrated network for raw
materials to move across our borders for processing and
manufacturing in both of our countries.
During this time, when the U.S. and Canada and our allies
and friends are threatened, both by dictators weaponizing
energy and by intense politicization over climate issues, we
must work together to chart a responsible path forward that
will ensure security and unlock prosperity for all of our
nations. We are the superpower of the world, and are blessed
with abundant energy and mineral resources. We cannot just sit
back and let other countries fill the void and find ourselves
in a more dire situation in the years ahead. We must be leaning
into the responsible production of all the energy sources we
are going to need, and strengthening strategic partnerships--
building a North American energy alliance is the right thing to
do.
With that, I am going to turn to Ranking Member Barrasso
for his opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this very important hearing. Thank you to the witnesses
for being here. I especially want to recognize Premier Jason
Kenney of Alberta for joining us. Thank you for being with us
today, Mr. Premier. You know, Alberta has much in common with
my home State of Wyoming. We have rolling prairies. We have
stunning mountain ranges. And we both have an economy built on
energy production. We both have an abundance of oil, of natural
gas, of coal, and wind resources. We both appreciate the high
paying jobs that come from energy development, and we are both
hurt by President Biden's war on energy.
In 2003, Canada's estimated recoverable reserves of oil
jumped about 175 billion barrels thanks to Albertan oil sands.
A few years later, in the United States, a similar bounty was
discovered. The application of advanced technologies like
hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling launched an energy
revolution. It had profound and positive impacts on our
nations' economies and standings in the world. These
developments in the United States and Canada shifted the
world's energy center of gravity from the Middle East and
Russia to North America. It is important that we strengthen the
energy and resource partnership between the United States and
Canada, but Joe Biden's policies are placing it all at risk.
The Biden Administration made the United States an unreliable
partner to Canada by killing the Keystone XL Pipeline. Not
satisfied with just harming Canadian energy, the President went
on, and his appointees are doing everything possible to
discourage American energy production. We are now less able to
support our friends in North America and around the world. We
are less able to provide for ourselves.
Premier Kenney and I agree that this needs to change. We
also need to expand our partnership with Canada beyond energy
to critical minerals. This Committee has held several hearings
this Congress on mining. Demand for minerals worldwide is
skyrocketing. Some suggest we import minerals from Canada as an
alternative to mining it here at home. I strongly disagree.
There is simply no way to meet U.S. and global demand for
minerals without opening new mines in the United States. Our
nation's federal permitting process is the number one barrier
to increased domestic production of minerals. It takes ten
years on average to permit a mine in the United States. It took
us less time to get to the moon. In Canada, it could take as
little as two years for the similar permits. We should learn
from Canada's best practices.
Our electricity grids are physically tied with Canada's.
There are dozens of interconnections. Electrons know no
borders. Our countries face similar risks from blackouts, even
as we help each other keep the lights on. Electricity must be
reliable and affordable. People suffer and sometimes die
otherwise. Electricity policy in both countries could use a
dose of reality. The United States and Canada cannot rely on
the sun, wind, and wishful thinking alone. Although Canada has
a different energy mix for its electric grid, it makes the most
of its affordable, reliable, and abundant natural resources.
The United States must do the same. We should learn from
Canada's permitting success with hydropower and nuclear energy.
North American energy is a tremendous geopolitical asset. That
means we need a strong energy and mineral partnership with
Canada that requires being strong ourselves by ramping up
energy and mineral production here in the United States.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
Before we get started, I am going to have a little
housekeeping measure here. I want to announce that the Greek
Prime Minister will be addressing a joint meeting of Congress
this morning at 10:35. I am going to be staying here for this
hearing. So we are not going to be recessing, but any of the
members who might have to leave or want to attend, it is
understandable. I think this will be much more interesting
though.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. So I am going to now turn to our witnesses. I
am going to introduce them.
We have Hon. Jason Kenney, Premier of Alberta, Canada.
We have Hon. Nathalie Camden, Associate Deputy Minister of
Mines at the Quebec Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources.
We have Mr. Francis Bradley, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Electricity Canada.
We also have, joining us virtually, Hon. Jonathan
Wilkinson. He is Canada's Minister of Natural Resources. I
understand, Minister Wilkinson, that you have to leave at noon
to attend a cabinet meeting, and we will be cognizant of your
timing there. So hopefully, we will get our questions to you
quickly.
With that, we are going to open up with Premier Kenney with
his opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JASON KENNEY,
PREMIER, ALBERTA, CANADA
Mr. Kenney. Thank you so much, Chairman Manchin, and to you
members of the Committee. Thank you especially for having
visited us in Alberta. I am sorry we did not offer good
weather, but come back in the summer.
The Chairman. It was great. I thought it was all Canada.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kenney. Senators, if you remember one thing from
today's hearing, I hope it will be this--that the province of
Alberta is, by far, the largest source of U.S. energy imports.
U.S. energy security depends on Alberta. And Alberta can be a
huge part of the solution to the problem of American energy
inflation and the cost-of-living crisis. Senators, last year,
over 60 percent of U.S. oil and gas imports came from Alberta--
that is 6-0, not 1-6--60 percent. The U.S. Energy Information
Administration reports that last year, the United States
imported 2.2 billion barrels of crude oil, 1.4 billion of
which, or 62 percent, came from Canada and virtually all of
that, from Alberta. Let us put that in perspective. Last year,
13 percent of U.S. oil imports came from all OPEC countries
combined and only six percent from Saudi Arabia. So Alberta
supplies the U.S. with ten times more oil than Saudi Arabia and
five times more than all of OPEC. The same is true for natural
gas. Last year, my province shipped 4.8 billion cubic feet of
gas per day to the U.S. That is 63 percent of your gas imports.
And I am proud to say that Alberta is home to the world's third
largest proven and probable oil reserves, about 180 billion
barrels worth, and one of the world's largest reserves of
natural gas. The province of Alberta owns those resources and
has the exclusive constitutional jurisdiction to regulate their
production.
Now, after your country has spent hundreds of billions of
dollars in recent decades defending security in the Persian
Gulf area, it turns out that the solution to the challenges of
energy security is your closest friend and ally. Vladmir
Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine has proven the danger of
allowing dictators to dominate global energy markets and
weaponize oil wealth, using it to spread violence, instability,
and terrorism around the world. And that is why we were,
frankly, so taken aback when President Biden vetoed the
Keystone XL Pipeline. It would have safely delivered 830,000
barrels a day of responsibly produced Canadian energy to the
U.S., more than displacing the 670,000 barrels a day that you
all bought from Putin's Russia last year. We were also
perplexed with the Administration's response to sky-high gas
prices, which was to plead with OPEC to produce and sell more
oil while working to lift sanctions on dictatorships like Iran
and Venezuela. White House officials have reportedly discussed
a Presidential visit to Saudi Arabia to press for more
production of their oil and their exports to the U.S.--oil that
is used to buy cluster bombs dropped on Yemeni civilians. Well,
Senators, Calgary is a lot closer to Washington than Riyadh,
and you do not need the U.S. Navy's fifth fleet to patrol the
Great Lakes. To quote former Montana Governor, Brian
Schweitzer, ``We do not have to send the National Guard into
Alberta.''
Chairman Manchin, we truly appreciated, as I said, your
recent visit to Alberta to see firsthand the amazing progress
that is being made to reduce emissions and improve the
environmental performance of Canada's oil sands, but to see
also the deep partnerships between our energy producers and our
indigenous people and to discuss the development of a North
American energy alliance. We invite other members of this
Committee to visit Alberta and see for yourself, judge for
yourself, draw your own conclusions about whether Alberta is a
preferable solution--as a source of imports--to OPEC. Between
current unused capacity in the North American pipeline system
and the prospect of pipeline optimization, plus the scheduled
completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion to Canada's
West Coast next year, Alberta will be able to increase our
crude exports to the U.S. by upwards of a million barrels a day
over the next couple of years, helping to reduce prices at the
pump. But with political will from Washington, we could also
get another major pipeline built that would forever allow the
United States to free itself from imports from hostile regimes.
Mr. Chairman, where there is a will, there is a way. The
government of Alberta is keen to work with you and friends in
the United States to get another major pipeline built to
achieve the dream of North American energy independence and
security. At the same time, we must work together to maintain
current supply, and that is why I call on the U.S. Government
to join Canada in demanding that the Governor of Michigan
respect the 1977 Canada-U.S. pipeline transit treaty by
abandoning her efforts to decommission the Enbridge Line 5
Pipeline that has safely delivered over 600,000 barrels of
Canadian energy to the U.S. for six decades. Her plan to do
this would only worsen the energy and cost-of-living crisis at
the worst possible time. And we must work on both sides of the
border to remove regulatory barriers to the production and
shipment of energy.
Senators, replacing conflict oil imports with Canadian
energy is not a threat to the environment. We take seriously
the need to cut emissions and to address climate change.
Alberta's oil and gas producers and pipeline companies have
some of the world's highest ESG rankings. Alberta was the first
place in North America to implement carbon pricing. Through
massive investments in clean tech, we have reduced the carbon
footprint of an average barrel of Alberta oil by 36 percent
since the year 2000 to below the global average for heavy oil.
Our oil sands producers are committed to achieving net-zero
greenhouse gas emissions in their operations by 2050, in part,
through a big expansion of our world-leading carbon capture
utilization and storage infrastructure. We are on track to
reduce methane emissions by at least 45 percent. We are leading
Canada right now in renewable energy investments and we are set
to become a global hub in the production of net-zero and low-
emitting hydrogen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions
and ongoing collaboration on developing a North American energy
alliance.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kenney follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Premier Kenney.
Now, we are going to go to Nathalie Camden.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NATHALIE CAMDEN, SOUS-MINISTRE
ASSOCIEE AUX MINES (ASSOCIATE DEPUTY MINISTER OF MINES),
MINISTERE DE L'ENERGIE ET DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES (MINISTRY
OF ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES), QUEBEC, CANADA
Ms. Camden. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to share Quebec's mining practices and present how
we can grow our relationship. Canada and the U.S. are long-time
friends, partners, and allies. During World War II, the U.S.
built aluminum smelters for the allied war effort. Today,
Quebec supplies around 60 percent of North American aluminum.
And thanks to our energy, that is 99.8 percent renewable, it is
the greenest in the world. This shared story is more important
now than ever. New national security threats demand similar
collaboration. For defense purposes, Canadian products are
considered domestic and our trade is further deepened to the
USMCA. Quebec stands ready to partner with the United States to
address weaknesses in our supply chain.
How can we help? First, we have the minerals the U.S. needs
and we are business-ready. Quebec's subsoil contains 46 of the
50 minerals deemed critical and strategic by the USGS,
including lithium, nickel, cobalt, and graphite--all required
for batteries. Our critical minerals action plan, the first in
Canada, sets priorities from exploration to recycling. Quebec
is recognized as the sixth most attractive mining jurisdiction
in the world. We have 22 mines in operation, three in care and
maintenance, and 33 mining projects. Second, the transition to
EVs and renewable energy is increasing mineral demand. To meet
this challenge, Quebec has developed a strategy to build a
highly efficient and traceable North American battery supply
chain from mine to wheel, and it is already taking shape.
Recently, GM, POSCO, and BASF each announced a major CAM
facility less than 100 miles from Vermont and Maine. The CAMs
developed in Quebec will power GM's next factory in Michigan as
well as facilities in Ohio and Tennessee. The GM/POSCO plan is
proof that together, we can create jobs on both sides of the
border. For EV manufacturing in North America to be globally
competitive, it needs to be truly North American.
Like in the U.S., mining projects in Quebec require
numerous permits and authorizations. We have streamlined these
processes while increasing social acceptability and
transparency. Through government reforms and the new Permits
Coordination Office, we cut administrative formalities by over
30 percent. Cutting red tape generated substantial savings for
industry without, of course, weakening our environmental
stewardship. Industry knows that social acceptability and
sustainable development are paramount in Quebec. Companies are
adapting globally recognized sustainability certifications and
standards. Sustainable development ensures sustainable economic
returns. Quebec's hydropower provides stable electricity prices
for consumers, be they mining in Quebec or a household in New
England. Quebec is also home to many indigenous communities. We
have concluded modern treaties with the Cree, the Inuit, and
the Naskapi that offer companies predictability. In addition to
our required consultation process, we promote dialogue among
indigenous communities, mining companies, and government at the
earliest stage.
I want to close by stressing the urgent need to deepen and
expand our collaboration. The situation in Ukraine shows energy
and resource vulnerabilities of many allied countries. On
battery, mineral, and energy issues, the message is the same.
The U.S. must diversify its sources, and Quebec is here to
help. Working together can ensure our competitiveness,
security, and the environment for generations to come. Quebec
is just an hour and a half flight from Washington. We invite
you to come visit La belle province anytime and perhaps we will
have nice weather, and merci beaucoup, and I look forward to
hearing your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Camden follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Deputy Minister.
Now we are going to go to Mr. Bradley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF FRANCIS BRADLEY, PRESIDENT
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ELECTRICITY CANADA
Mr. Bradley. Good morning, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member
Barrasso, and members of the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about
the mutually beneficial electricity relationship between Canada
and the U.S. and how it bolsters shared goals for clean energy,
energy security, reliability, affordability, and our economies.
I am Francis Bradley with Electricity Canada. We are the voice
of the Canadian electricity industry. Our members generate,
transmit, distribute, and market electricity across Canada and
the U.S. every day. The integrated U.S.-Canada electricity
system is critical to the positive North American energy
relationship. This relationship is recognized by the United
States-Mexico-Canada agreement providing for tariff-free
treatment of energy trade between our countries. As both
countries seek to achieve clean energy goals and to ensure
energy security, this partnership offers opportunities to
increase the availability and development of reliable and
affordable clean energy.
Canadians and Americans share a highly integrated
electricity grid connected by over 35 high voltage transmission
lines. Some 30 states engage in electricity trade with Canada
each year. Canadian and U.S. electricity companies own and
invest in assets on both sides of the border. They work in
unity of effort to keep the grid secure and reliable in the
face of energy transformation, new security threats, and more
extreme weather. Canada has a low-carbon electricity grid, an
abundance of reliable, affordable, and dispatchable power, and
further clean resource development opportunities. More than 80
percent of electricity produced in Canada is non-emitting
today--predominately dispatchable hydropower. And trade is not
one-way. The U.S. exports electricity to Canada. Tangible
benefits of electricity trade and to integration for Americans
and Canadians include enhanced reliability and resilience
through operational efficiencies and supply diversity, enhanced
affordability through efficient price signals and larger
markets, greater emissions reductions, and support for
developing new renewables and clean energy technologies.
Increased cross-border transmission infrastructure can enable
further two-way trade and its benefits.
The second installment of the Department of Energy's
Quadrennial Energy Review stressed that, and I quote,
``additional cross-border transmission infrastructure with
Canada has been projected to lead to lower overall system costs
in U.S. border regions, and it could enhance reliability,
backstop variable renewable energy development, and enable
lower overall emissions of U.S. power consumption.'' As such,
predictable regulatory regimes for energy infrastructure
development are important. As in Canada, the U.S. has ambitious
clean energy and climate goals at the federal and state level.
To transition to net zero, both countries will need every
megawatt of non-emitting generation. As such, Canadian non-
emitting imports should constitute as clean energy under any
climate or clean energy regime.
Electricity trade and integration are important tools for
bolstering reliable and affordable clean energy supply and
development. For example, the Champlain Hudson Power Express
will provide clean power from Canada to New York, building on
benefits already existing from electricity trade. Canadian
hydropower can help bring more U.S. intermittent resources
online by serving as backstop energy to solar and wind. A
recent example is the Great Northern Transmission Line
connecting Manitoba hydropower with U.S. wind. Further,
Canadian hydro can act as a battery to help reduce U.S.
renewable curtailment. A recent MIT paper found that Canadian
hydropower can be particularly effective as a complement, not a
substitute, for deploying more wind and solar in the Northeast.
There is also cooperation on electricity technology leadership.
For example, Ontario Power Generation and the Tennessee Valley
Authority announced plans to work together on advanced nuclear
technology. Another one of my members, Capital Power, is
working on carbon capture initiatives at its Genesee facility
to support near zero emitting natural gas-powered generation,
and to convert captured carbon into carbon nanotubes. The U.S.-
Canada electricity relationship extends to bolstering grid
resilience. Canadians and Americans work together to address
security risks and follow mandatory North American electricity
standards. Canadian companies provide mutual assistance,
crossing the border to help American electricity companies
restore power to customers more quickly in the aftermath of
major weather disasters.
In conclusion, Canada is a reliable and trusted electricity
partner. This partnership has served Canadians and Americans
for over 100 years. In the context of climate change and
growing cyber and physical threats to the grid, the U.S.-Canada
relationship is more important than ever. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bradley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Now we will hear from Minister Wilkinson.
Minister Wilkinson, it is your turn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JONATHAN WILKINSON, MINISTER OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA
Mr. Wilkinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
Ranking Member Barrasso for the opportunity to speak with the
Committee about the interconnected double threat to the
national security interests of both of our nations--energy
security and climate change. I appear here to share Canada's
perspective on these urgent matters with our neighbor, our
closest ally, and our largest trading partner, in my role as my
country's Minister of Natural Resources. I was, as well, until
about six months ago, Canada's Minister of Environment and
Climate Change.
Let me begin just with a brief word about Ukraine. This
brutal, illegal invasion launched by President Putin against
the people of Ukraine represents a violation of international
law and an unjustified attack on a peaceful people. Canada's
support for the Ukrainian people is unshakeable. To date, we
have provided Ukraine consequential, humanitarian, military,
and other support, and we are committed to continuing to do so.
The International Energy Agency defines energy security as
the uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an
affordable price. There are some in both of our countries who
suggest that given the current urgency of the energy security
issue, we must set aside concerns and actions relating to
climate change. This position is neither thoughtful nor
tenable. Domestic energy security and climate action are
increasingly and inextricably tied together. As Canada works to
help our European allies at this time of crisis, we are
concurrently cutting oil and gas emissions, including from
methane regulations and establishing clean fuel and electricity
standards to achieve our ambitious 2030 climate target. If we
look to the present situation in Europe, western European
countries are working vigorously to secure predictable energy
supplies in the context of an increasingly belligerent and
irrational Russia. Short-term, Europe is focused on replacing
Russian energy imports with those from other countries, while
aggressively accelerating a transition towards renewables and
hydrogen in the medium term. As the President of the European
Commission stated recently, and I quote, ``It is our switch to
renewables and hydrogen that will make us truly independent.''
In this context, recent decisions by the United States and
Canada to expand hydrocarbon exports to our European friends to
displace Russian oil and gas for the short term are entirely
appropriate, particularly since these actions are being taken
very much within the context of our respective climate change
plans.
However, it is the shift to domestically produced renewable
energy and the hydrogen supplied by stable countries like
Canada that will provide true energy security and national
security to Europe and to both of our countries. A clean energy
transition will deliver energy security in a sustainable
future, enabling democratic countries to wean themselves from
petro-dictators who weaponize energy. It will strengthen
economies and create jobs and it will respond to the urgent
code-red for humanity, which is how the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change characterizes the climate crisis which
presently confronts us. Given the challenging nature of current
geopolitics, the need to be focused on energy security has
never been greater, security that can be driven through a
Canada-U.S. energy collaboration and through joint action on
climate change.
Let us commit our countries to the further development of a
North American energy powerhouse, one that will facilitate
energy security while helping to advance our shared journey
down a path to net zero. Canada and the U.S. already have
deeply interconnected energy systems. In fact, 60 percent of
U.S. oil imports and 93 percent of American electricity imports
come from Canada, and all of this flows through a network of
existing pipelines, very much including Line 5 and cross-border
electricity transmission lines. Going forward, there will be a
continuing relationship between our countries in the areas of
oil and gas. Even in the International Energy Agency's net-zero
scenario, there will be a need, beyond 2050, for about a
quarter of current oil production and half of current gas
production for use in non-combustion applications, such as
petrochemicals, lubricants, solvents, waxes, and hydrogen. And
clearly, countries that focus on producing hydrocarbons with
ultra-low production emissions are likely to be the last
producers standing.
In the context of the low-carbon energy transition, the
opportunities for Canada-U.S. collaboration and mutual benefit
are enormous. For example, critical minerals, all the way from
mines to processing to manufacturing to recycling; hydrogen to
fuel our trucks, planes, trains, industries, and even our
homes; production of renewable energy and transmission of clean
electricity across our borders; nuclear technology, including
small modular reactors; carbon removal technologies; and in the
research, development, and the scaling of a wide range of clean
technologies. As we partner in these areas, we need to be
clear-eyed, ensuring that in moving away from dependence on
autocratic hydrocarbon producing countries, we do not
inadvertently end up with similar dependence on other
autocratic countries in areas such as critical minerals. I was
in Washington last week to advance exactly these conversations
because they are critical to the future of our economies and of
our planet, and Canada is committed to working with you to
enhance North American energy security, to fight climate
change, and to create jobs and economic opportunity for the
citizens of both of our great countries.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilkinson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Minister.
Before we start our questioning, I would be remiss if I did
not ask all of you to introduce your staff that has traveled
with you, and we want to welcome all of them, but if you want
to take time, and Premier Kenney, if you want to start?
Mr. Kenney. Sure. Thanks, Senator.
So I am joined by Alberta's Minister of Energy, Sonya
Savage.
The Chairman. Stand up. Stand up.
Mr. Kenney. Minister of the Environment and Parks, Jason
Nixon and Alberta's Senior Representative in the United States,
James Rajotte.
The Chairman. Thank you all for being here.
Honorable Ms. Camden.
Ms. Camden. Yes, I am not traveling with people from
Quebec.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Camden. But I am supported by Quebec's Office in
Washington, DC, led by Mr. Jean-Francois Hould, Abigail Hunter,
and Justin Margolis.
The Chairman. Welcome to all of you.
Mr. Bradley.
Mr. Bradley. Yes, and my local support is Andrew Shaw.
Andrew.
The Chairman. Andrew.
And Minister Wilkinson, do you have anyone here that you
would want to introduce?
Mr. Wilkinson. Yes, my Deputy Chief of Staff, Kyle
Harrietha, I think is there and I am not sure if Ambassador
Hillman is there as well, but she has certainly been supporting
us through this exercise.
The Chairman. Well, again, welcome to all of our neighbors.
We appreciate very much you all making the effort to be here
today.
And with that, we will start with our questioning. And I
want to start with both Premier Kenney and Minister Wilkinson,
this is for both of you. We all know that the demand with
COVID-19 and also with Putin's war on Ukraine, the strain that
is put on all of us, North American energy is going to be
needed for years to come in order to offset that. We understand
that. So I would ask either one of you, and both of you, to
answer this. Have you been in contact with our Administration
here or your counterpart, Minister Wilkinson, or Premier
Kenney--any other than us speaking to you from the legislative
branch? From the executive branch, is anybody speaking to you
all concerning increasing oil and natural gas, the things that
we are going to need in order to help our allies?
You can start with yourself and then I will go to----
Mr. Kenney. Thank you, Senator.
The answer, well, I do not have a counterpart in the U.S.
Government, as I am the leader of a subnational government, but
yesterday I did have meetings with officials at the U.S. State
Department that we initiated. I will say, we found it passing
strange that following the invasion of Ukraine there were clear
efforts by the Administration to reach out to OPEC, Saudi
Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran, but we have no record of any
effort by the Administration to reach out to Alberta, which, as
I have said, provides 62 percent of U.S. oil imports.
The Chairman. Minister Wilkinson, did you all have any
conversations or anyone reach out to your counterparts from the
U.S.?
Mr. Wilkinson. Yes, thank you, Senator. Yes, we have had
ongoing conversations with the Administration. Certainly, I
have spoken with Secretary Granholm many, many times since the
invasion of Ukraine and I was at the White House last week
having similar conversations. As you know, we have had a number
of in-person meetings to discuss how to address this. I think
you and I actually met in Paris.
The Chairman. Right.
Mr. Wilkinson. At the International Energy Agency, when
Secretary Granholm was there, and the focus, very much, in
terms of increasing production, was our announcement of 300,000
additional barrels a day, which we worked with Premier Kenney
and the industry on, was partly the product of those
conversations because, of course, the offtake to get it to the
Gulf has to come from the United States. And we continue to
talk about issues like LNG exports, for example.
The Chairman. Have you all increased your production?
Mr. Kenney. Well, yes.
The Chairman. For the U.S., for us to be able to help our
allies around the world?
Mr. Kenney. I will say yes. Last year was a record year for
production and exports. We had, I think in December, 4.1
million barrels a day, but Senator, we believe, and we frankly
do not agree with the 200,000-barrel estimate just offered by
Minister Wilkinson. We have about 300,000 barrels of daily
unused capacity in the North American pipeline system, which we
expect to fill this year through increased production. Once
that is filled, the economics will probably work for additional
shipment by rail, which could be upwards of an additional
200,000 barrels a day.
In addition, if midstream companies get serious about it
and if regulators approve, we could see a series of technical
improvements through pipeline optimization and line reversals
over the next year or so that could add upwards of another
400,000 barrels a day of potential capacity. And then finally,
in Q4 2023 and Q1----
The Chairman. This would also reduce the American--the
United States' reliance on OPEC or Saudi or----
Mr. Kenney. Well, I think American refineries, I know,
would prefer to buy locally, partly because they get our energy
on a discount since we are currently, largely landlocked and
so, we are price takers. And I do know that Gulf refineries are
very keen to get more access to our heavy supply.
The Chairman. Let me, Minister, do you have anything to say
on that, Mr. Wilkinson?
Mr. Wilkinson. No, I think, as Premier Kenney said, the
focus in the short term has been on looking at ways to
essentially utilize existing pipeline capacity. That is where
the 300,000 barrel equivalence comes from and it was the
product, obviously, of work that we did with the pipeline
companies and the oil sector. And certainly, that is part of
the contribution that Canada makes, in the same way that the
Americans have made a contribution, the Brazilians have, to try
to actually ensure that we are addressing the concerns
associated with displacing Russian oil and gas----
The Chairman. Let me go to the Enbridge 5 Pipeline that we
talked about, and you know, going under the Great Lakes. With
that, we are concerned--and I am sure you would understand--we
are concerned about the safety of that. We have had no
problems, but you know, with the line's age and all that. Do
you all have recommendations of how you could secure that and
make it safer, and that way, less of a danger that people might
be concerned about? From both of you.
Yes, Mr. Kenney.
Mr. Kenney. Okay, thank you, Senator.
Well, first of all, Enbridge has proposed spending upwards
of $750 million on this new, high-tech, extremely safe,
subterranean pipeline, and this is to replace the pipeline that
has operated safely across the Straits of Mackinac now for six
decades, delivering about 530,000 barrels a day of light sweet
to refineries in Ohio and Pennsylvania as well as Ontario and
Quebec, and what the Governor is trying to do is decommission
the current pipeline without the replacement. So that would
strangle much of the energy source for the upper Midwest. We
appreciate that the Government of Canada has filed a complaint
under the 1977 pipeline transit treaty, and I will hand it over
to Minister Wilkinson to talk about that.
The Chairman. Minister.
Mr. Wilkinson. Yes, and I would say the proponent has
indicated a willingness to do whatever needs to be done to
address the environmental concerns, and certainly, the pipe
under the Straits of Mackinac is a key element of that. We
think the company has gone above and beyond what is required
here, but we are obviously looking to find a resolution that is
going to work for all sides. And certainly, we have invoked the
treaty, which is a treaty between Canada and the United States,
which relates to the free flow of pipelines and the products
within pipelines. And we are looking to try to find a way to
resolve this.
This is an important pipeline, not just for Canada, but I
mean, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania get products from this
pipeline.
The Chairman. Has that pipeline ever had--have we ever had
a leak or a problem with that pipeline that you----
Mr. Wilkinson. Not to my knowledge.
The Chairman. Not to your knowledge.
Mr. Wilkinson. Not anything significant.
The Chairman. For six decades, correct? And they are
willing to basically--I am understanding, encapsulate that in a
tunnel type so it would prevent it from ever being a danger to
the Great Lakes?
Mr. Kenney. That is right, Senator. And I believe what
Enbridge needs to proceed more quickly, which is what Michigan
would like to see is an acceleration of the federal regulatory
approvals of that. But to stop the current operation would
jeopardize energy security for the upper Midwest, there is no
doubt about that.
The Chairman. With that, we will go to Senator Barrasso for
his questions.
Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Premier Kenney, a couple things, and time is limited, so I
hope you would answer yes or no on some of these things.
Did killing the Keystone XL Pipeline make it more difficult
and expensive to move Canadian oil to U.S. refineries?
Mr. Kenney. Yes.
Senator Barrasso. So now, Canadian oil which would have
traveled by pipe will have to be moved by train or truck. Is
this more or less environmentally friendly?
Mr. Kenney. Less.
Senator Barrasso. Has killing the pipeline further
exacerbated the supply chain issues between our two countries?
Mr. Kenney. Yes.
Senator Barrasso. And so, is it fair to say that President
Biden's decision to kill the Keystone Pipeline increased cost,
harmed the environment, and added to our supply chain troubles?
Mr. Kenney. I think that is a reasonable conclusion.
Senator Barrasso. So you noted in your testimony that
Keystone would have been able to move 830,000 barrels a day of
Canadian oil, significantly more than the 670,000 barrels a day
of oil we imported from Russia in 2021. So if Keystone had been
built, would Canada have been able to replace that Russian oil?
Mr. Kenney. Oh, yes and in fact, the operator, TC Energy,
had contracts to move that 800,000 barrels-plus per day.
Senator Barrasso. In your testimony, you note that
President Biden has pleaded with OPEC and Russia to increase
oil output and has worked to remove sanctions on oil exports
from Venezuela and Iran. At the same time, the Administration
continues to block access to energy resources and the
infrastructure needed to move them in Alberta and across the
U.S., including in my home State of Wyoming. So I was just
going to point out, in today's Wall Street Journal, today,
Tuesday, May 17th, ``Biden's Dance with the Dictator.'' It
states ``the Biden Administration's sanctions dance with the
dictator''--and they are talking, of course here, about
Venezuelan strongman, Maduro--``Dance with the dictator is
taking place even as it acts at every turn to restrict U.S. oil
and production.''
So does Biden's policy make any sense for the people of the
United States or of Canada?
Mr. Kenney. Well, it is for you to figure out what works
for the people of the United States, Senator, but I will just
say this, we find it inexplicable that the Government of the
United States has been more focused on encouraging additional
OPEC production than Canadian production.
Senator Barrasso. So, you know, I understand the provinces,
rather than the Federal Canadian Government, take the lead on
permitting many energy projects. So there are some differences
in how we do things. Provinces largely own and have the
authority to manage the natural resources within their borders.
Your staff behind are shaking their head yes across the board.
Provinces largely own and have the authority. So in Wyoming and
other western states, the Federal Government owns and manages
nearly 70 percent of the minerals within our state borders.
This makes for a very inefficient system.
So, could you explain to all of us how provinces, rather
than the Federal Government, make better managers of natural
resources?
Mr. Kenney. That is a great question because, Senator, we
have found we have developed over, really since 1947 when the
first major oil discovery was found in Alberta, we have
developed huge expertise--technical expertise, regulatory
expertise, policy expertise--in oil and gas production. And so,
I think it is fitting that our constitution gives exclusive
authority to the provinces over the regulation of the
production of natural resources. And I want to thank the
government of Canada for having recognized that in having
signed what we call equivalency agreements with Alberta over
issues like the regulation of major greenhouse gas emissions,
industrial emissions, as well as methane, because frankly, we
are on the ground. We have the technical expertise much more so
than, frankly, bureaucrats in Ottawa would have.
Senator Barrasso. When you were here, I texted with the
former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and he responds back--I
told him you were here--he said, Kenney is very strong. He was
one of my best ministers. So thank you very much for being
here.
Mr. Bradley, roughly 60 percent of Canada's electricity
comes from hydropower, another 20 percent from nuclear power.
Canada appears to be making the most of its God-given natural
energy resources. The United States is blessed with major
natural gas amounts, coal, and renewable sources as well. Do
you believe in an all-of-the-above energy strategy that
capitalizes on abundant, reliable, and affordable natural
resources to keep the lights on?
Mr. Bradley. Senator, thank you for that question.
Yes, at Electricity Canada, particularly in the context of
our expectations with respect to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, we have continued to advocate for an all-of-the-
above approach for all types of non-emitting electricity in the
future.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Now we have Senator King.
Senator King. Thank you very much for being here. Canada,
of course, is a neighbor. Maine is the only state in the United
States that borders only one other State, but we border two
provinces. And I have always considered my foreign policy
experience based upon the fact that I can see Canada from
Maine, so.
[Laughter.]
Senator King. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Premier Kenney, picking up on some questions from Senator
Barrasso, methane is the low-hanging fruit of climate change.
It is the most potent greenhouse gas, 80 times more than
CO2. I note that in your testimony you have lowered
it significantly. How did you do that? Was it regulatory? Was
it a fee? Was it a carbon fee? What brought that about, because
this is an important topic for our discussion here in the
States.
Mr. Kenney. Yes. Through a regulatory approach, really,
with the application of technology that has been developed in
the Alberta industry. Over years, we have committed--we are the
first subnational jurisdiction in North America to commit to
methane reduction targets to reduce methane by 45 percent below
the 2014 baseline and to do that by 2025.
Senator King. Did you tell industry you cannot emit more
than X, and you have a vigorous inspection regime?
Mr. Kenney. Well, yes, there is a target and there is a
rigorous inspection regime. We have seen some incredibly
innovative technology developed in our province, which has made
a big difference. And a lot of that is now being marketed in
the United States and we would be happy to share that
expertise.
Senator King. Thank you.
And I would appreciate it if you could follow up, perhaps
have your staff give us a monograph on your methane policies
because this is something that is very important to us.
Minister Wilkinson, again not for today, because we have
such limited time, but perhaps you could have your staff give
us some background on how you streamlined the permitting
process. My position has always been that I want the most
timely, streamlined, and effective environmental process with
the strongest environmental safeguards. And I think that is
your standard. How do you do it in Canada and what lessons can
we take here for our permitting process so it does not take, as
Senator Barrasso pointed out, ten years to permit a mining
operation that we need.
So you do not have to answer now, but perhaps you could
have your staff supply us with some thoughts on how your
permitting process works and if they could compare it with
ours, which is quite Rube Goldberg-ish, that would be very
helpful.
Ms. Camden, Hydro-Quebec, of course, we went through the
difficult New England connect process in Maine with the
connection from Hydro-Quebec to Boston. What tripped that up,
more than anything else, was a section of 56 miles through
virgin forest in Northern Maine and that was the focus of a lot
of the controversy. Could Hydro-Quebec and the proponents of
that proposal think about burying that section of line rather
than a strip of clear cutting through the forest? And is that
something that is under examination? Because that might relieve
a lot of the controversy surrounding that project.
Ms. Camden. Thank you, Senator, for your question, but this
is not in my area of expertise in my portfolio, but I will make
sure that the Quebec office in DC follows up with your staff
with an answer on this question.
However, if you want, I could share with you the practices
that we had put in place in Quebec regarding the streamlining
of our processes regarding the issue permitting----
Senator King. I would very much like to see that. Thank
you.
Ms. Camden. Thank you.
So there is a strong commitment from our government to
reduce the administrative burden, and each department within
the government has to provide a three-year plan with different
measures, being regulatory measure or legal measures.
Senator King. I do not want to cut you off, but I have a
little clock in front of me that says I only have 36 seconds
left.
Ms. Camden. Okay.
Senator King. I wanted to get one question to Mr. Bradley
before I leave.
Ms. Camden. Great.
Senator King. I have always been fascinated by the concept
that you articulated and I think needs to be further developed,
and that is Hydro-Quebec being, or Canadian hydro being the
battery for New England. Norway is the battery for Denmark
right now. And as we move in to offshore wind, we could have an
excess of energy during certain periods of the day which we
could send north. You could store the water during those
periods and then send us the dispatchable hydro. You mentioned
this. Do you see this as something that is a feasible option
for us?
Mr. Bradley. Yes, thank you. Thank you for the question,
Senator.
Indeed, not only do I see it as a feasible option, I think
this is going to be how we optimize the system in the future,
and it would not just be in the northwest. It will be inter-
regionally, all across North America. We do it at a smaller
scale already today. I mentioned that the electricity flow is
two-way between Canada and the United States. Often, that flow
from the United States into Canada is--must run facilities in
the United States that overnight are looking for markets and
are essentially, today, being stored in reservoirs as giant
batteries.
Senator King. The big constraint on the development of
renewables, of course, is intermittency, and intermittency is
solved by some kind of baseload response. We are all talking
about batteries and mining and lithium and cobalt and nickel,
when we have a gigantic battery already in place in Canada. And
I have always, for 20 years, thought that this was a way to
offset the intermittency. So I hope that that is something we
can work on, and to the extent you are aware of data on that
concept and how it could be implemented, please let me know.
Mr. Bradley. Indeed, we sure will, and we have always
thought of our reservoirs as giant batteries.
Senator King. And Denmark and Norway are doing this right
as we speak. So this is not an unprecedented idea. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Premier Kenney, it is great to have you with us. Over the
last few years environmental social governance, or ESG, has
gone from being something that almost no one knew about, no one
had ever even heard of just a couple of years ago, to something
that has imposed a sweeping set of obligations imposed on
companies, but imposed, at this point, not by government, but
by financial regulators, by markets, and by institutions around
the world with some government regulators stepping in and
starting to embrace these and make them part of their
regulatory portfolio. The number one goal of the ESG movement,
or at least a primary motivating goal, seems to be to ensure
divestment from fossil fuels in any and every way possible.
Now, I would imagine that the ESG insanity that we are
seeing has made energy development riskier and more expensive
in Canada as it has in the United States. What impacts are you
seeing from ESG specifically on Alberta's energy sector?
Mr. Kenney. Very significant impacts, Senator. It is one of
our primary concerns because there has been, I think,
particularly a prejudicial and inaccurate application of ESG
principles against investment and financial services to the
Canadian oil sands, in particular, with, as I say, nearly 180
billion barrels of proven and probable reserves. So our
companies report difficulty accessing reinsurance, there is,
you know, credit and equity investment, a lot of this emanating
from European financial institutions, a lot of it based on a
misconception about the emissions profile of Canadian heavy
oil, the Bitumen. And here is the peculiar thing--of the top
ten reserves in the world, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Canada,
Iran, Iraq, Russia, Kuwait, UAE, the U.S., and Libya--apart
from the United States and Canada, the other eight top-ten
reserves are in countries where energy is developed largely by
state-owned enterprises or quasi-state-owned enterprises who
are not subject to ESG criteria.
So if financial markets strangle the publicly traded,
transparent companies in North America, all this will do is
shift production to some of these world's worst regimes and
their state-owned enterprises that are not subject to market
conditions.
Senator Lee. So could that mean, sir, that they can be
producing oil with really shoddy environmental standards?
Mr. Kenney. Well, they are, and I think the invasion of
Ukraine highlights the need for at least a second ``S'' in
ESG--security. It is bizarre to us that, you know, we had
European banks say they were going to pull out of the Canadian
oil sands while they participated in the IPO for Saudi Aramco
and continued to finance Gazprom and Lukoil in Vladimir Putin's
Russia and they are not held to account for financing dictator
oil that fuels violence around the world.
Senator Lee. Yes, funny how that works.
Now, I assume these things have translated also to higher
gasoline prices for consumers in Canada?
Mr. Kenney. Yes, sir.
Senator Lee. Now, the Biden Administration has been calling
in the United States on U.S. oil and gas companies, calling on
them to boost production. But he is doing that while
simultaneously stalling--or in some cases, killing--energy
infrastructure projects, pressuring companies to divest from
fossil fuels and setting impossible-to-meet, never-to-be-
satisfied emission standards to power companies. So have
Canadian energy companies been hesitant or unable to deploy
capital as a result of some of these American energy policies
imposed by the Biden Administration?
Mr. Kenney. Well, I would say yes, because the cancellation
of Keystone XL, for example, has--look, there were Canadian
upstream producers that had committed to 800,000 barrels per
day. They were prepared to make the big investments to produce
that and sell it to you. And obviously, they have taken that
out of their capital plans.
Senator Lee. Now, on his very first day of office,
President Biden began his war on North American energy. He
began it by killing the Keystone XL Pipeline. His response to
record high gasoline prices that are really causing American
consumers to suffer has been to beg Venezuela and beg Saudi
Arabia to ramp up their production. What message do those
actions send to our Canadian allies, including to Alberta?
Mr. Kenney. The message, we find it just, all I can say is
inexplicable. I was in Houston at CERAWeek talking about how we
could get--look, if we really worked together, we could get you
a couple billion more barrels a day of Canadian energy. When I
was in Houston, I read that the President's advisors were
suggesting he should go to Riyadh to ask the Saudis to generate
more. And I just--we have a hard time understanding that.
Senator Lee. As do we. Thank you for helping us understand
that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. Just like that.
The Chairman. You almost missed it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
First, thank you all for being here. I am looking up at the
screen as well. I appreciate you coming down. I was the Mayor
of Denver, which is as close to a cousin of Calgary as we
probably can get, and have had several trips to Alberta and
actually, all across Canada. I am probably the loudest
supporter you will get from what should be the brotherhood and
sisterhood of Canadians and Americans. One of my best
experiences growing up was taking the cross Canada train with
two puppies that were in baggage. So we would have to get off
at each stop and walk the puppies through all these beautiful
little towns across western Montana. It was an experience of a
lifetime.
Let me ask you each a question to start. Ultimately, if the
world is going to meet its climate targets, we have to figure
out how to decouple the cost of producing energy from the cost
of emitting. And I know you all talked about this a little bit.
Canada is, as you have demonstrated, one of the most ambitious
nations on carbon pricing. Your price to set, if I remember
right, was get to $170 by 2030, which is very aggressive in
starting. I think it is $150 now.
Can you explain for us that pricing of carbon, how that
enables your goals for both energy production and reducing
emissions? Do you follow what I am asking?
Mr. Kenney. Yes, Senator, I think that is probably better
directed to Minister Wilkinson in Ottawa as that is federal
policy.
Mr. Wilkinson. Sure, I am happy to talk about that.
Putting a price on carbon pollution--and let's be clear,
carbon is pollution, it is the cause of climate change--is an
important part of actually ensuring that that is taken into
account in the context of everything that businesses and
individuals do in terms of choices. It drives choices that are
lower carbon and it incents innovation on a go-forward basis.
It is one part of a much broader climate plan. I would tell you
that Canada has, perhaps, the most detailed climate plan that
exists anywhere on the planet in terms of how we will actually
go about achieving our targets, but an important part of that
is pricing of carbon pollution. And I will tell you, 99 and a
half economists out of a hundred will tell you it is the most
efficient and effective way to do it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Bradley, let me ask. China is building a, I would say,
almost an energy empire built on cheap renewable resources
enabled by their build-out of interregional transmission,
building a really massive grid. Since 2014, they have added 260
gigawatts of inter-regional transmission capacity, while we, in
the United States, have added three gigawatts. Can you speak to
how better integrating our grids via transmission could enable
the U.S. and Canada to leverage our complementary resource
strengths to compete with China's clean energy growth strategy?
And I heard the earlier discussions about the cross-border
transmission, which I think is very, very important, but just
within that sense of, you know, you look at China's coal
consumption--it has been flat since 2010. They built more
plants, but they are just not using it. They are continuing to
do more wind or solar and part of it is this grid.
Mr. Bradley. Yes, thank you. Thank you for the question,
Senator.
But yes, and our trajectory has been very different in
Canada than in China. We are not building coal. We are phasing
coal out. But yes, transmission plays an absolutely critical
role to be able to enable more intermittent sources of
electricity both within Canada, within the United States, and
cross-border. And it is going to be a critical component for us
to be able to further expand that non-emitting power. We are
going to need more transmission if we are going to bring more
intermittent power online.
Senator Hickenlooper. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Camden, the hydrogen production goals, again,
ambitious, admirable--I think something we in the United States
are equally enthusiastic about. Most of Canada's hydrogen is
currently produced via steam methane reforming without the
accessory carbon capture. One of the main challenges we face
here is that makes clean hydrogen much more expensive to
produce, at least for now. How do you plan to ensure that as
you scale up hydrogen production, that it moves toward clean
hydrogen in an affordable manner?
Ms. Camden. Thank you for your question, Senator.
Hydropower enables green hydrogen and we are working right
now in Quebec on the strategy for hydrogen. Unfortunately, it
will be released in a few weeks, so I cannot talk about it and
it is not even in my portfolio. So we will make sure that you
get the answer from our Quebec office in DC.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great. All right, thank you.
I will restrain myself on the questions on cobalt and
lithium. I will put those in writing to you so that we can get
the answers in the future.
I yield back my time, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall. Thank you again, Chairman. You know,
sometimes, the solutions to our problems are in our back yard.
Thank you folks, all of you, and your staff, for making the
trip down here in person as well as appearing online. I am, of
course, from Kansas, and very much have a little oil patch
there. Even some of the oil that was supposed to be coming down
the Keystone Pipeline, our refineries had prepared some special
instrumentation to accept that oil. So these types of decisions
continue to impact all of us in many, many, many ways.
I think I want to start just a second with Premier Kenney,
if you don't mind. You mentioned about just the improved carbon
footprint, the decreased 36 percent per barrel of Alberta oil
and methane emissions down by 45 percent. We admire that. What
are you all doing that makes this work?
Mr. Kenney. Technology. And as Senator Manchin has said, we
are only going to get as far as tech will take us in reducing
emissions. With respect to reducing the emissions intensity for
a barrel of Bitumen, it is true that extracting Bitumen is
energy intensive. It requires huge amounts of steam to separate
the oil from the sand. Increasingly, the companies are shifting
to things like solvents instead of steam and also, changing
their energy source, in one case from using petcoke to natural
gas and other efficiencies right across the board. They are
exploring with us the possibility of small-modular reactors as
the future zero-emitting source of energy for extraction. And
as I say, a lot of locally developed technology has helped us,
actually, exceed our goals in methane reduction.
Senator Marshall. Okay, yes, thanks for sharing that. I
have always said that innovation will solve the problem, not
Federal Government, not taxation as well.
I want to talk to Minister Camden, just for a second, about
potash. A large amount of the world's potash is made in Belarus
and Russia. Probably some 20 to 40 percent of the world's
exports of those fertilizers go through the Black Sea. The
United States, on the other hand, depends very much on potash
from Canada, for a lot of reasons. Evidently, we cannot mine it
here. I don't know what is different, but it seems like our
American companies have given up on mining. And right now, of
course, the Chinese are buying lots of your potash as well and
my American farmers are short-changed. Are there any solutions
out there? What are you doing to gear up potash? What does the
timetable look like? Is there any way we can prioritize
American farmers--your good ally--over this potash?
Ms. Camden. Thank you, Senator, for your question.
Unfortunately, we do not have potash in Quebec, not at all. So
if I may defer this question for the Premier.
Senator Marshall. Because it said Alberta, here I was
trying to--I will spread the questions out.
Mr. Wilkinson. I am happy to take it.
Senator Marshall. Okay.
Mr. Wilkinson. I am happy to take it.
Senator Marshall. Sure.
Mr. Kenney. Go ahead, Jon.
Mr. Wilkinson. Okay, so potash is certainly one, and I
think this relates to the broader issue around critical
minerals, it is uranium and it is nickel and it is cobalt,
neither of which the United States has in abundance. So we are
certainly focused, as we have discussed from an energy security
perspective and a broader food security perspective, as it
relates to potash, to try to ensure that we are going to be
able to respond to the needs that the United States and Western
Europe are going to have as we look to displace sources from
Russia. And there is a process going on. Most of the potash is
in a province called Saskatchewan, which is where I grew up.
And we are looking to augment the production. And there is
actually a large new mine coming onstream in the next few
years. So that is a conversation that is ongoing.
Senator Marshall. Okay. Premier, anything to add?
Mr. Kenney. Just my neighboring province, Saskatchewan,
they have the second largest potash reserves in the world. So,
and I should add, they also have the second largest uranium
reserves.
Senator Marshall. But I guess I just want to make a point
here though that you do not flip a switch and double your
production. Is it going to take months or a year or two to kind
of make that happen?
Mr. Kenney. Jonathan.
Mr. Wilkinson. So the initial augmentation is actually
ongoing right now. It will be done, I think, within certainly a
year, but the new mine that is coming onstream, it is probably
two to three years out. But certainly, we are going to see
significant increases over the next little while which will
help to ensure that we can wean ourselves off of Russian
sources.
Senator Marshall. Thank you so much, everybody.
Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to all of our witnesses today. Let me just talk a
little bit about the environmental review processes. At a
recent hearing this Committee had on critical mineral security,
I discussed with a witness what we can be doing to improve our
environmental review processes and identify conflicts earlier
in the process, including ways to avoid litigation or other
opposition before a project invests resources and money. The
witnesses raised Canada's use of an environmental and social
impact assessment. The social being the optimal component that
helps identify and resolves social license-to-operate issues
and other potential conflicts much earlier in the process when
compared to our own environmental impact statement processes.
And by the way, I am from Nevada, where over 80 percent of the
land is owned by the Federal Government, so we have an
important relationship that we have to constantly engage at the
federal level.
But I guess my question to the panelists--and maybe,
Minister Wilkinson or Deputy Minister Camden, we will start
with you--can anyone on the panel elaborate on any differences
between our permitting systems and where Canada may have more
success siting and permitting projects on your public lands?
And Minister Wilkinson, maybe we will start with you.
Mr. Wilkinson. Sure. So, a couple things. I mean, for
mining, in particular, some of the permitting and regulatory
processes are at the provincial level and some of them are at
the federal. Most of the crown land in Canada is actually the
responsibility of the provinces. But I absolutely agree with
you that--and what we have tried to focus on with respect to
environmental assessment--is having those conversations very
early, identifying the critical issues that are going to have
to be addressed, whether that is impacts on water, impacts on
species at risk, or indigenous concerns, which are a very, very
important part of our process in Canada. Trying to ensure that
we are isolating the big issues early on and working to try to
address those so that you are not five years into a process
when you run into the wall where there are significant concerns
that have not been addressed. Those are things that, you know,
that while there are different views on environmental
assessment processes, even within the Canadian federation, I
think we would all agree that having those conversations very
early on is extremely important to expediting the process.
Senator Cortez Masto. Anyone else?
Ms. Camden. Yes, I would add that, like Minister Wilkinson
said, we do have environmental, robust assessment review. We
have an independent review board and usually, I would say that,
when the environmental studies are submitted to the government
or the board for analysis, it takes between 48 to 60 months
before getting the authorization from the government. And
during those times we have public hearings and all these
studies are made public as well as all the questions sent to
the mining companies and the answer given by the companies.
They are all made public so it helps people and local
communities and indigenous communities to learn more about what
are the issues and concerns and, in that way, it helps for
social acceptability too.
Senator Cortez Masto. Has the analysis of the environmental
and social impact assessment added to the timeframe it takes to
get permitting?
Ms. Camden. No. It is the 48 to 60 months. It is, at the
moment you submit your environmental study.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
Ms. Camden. And then we have the analysis phase, then we
have public hearings, then after the public hearings,
sometimes, often, the recommendation will change a project to
improve the project and then the government will approve the
project.
Senator Cortez Masto. And at that time, you have all the
stakeholders weigh in as well, correct?
Ms. Camden. Yes, but all that information is public all
that time.
Senator Cortez Masto. Right, right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I yield the remainder of my time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Now we have Senator Lankford.
Senator Lankford. Thanks, Senator Manchin.
So let me continue on that same conversation Senator Cortez
Masto was talking about, and that is the permitting process.
The 48 to 60 months there, so you are talking four or five
years to be able to go through that process. We have multiple
of our mining projects that may take 10 to 15 years to be able
to go through the permitting. The question that comes up with
all of our mining projects is, is there a deadline where a
decision has to be made and the decision is done, because in
the United States, you may go through the permitting process
and at the end of it, there is a lawsuit by some outside group
that then, they file suit and then there is the lawsuit process
and then it goes through NEPA evaluation again because the NEPA
is expired. And so that is the continual process.
One of the things that seems to be missing on our process
is there is not a deadline where a decision has to be made and
the decision is done. Do you have a point when you get to that
48 to 60 months that you have mentioned before where the
decision is made, everyone has been heard, and it is done,
whether it is going to happen or not happen?
Ms. Camden. There is no timeline. But there is a strong
commitment by all stakeholders to let people know what kind of
information is required in their application. So we have many
guidelines. We help mining companies to prepare their studies
and there is no real litigation matter in Quebec after
approving mining projects.
Senator Lankford. So it is not allowed at that point?
Ms. Camden. It is not allowed? Would you precise your
question?
Senator Lankford. So that the litigation is not allowed,
once the province has made the decision then the decision is
made?
Ms. Camden. It is possible, but it is just not happening.
It is just not happening.
Senator Lankford. Okay. Minister Wilkinson, do you want to
comment on that at all?
Mr. Wilkinson. Yes, I mean, look, the idea of certainty
around timelines is really important, and to be honest with
you, we also need to ensure that we are better aligning state
level, provincial level, and federal systems. And we are
actually in the process of launching a process to try to align
permitting and regulatory processes more effectively because we
actually have to get mines built more quickly, as we think
forward of the challenges of critical minerals. But in terms of
the process, there is a deadline. And once the decision is
taken, yes, you could launch a lawsuit around issues around
procedural fairness, for example, but by and large, you are at
a point where projects will simply move ahead.
Senator Lankford. Okay. Well, we do not have that advantage
at this point. We stretch things out for decades in the process
and we need to build more mines here as well, but we cannot
seem to be able to get through the permitting process to be
able to get it done.
Premier Kenney, thanks for being here as well.
For all of you, President Biden's first foreign policy
decision that he made, January the 20th of 2021, was to say the
United States is not going to purchase more oil from Canada, we
are going to purchase more oil from Russia. And then he then
pressed on that to say actually, we are not going to purchase
more oil from Canada, we are going to purchase more from Russia
and OPEC. And that has proven to be a problem, obviously, for
the United States. We need to purchase more from Canada in the
days ahead and have the consistency of that.
You outlined that there is a process that you are currently
walking through to be able to increase the capacity for
existing pipelines and then to increase the capacity, you are
saying, up to a million barrels a day of increase that could
come from Canada based on what is happening right now. Walk me
through that process now.
Mr. Kenney. Sure. Right now, in the North American pipeline
network, there is about 300,000 barrels of unused capacity that
we could fill. And we anticipate that most of that will be
filled.
Senator Lankford. What is preventing you from filling that
now?
Mr. Kenney. Nothing is happening. Secondly, there would
need to be a bunch of technical changes in the network to
increase our export capacity through what the midstream
companies call pipeline optimization--some line reversals, an
introduction of drag reduction agents, and other technical
changes. And they estimate, collectively, the mid-streamers,
that this could add up to 400,000 additional barrels of egress.
And then finally, by Q1 of 2024, the Trans Mountain Pipeline
Expansion, which is owned by the government of Canada, should
be operational, adding upwards of 600,000 barrels that will
largely be taken by tanker from Vancouver to West Coast U.S.
refineries in Washington and California.
Senator Lankford. Okay. That's because we didn't put a
pipeline through the middle of the country, we are having to
drive tankers around the edge.
Mr. Kenney. Well, both of those projects could have gone
ahead. It is not an either/or. But the veto of KXL reduces our
ability to ship 830,000 barrels a day.
Senator Lankford. Okay. Can I ask one more follow-up
question on this? I am about to bump against time.
Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Go right ahead.
Senator Lankford. The price of a gallon, or a liter,
however you all are going to determine it from province to
province, the price of a gallon of gasoline in Canada is more
than it is in the United States. What is the difference there?
Why is the price higher in Canada?
Mr. Kenney. Well, we nominate it in liters, so I am not
quite sure how to do the conversion, but generally, higher
taxes on the Canadian side.
Senator Lankford. Okay. Where does that break down? Is that
the provincial, federal and then----
Mr. Kenney. It is both.
Senator Lankford. And then you have the carbon tax mixed in
there as well.
Mr. Kenney. There are fuel excise taxes. There is a federal
consumption tax and then there are carbon taxes. In Alberta, we
have suspended the collection of our fuel tax because of
inflation.
Senator Lankford. All right. What is the carbon tax level
there per liter?
Mr. Kenney. $50 a ton, which comes out to, I think right
now, about 13 cents a liter.
Senator Lankford. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
The Chairman [presiding]. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking Member
Barrasso, thank you for having this hearing. Thank you for
inviting our friends and neighbors from Canada. I absolutely
concur with Senator Marshall when he says sometimes our
solutions are right in our back yard. Look to your neighbors
first and for some strange reason, we have not done that as we
have looked to our energy needs with this Administration. And
Premier Kenney, you said you are having a hard time
understanding the Biden Administration's approach on this. Know
that there are many of us who are also having a hard time
understanding where and why the Administration has taken the
approach that they have. There is a lot of kinship between
Alaska and Canada right now. We feel like we have been shunted
off to the corner as well, and our opportunity to provide for
America's domestic production has been effectively derailed by
this Administration, whether it is the actions within the NPRA,
the recent actions with regards to lease sales in Cook Inlet,
or the opportunity that we have within our coastal plain area.
So we are also having a hard time understanding the direction
from this Administration.
But I have to ask the question, because we saw the response
from President Biden after Russia took that first step into
Ukraine, and the effort was not to come to Canada as our
partner, but to call on Venezuela, to call on Iran for
increased production, to turn to OPEC. Is there something
different in the product--in the oil itself, in the crude
itself--something in Venezuelan or Iranian oil that American or
Canadian oil does not have? Is it cleaner? What would give them
that advantage over what we might be able to do here in the
United States or in Canada? Is there anything?
Mr. Kenney. Thank you, Senator.
I think the best comparator between our oil would be with
Venezuela because both are largely heavy oil reservoirs and we
are now at or below the carbon footprint for a barrel of
Alberta heavy versus Venezuelan heavy. So there is no
environmental advantage. I would add that, you know, the
Venezuelans, that this is a state-owned enterprise in a
kleptocracy with zero transparency and zero real commitment to
North American styled energy standards. Whereas we are dealing
with world-class, publicly traded companies that rank in the
top decile of ESG performance for energy producers in Canada
with incredibly ambitious environmental and emissions targets.
So I think we probably end up, in a comparable sense,
penalizing ourselves because we are so self-critical, we are so
transparent, I do not think we really know what the emissions
profile is of energy being produced in Venezuela and Iran, is
my point.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I would agree, and again, Alaska
shares many of those same attributes in terms of how we are
able to produce in a way that not only minimizes footprint, but
in terms of reduced emissions, methane emissions, we are heads
and shoulders above not only other countries, but many states
as well. But again, it is absolutely incomprehensible why we
would not seek those options and avenues that are cleaner, help
not only our respective states, but again, this North American
energy alliance which, to me, is just common sense.
You have highlighted two things that the Administration has
taken that have harmed the ability of Canadian crude to reach
our refineries, clearly Keystone, and you also have mentioned
this Enbridge Line 5, which I hope the Administration is paying
heed to your words here. You have talked about optimization.
What more can this Administration do? We already know what they
have done to limit our ability to have better relationships,
better partnerships on this energy alliance, but what could
they do today? What could this Administration do today to help
improve this energy relationship between our two nations?
Mr. Kenney. Well, one would be to join Canada in opposing
the Governor's effort to decommission Line 5. Second, working
with midstream companies on accelerating approval for the
pipeline optimization projects that are likely coming forward.
Third, apply the principle we heard earlier from Quebec about
the application of Title III of the Defense Production Act to
the development of critical minerals in Canada. Why not treat
Canadian oil and gas the same way?
Senator Murkowski. Those are good recommendations. Canada
is one of the few countries that is considered a domestic
source under our Defense Production Act, under Title III. So
that is something that is an area of opportunity that I think
we need to push this Administration to look to.
Mr. Bradley, nobody has really asked you many questions
this morning, but as I was listening to your testimony about
this great opportunity for electricity and sharing, I was
reminded of the discussion that we had many years ago about
this green pipeline that would run from Alaska islanded
communities with our hydropower connecting with BC's wind and
moving it down to California. It was a pipe dream at the time.
People told us we were crazy. Obviously, it has not happened,
but I think about the great opportunities that we have between
our two countries for these shared resources.
And Mr. Chairman, I do not think there has been a more
important and more timely hearing about what we can be doing
right now from an energy security perspective than this
cooperation and a true North American energy alliance. So my
suggestion would be that we have an opportunity to take this
Committee to Alberta for a little bit of a field hearing and
see for ourself, because I think we could learn a lot.
The Chairman. Senator Murkowski, you and I went to visit.
You and I went up to Alaska and when I left you, I went right
down to Alberta and talked to all of our friends there. I was,
in a bipartisan way, we were both very embarrassed that our
country did not turn to ourselves. Alaska was not asked. Our
producers in America were not asked. Our friends in Canada were
not asked to step up production to help us. Let us help the
rest of the world, keep ourselves independent. All we are
trying to do is use a common-sense approach. West Virginia is
asking the same questions that you are asking in Alberta and
all over Canada and the same as you are asking in Alaska. That
was the reason I thought it was imperative that we invite our
friends down to show the interconnections--that we each depend
on each other. And we can basically do an awful lot and make
North America not only energy independent, but we can help our
allies around the world, the G7, all of them. We can bring all
of our friendly countries in.
That is what we are trying to do and use all the best
technologies. You all do some things that we think are very,
very good and we do some things that we think that we can be
helpful with. And together, we could truly, truly move forward.
But I am happy about this too.
With that, we are going to go to Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. All right.
The Chairman. Give me about five minutes--I am so sorry,
Senator Hoeven, you made it before 11:30 and I was so proud of
you. But Senator Daines beat you. That is a little inside joke
here that we have.
Senator Hoeven. He is a neighbor state.
The Chairman. That is okay. You are late and you are okay.
Senator Daines. We love North Dakota. We love Alberta too.
They are great neighbors. And Premier Kenney, it is good to see
you here again.
As you know, Montana and Alberta have long worked together.
They have strong economic ties. We share firefighting
resources. Our electric grids our intertwined. Two of our
national parks connect to form the Crown of the Continent. The
partnership between Montana and Alberta, as well as the United
States and Canada creates jobs, it provides energy and food
security, and increases the economic prosperity of both of our
countries.
Unfortunately, in one stroke of a pen, President Biden,
hours after being sworn in, hours after talking about uniting
America, then divided it when he damaged and undermined that
partnership we had when he canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Premier, you know better than most what the Keystone XL
Pipeline meant for jobs, revenues, and energy security. I have
been spending time with leaders in Eastern Europe. Vladimir
Putin has Eastern Europe and Europe over a barrel right now
because of dependencies on Russian oil and gas. And that is why
Alberta filed a suit against the United States seeking $1.3
billion in damages.
Let me just read a line from that filing. The Biden
Administration's decision to revoke the Keystone XL Pipeline,
and I quote, ``resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs,
caused systemic harm to the American, Canadian, and Albertan
economies, and diminished the highly integrated North American
energy system upon which future North American prosperity will
continue to rely.'' We just saw the gas price hit an all-time
record. My Montana farmers and ranchers are driving up now and
seeing diesel at nearly six bucks a gallon. That line from that
lawsuit, I think, sums it all up.
As you point out in your testimony, when gas and energy
prices hit record heights and families are struggling, instead
of calling on U.S. and Canadian producers, President Biden went
to OPEC, Venezuela, and Iran. It is like a Babylon Bee parody,
but it was reality from this Administration. Energy security is
national security and we should be increasing North American
production, not going to foreign adversaries.
Premier Kenney, do you worry that the Biden
Administration's arbitrary decision to kill the Keystone XL
Pipeline--and I say, arbitrary because I do not see any sense
from an environmental viewpoint, economic viewpoint. It is the
most carbon friendly way to transport a liquid. Kills thousands
of jobs. Could that possibly lead to further decisions to kill
transport of power because, by the way, there are 70 operating
oil and gas pipelines in the United States, again, as we wake
up here today, 31 transfer oil, 39 natural gas. Could this lead
to further decisions that connect Alberta and Canada to the
United States, and what can we do to continue to strengthen the
Montana-Alberta energy partnership?
Mr. Kenney. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator. Good
to see you again. And the answer is yes. I am concerned it
creates a very problematic precedent to retroactively veto a
project that has been approved. The borderline--the border
crossing of the KXL had been built between Saskatchewan and
Montana with the Government of Alberta as a co-owner. So you
have a foreign government investing in a project, making an
investment predicated on the certainty of the U.S. regulatory
process, clearly in the mutual economic interests of both
countries, being retroactively vetoed. And frankly, I then
looked at the political pressure coming from Governor Whitmer
to shut down Line 5, which her state depends on as a major
energy source, wondering is it possible a U.S. administration,
with the flick of a pen, will shut down a six-decade-old,
safely operating pipeline? It has created a serious problem of
investor confidence.
You are right, the U.S. State Department, under former
Secretary Clinton, concluded not once, but twice, through
exhaustive studies that KXL would have had a lower emissions
profile than the alternative, which is increasingly shipping by
rail. And I would point out that most of the major U.S. unions
supported this--steelworkers, teamsters, building trades, and
others. Now, it is done and dusted. KXL is behind us, but I
hope that the invasion of Ukraine and the imperative of energy
security causes a fundamental re-think about these issues in
Washington.
Senator Daines. Well, I hope it wakes up the woke because
it is a dangerous ideology and people are suffering because of
what this Administration is doing--this keep it in the ground,
shut off fossil fuels. And it is a huge concern, as you have
heard today from many on this Committee.
Premier Kenney, by failing to mirror the aggressive steps
that Alberta has taken to increase and streamline timber
harvest, the Biden Administration has also failed to be a
partner to Alberta in pursuing climate objectives. Over the
past two decades, forests in Montana have actually become a
carbon source instead of a carbon sink. A healthy forest
absorbs carbon, a burning forest emits carbon. For years, lack
of management has had negative impacts on wildlife habitat,
ecosystems, watersheds, rural economies, and public safety, but
now, we are seeing even broader impacts on the housing market
with the price of lumber. During the heights of the pandemic,
the price of lumber more than tripled, and even now, the vol to
lumber market has increased the average single family home
price by nearly $20,000. Despite this, Montana lumber
production has actually decreased by 11 percent and we just had
another mill close last December. When I was growing up in
Montana, we had over 30 active sawmills. We are down now to
what I can count on one hand and one finger. This is not for
lack of supply. Montana has over nine million acres in need of
treatment and our annual timber harvest is half of what the
allowable sale quantity studied and approved in our forest
plan.
Let me cut to the question here, Mr. Premier. How does this
compare to the forestry permitting process in Alberta? And
would you agree commercial timber harvest is often the best
tool to accomplish our environmental objectives?
Mr. Kenney. Yes.
Senator Daines. Because we are going to see it takes over
five years to complete an EIS.
Mr. Kenney. Yes.
Senator Daines. And initiate forest management projects
here in the United States.
Mr. Kenney. One hundred percent. Fortunately, under our
constitution, provinces also regulate forestry production, and
we have seen actually the exact opposite of your experience--a
30 percent increase in harvesting since 2011 and a $6 billion
increase in investment in our forestry industry. Last year was
the best year in terms of volume of fiber and revenue for the
industry. And you know, I am glad the province regulates this
because we have, within our province, a large federal park
called Jasper, where the forests have been absolutely destroyed
by pine beetle because there is no responsible harvesting
policy. So I think this vindicates local regulation of
forestry.
Senator Daines. And we are seeing that in Montana. I will
close here, Mr. Chairman, but our state lands--we are seeing
those, you know, under the leadership of our Governor Gianforte
of Montana--we are seeing increased harvests. Our federal
lands, that is the problem. It sounds like it is a similar
problem in Canada.
Mr. Premier, thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you so much.
And now, Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And in 2015, the Chairman and I actually co-sponsored
legislation. It was Senate bill 1, to approve the Keystone XL
Pipeline. It passed the Senate, passed the House. It was vetoed
by President Obama. Had it not been, it would today be bringing
830,000 barrels a day from Canada to the United States, which,
obviously, would be of great help, and the likelihood is it
would have been expanded and it would be, probably, well over a
million barrels a day versus trying to get it from some
adversary, be that somebody in OPEC or Venezuela or somewhere
else.
So how do we go forward now as partners? And I am going to
talk about another fantastic partnership we have. The Dakota
Gasification Company in North Dakota takes lignite coal
converts it to synthetic natural gas, captures the
CO2 and sends it to the Weyburn oil fields in
Saskatchewan, and there it is put down a hole for tertiary oil
recovery. And that has been operating successfully for well
over a decade. What a great partnership. How do we go forward,
Premier, and build on these partnerships? I will give you an
example of one that, obviously, should be in place--Keystone
XL--and another one that is in place and operating very
effectively, providing coal-fired, in this case, electricity,
but also synthetic natural gas, and then also producing more
oil through the tertiary oil recovery--a great partnership
between our two nations. Together, we have incredible
resources. How do we cut through some of these regulatory
decisions that have impeded our ability to produce more energy
with the greatest technology and the best environmental
stewardship? How do we cut through and get that message to
people in both countries so we can get more of these things
done?
Mr. Kenney. Thank you, Senator, great question. I will not
pretend that Canada or Alberta has an optimal system for
regulation and regulatory certainty. To the contrary, we have
had huge regulatory delays and uncertainty, particularly around
pipelines. But with respect to production and permitting, that
is primarily controlled by the provincial governments on oil
and gas in Canada, and we have reduced by 20 percent the
regulatory burden for permitting and we have accelerated by
about 60 percent the speed of permitting for a conventional oil
and gas project.
So I would just add, in Canada, one aspect of regulatory
delays is often associated with the need of the government--the
crown--to consult adequately with indigenous people, with what
we call our First Nations. And a key part of that is involving
them in a beneficial way in the industry, in resource
development. I think we are developing a very good model in
Alberta of indigenous participation including equity co-
ownership of major resource projects so that they feel fully
like they are participants in resource development.
Senator Hoeven. So what do you see in Canada today in terms
of your resource development and working with the United
States? Are you still committed to producing energy, not only
for your own country, but you know, bringing it to the United
States so that together, you know, as North America, we are
truly energy sufficient, or are you dissuaded from doing that?
What kind of things should we in Congress do to try to build
that relationship and promote more partnering in energy
development for the good of both nations?
Mr. Kenney. Thank you, Senator. I think the predicate of
your question is this concept of a North American energy
alliance. I think it is manifestly in the interest of both the
American and the Canadian people to develop that policy
framework. As I mentioned earlier, the Administration regards
the production of Canadian critical minerals as, for all
intents and purposes, American critical minerals, under Title
III of the Defense Production Act. I think a similar policy
approach should be taken to Canadian oil and gas and other
energy resources. You know, for starters, stop efforts to shut
down current infrastructure, like Line 5 going through
Michigan. Secondly, accelerate regulatory approval of pipeline
optimization projects so that we can ship you more. Thirdly,
let's work together to see if we can we bring back something
like another major pipeline between Alberta and the United
States. It may require governments participating in de-risking
that, because capital markets have been, you know, the private
sector has been spooked by that veto and I do not think you are
going to have a pipeline company coming to market with a $10
billion-plus project with so much political and regulatory
uncertainty.
I think we, as governments, need to be more forward-leaning
to de-risk projects like that.
Senator Hoeven. Right, which takes both the provincial or
the state government and our respective Federal Governments to
work with us to do it, right?
Mr. Kenney. Yes, sir.
Senator Hoeven. Yes.
Thanks to all of you, I appreciate it very much.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for holding the hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
And we are going to do a second round. I am going to go
right to Minister Wilkinson, if I may. Sir, I understand a
little bit of what is going on, and I want all of you to
understand. I want my Administration, I want my government to
understand how important it is for this relationship and how
much more we can both do. We all have a responsibility to the
climate. We have a responsibility to the energy that we need
and understanding what the world appetite is so that we can do
it better and cleaner than anyplace in the world. Hydrogen, I
know, Mr. Wilkinson, you come from a hydrogen background and
you understand it. I am very, very much interested in hydrogen
and how we promote more of it in America.
We have been promoting EVs, and I think at the detriment of
basically making ourselves totally reliant and being held
hostage by foreign supply chains. That is why I think our
relationship in energy and critical minerals is so important. I
also believe that as we move forward in America, we are going
to start requiring that all the pipelines that we do are dual-
purposed, that they are properly coated to be able to carry
both gas and hydrogen, as we transition. So if you can tell me
what you all are doing in your government and how you are
looking at hydrogen, and let's say that an area such as
Alberta, Saskatchewan, some of your larger, energy-producing
areas of your country, how can that be supportive and how can
it be helpful?
Mr. Wilkinson. Thank you, Senator. And I agree with
everything that you said. Hydrogen, I think, is going to be
extremely important as an energy carrier as we move forward in
a whole range of different applications.
The Chairman. And we can do it, we don't have to rely on
any supply chains, any foreign supply chains. We can do it.
Mr. Wilkinson. Absolutely, absolutely. And both Canada and
the United States are well placed to actually be producers of
large quantities of hydrogen. In Canada, we can go both
directions, one is producing using electricity, which is what
Quebec would normally do. The other is producing ultra-low
carbon hydrogen from natural gas, capturing the CO2,
which is Alberta/Saskatchewan. We see Canada as an emerging
hydrogen vehicle for the world, certainly for Western Europe.
We see working with the United States on ensuring that we are
building up transportation corridors and linking up hydrogen
hubs that we are both developing as a way for us to accelerate
progress on this.
I totally agree with you that any infrastructure that we
are thinking about putting into place going forward needs to be
hydrogen-capable. We are looking right now at trying to enable
liquid natural gas exports from eastern Canada to Europe, but
it will need to be in the context of it being hydrogen-capable
so that we can actually ensure that we are moving through this
transition and we are not ending up with stranded assets. So I
absolutely agree with you. This is an enormous opportunity for
North America and it is something that we need to work on
together.
The Chairman. And if I may ask, Premier Kenney and all
three of you, what is the thing that we need to do most with
the cooperation of our two countries? Any impediments that you
are running into? We understand that your permitting process is
about two years. Ours could go as long as ten, twelve, because
of our court actions. We are trying to get that down to make
sure that we can compete and do it in a timely fashion. But if
you can give the greatest obstacle, any, all four of you, that
might see that we could work on, the critical factor that you
want us in the United States to give attention to that would be
helpful for this relationship to continue to flourish because
we need each other very badly.
Mr. Kenney. Senator, I don't have enough familiarity with
the U.S. permitting process to offer useful advice. I will just
say that in our own back yard, in Alberta, as I mentioned, we
have cut red tape by 20 percent on permitting.
The Chairman. The greatest obstacle you have, Premier, as
far as working with the U.S. Government or coming into our
markets or us going into your markets or the transfer--is there
any impediment there in the trade that you think that we have?
Mr. Kenney. Well, I mean, look, I hate to come back to it
yet again, but----
The Chairman. Well, philosophically, we know the
difference----
Mr. Kenney [continuing]. The veto of KXL sent a message
that the government of the United States does not want
substantially more Canadian energy. So this has, I think,
impeded investor confidence. As I just said, you are not going
to have a midstream company come into the market to risk that
again, that kind of capital again. So I think we need a message
from the Administration about regulatory certainty.
The Chairman. Sure.
Ms. Camden. Thank you, Chairman.
I would add to that that for the mining sector, we are
already having discussions with people from the Administration
from the United States. A month ago, I was in Washington with
colleagues from Quebec, and we had meetings with the DOE, DOD,
the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce.
And we are looking at different ways of having greater
collaboration, and it could be co-investing, it could be
offtake agreements, but we need to have a transparent dialogue
with all the stakeholders.
Mr. Bradley. Thank you, Senator. I am going to go in a bit
of a different direction with this. From an electricity
perspective, I think the greatest challenge that we face both
in Canada and the United States is that our government and your
Administration have both committed to a net-zero electricity
grid by 2035. To be able to achieve that is going to take a
significant effort, certainly in Canada. We are now getting a
better sense of what the government's vision is for the pathway
to 2035, but it needs to be done in a manner that is
coordinated between Canada and the United States.
The Chairman. The largest world polluters are looking at
2050. They have moved it out 15 years, or 2050 is what they
thought, and even then, they do not think they can make it at
2050.
You are accelerating at 2035 because you think that is
achievable? Or it is a lofty goal for us to shoot for?
Mr. Bradley. Well, we are committed to a net-zero economy
by 2050.
The Chairman. Got you.
Mr. Bradley. A net-zero electricity grid is a commitment
that both President Biden and our Prime Minister have made for
2035. So from an electricity sector perspective, our focus is
very much is on the immediacy of 2035 first, and we want to
ensure that that is done in a coordinated fashion, given the
interconnected nature of our electricity systems. And then,
looking out at 2050, the 2050 target is one that is going to
require, at least in Canada, two to three times more non-
emitting electricity than we produce today. And so, that is a
very significant lift and it will only be achieved if we do it
in a coordinated and a collaborative fashion between Canada and
the U.S.
Mr. Wilkinson. And Senator, maybe I could just say a word.
I mean, I completely agree that there needs to be a much more
strategic approach to North American energy. And that certainly
very much includes the energy sources and the associated
materials that are going to be really required in the future.
That includes hydrogen. It includes critical minerals. It
certainly includes technologies around carbon capture and
nuclear technologies, including small modular reactors. I think
one of the things that we have to do--and I think there is
complete alignment between the Biden Administration and what we
are aiming to do in that regard--but I think one of the things
that we have to collectively do is ensure that we do not allow
irritants to get in the way of the kind of cooperation that we
need to be having.
So this EV tax credit, for example, which would have had
huge implications for the Canadian auto manufacturing industry
because of the way it was structured. Line 5, which, you know,
there is no point in going backwards here in terms of energy
security. That would be a step backward. The same thing with,
you know, American tariffs on solar panels that are
manufactured in Canada. It was intended to go against China. It
ended up boomeranging on Canada.
So we need to actually be strategic and thoughtful about
how we partner in a way that is going to be good for both
countries and allow us to advance to address climate change and
energy security concurrently.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to follow up, Premier Kenney, on something that
Mr. Bradley just talked about. He talked about this commitment
by President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau with what I view
as extremely aggressive goals for electric grids in North
America, because by the year 2035--now we are in 2022, you are
talking 13 years from now--the two leaders want to eliminate
all natural gas and all coal as sources of electricity. In the
United States, 61 percent of our electricity comes from natural
gas and coal.
So Premier Kenney, are you concerned that such aggressive
goals are going to create reliability problems at the border
and for people in your----
Mr. Kenney. Yes, frankly, yes, Senator, we agree about the
urgency of reducing emissions and that is why, in fact, Alberta
will have completely shifted away from thermal coal, which was,
five years ago, our major source of electricity generation. So
there are huge investments in coal-to-gas conversions, but we
do not have hydro in Alberta. We do not have nuclear and
obviously, it takes a long time-horizon to develop nuclear. And
so, if the Federal Government requires us to move away from
natural gas without a reliable baseload alternative, we will
not have a reliable electricity grid, which would obviously be
devastating to our economy.
So we want to have ambitious emissions reduction goals, but
they have to be realistic. And natural gas is going to be part
of our future. I agree completely with Minister Wilkinson.
Alberta is going to be a key global hub, for example, in
producing low-emitting hydrogen products, but that requires
natural gas feedstock.
Senator Barrasso. So on the first day of office, President
Biden killed the Keystone XL Pipeline, linking Canada and the
United States. In May, he then lifted sanctions that allowed
Nord Stream 2, linking Russia to Germany. I have been outspoken
on my opposition to that. Nord Stream 2 ended up getting built.
Keystone was not. Did the President oppose the wrong pipeline?
Mr. Kenney. I would argue yes, Senator.
Senator Barrasso. And then, you know, we talked about, a
little earlier, the joint partnership between President Biden
and Prime Minister Trudeau when they came out with their
roadmap last year. And together they stated that it is a shared
interest of the United States and Canada to revitalize and
expand our historic alliance and steadfast friendship. They
also pledged to recognize the important economic and energy
security benefits of the bilateral energy relationship and its
highly integrated infrastructure. I believe that since
President Biden took office, he has not been a good energy
partner or a good partner to Canada.
What is your assessment of that and would you--how can we
improve this partnership?
Mr. Kenney. Well, I have mentioned some ideas, for
starters. First, do no harm. And I do not understand why the
Administration of the United States, which is pleading with
OPEC to ship more, is taking a neutral position about an effort
to shut down the shipment of over half a million barrels a day
of light sweet Canadian energy to the upper Midwest through
Governor Whitmer's effort to decommission Line 5. Now, we
appreciate that we are--the government of Canada and the
Government of the United States--are currently in negotiations
about resolving this as a treaty dispute, but I do not think
there should have to be negotiations. I think the Government of
the United States should make it clear that it is contrary to
the national interests of this country to shut down that
project, for starters. I think a strategic decision to treat
Canadian energy as though it were American energy, really enter
into a true alliance, would send a hugely important signal to
our companies, our upstream companies and our midstream
companies, that there will be a future market here, that you
are not hostile to Canadian energy.
As I said, look, if we were serious about this, we could
achieve, within five years, a complete elimination of North
American imports of OPEC energy. That would be demonstrably
good for the world environment and global peace and security.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. You know, I would just would like to
add, again, my appreciation for your attendance and
participation today, but also how much I support this, the
vision of the greater North American energy all-of-the-above,
and recognizing that our guiding light does have to be that the
climate is changing much more rapidly than any of us would
want. We are seeing an increase--there is a larger percent of
our landscape that is increasingly hostile to habitation and
the production of food. And it is going to take a long time
to--we have to find effective ways and efficient ways to get
carbon out of the air. But I think some of the benefits that we
could have by working together--and you have all pointed this
out today--we are just stepping on our own greatest
opportunity. I think the import of solar panels from Canada,
was that Minister Wilkinson that mentioned that? We are going
through that issue right now. The Commerce Department, again,
is looking at the provenance of solar panels that could put our
solar industry on its back for an extended period of time. For
what real point?
I mean, I understand the arguments on both sides. I am not
saying that--I should not say for what real point--but I
understand the point. I do not think it is relevant in terms of
trying to deal with a massive problem like climate, which is
what all of you are clearly doing. So hopefully this hearing is
a foundation that allows us to go forward and really begin
looking at what an alliance would look like in a more pragmatic
way. And I agree with all of you that that has to work on the
state level and the local level as well, but it will never
succeed without the cooperation and orchestration of the
Federal Governments involved.
And I would hope that we could all work with Mexico as
well. I think that they could be a very active and powerful
partner in a lot of these issues, solar panels included.
Anyway, I have no further questions, just admiration and
appreciation.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Let me say to all of you, I appreciate it so much. We have
been looking forward to this for quite some time and it has
been very, very helpful. What I will say is that I think the
world is looking to North America right now, and that includes
all of us working together.
What I do see as the problem, and I have said this, my
Administration, with all the goodwill and intent that they
have, and all of our concerns that we have responsibility to
this beautiful planet that we have been able to occupy, we have
to do the best we can, but with that, I have said this is
called global climate. It is not called Canadian climate. It is
not called United States climate. It is called global. And we
have done more in the last two decades probably to clean up,
using the fossils that we use in the cleaner fashion, which the
world is depending upon.
And when I watch China--they keep talking about China and
renewables, China and renewables. China has 3,000 coal-fired
plants and they are building 400 more. They are not taking
their foot off the pedal at all. India had 500 to up to 800 and
they want to build 100 more. The United States is going down.
You all have basically gone down. Everybody has tried to be
responsible. You take the developing nations of the world and
the leaders of the world such as us and you, and you take us
out of the fossil industry before we have the replacement that
the rest of the world could move into--God help us. God help
the climate because the rest of them will not do what we are
going to do. They will not do what we have done in this free
democracy that we all live in and the freedoms that we all
enjoy. We have done it because it was the right thing to do.
But taking us out of that industry before we have a
replacement--and all I have said is the United States of
America should go down our true path. We should basically make
sure that we have reliable, secured energy for a period of time
going through this transition as we are investing in the
technology. You cannot eliminate your way to a cleaner climate.
You can innovate your way to it. And when those criss-cross,
and you give me as much out of what I am getting out of the
fossil now--dependable, reliable and affordable--and when you
can give me that, based on dispatchable, reliable power,
whenever I want it, from the new technologies that are coming,
and we will be designing and developing, that is when the
market takes over. It is not us making government decisions. It
will be the market that makes those decisions.
But we have everybody afraid. Well, if we do this and we
build this great alliance in North America, we will become so
good and so efficient at what we are doing, it will just be,
basically, prolonging us using fossil when people want us not
to. And I only said--I can speak from just my position and one
vote as a Senator--that I will not vote to support the European
model of what they are dealing with today. I think we can do it
better. And that is why I came to Canada to see if you all
would join us in a North American alliance and maybe we can get
Mexico, Senator Hickenlooper. We want do that. But we have the
ability, and I am scared to death that what Xi Jinping is
watching what Putin did with energy is what he would do with
the critical minerals for our computer chips, for basically the
cathodes and anodes and the processing. And right now, I think
both of our countries are dependent on what is coming from
Russia in the technology end of it for us to be able to
transition. I do not want to transition and be totally reliant
on foreign supply chains. That is just me.
And Minister Wilkinson, that is why I said hydrogen is
something I know we can do. So I have looked at that very
astutely, and basically it is very encouraging, but there is so
much more that needs to be done. But again, I can say, I do not
think we can do it without each other. And I think we need each
other. I appreciate it very much. We want to break down these
barriers. We want to make common-sense decisions. We do not
want to take away and shoot ourselves any more than we already
have. And I think we can heal the wounds that we have. And I
just appreciate and I hope you have a safe journey back home. I
look forward to visiting you soon.
With that, let me just say, members will have until close
of business tomorrow to submit additional questions for the
record if they were not able to submit today.
I appreciate this climate partnership that we have been
able to speak about. And also, I want to thank you again. This
Committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]