[Senate Hearing 117-470]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                         S. Hrg. 117-470

                     FEDERAL REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
                  GOVERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTER-
                   STATE HYDROGEN PIPELINES, STORAGE,
                     IMPORT, AND EXPORT FACILITIES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JULY 19, 2022

                               __________
                               
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                               


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

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
                              __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-128                      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
             Patrick McCormick, Republican Special 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

Marsh, Andrew, President and CEO, Plug Power Inc.................     5
Krutka, Dr. Holly, Executive Director of the School of Energy 
  Resources, The University of Wyoming...........................    15
Zamarin, Chad, Senior Vice President, Corporate Strategic 
  Development, The Williams Companies............................    21
Powers, Jr., Richard E., Partner and Head of the Energy Practice 
  Group, Venable, LLP............................................    28

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Barrasso, Hon. John:
    Opening Statement............................................     3
Clean Hydrogen Future Coalition:
    Report entitled ``Potential Regulation of Hydrogen Pipelines 
      Under Current Law'' dated July 14, 2022....................   166
    Statement entitled ``Pros and Cons of Potential Regulation of 
      Hydrogen Under the Natural Gas Act''.......................   186
Krutka, Dr. Holly:
    Opening Statement............................................    15
    Written Testimony............................................    17
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   161
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
Marsh, Andrew:
    Opening Statement............................................     5
    Written Testimony............................................     7
    Questions for the Record.....................................   160
Powers, Jr., Richard E.:
    Opening Statement............................................    28
    Written Testimony............................................    30
Tallgrass:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   193
Zamarin, Chad:
    Opening Statement............................................    21
    Written Testimony............................................    22
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   162

 
                       FEDERAL REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
                        GOVERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF
                     INTERSTATE HYDROGEN PIPELINES,STORAGE,
                       IMPORT, AND EXPORT FACILITIES

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 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 Committee will come to order.
    Today we will discuss the interstate infrastructure needed 
for hydrogen to play a significant role in the cleaner energy 
future. We will hear from our witnesses about the outlook for 
developing this infrastructure. We will also hear testimony 
about the statutory and regulatory frameworks that may affect 
these projects. And this Committee has jurisdiction over FERC, 
which oversees siting and permitting of interstate natural gas 
pipelines. FERC also sets rates charged to ship natural gas, 
petroleum products, and electricity between states. As the 
potential for hydrogen-based energy grows in our country, we 
have a responsibility to ensure clarity and predictability 
regarding the laws that apply to interstate hydrogen energy 
projects.
    Hydrogen has received a lot of attention from members on 
both sides of the aisle, including many on this Committee. And 
I know many of us here today are interested in the 
opportunities for hydrogen in our home states, and for good 
reason. Clean hydrogen can decarbonize our energy-intense 
sectors, promote American economic prosperity, and provide 
energy security, whether that hydrogen is produced from fossil 
fuels with carbon capture, renewable energy through 
electrolysis, or even nuclear power. The International Energy 
Agency forecasts that under a net-zero emissions by 2050 
scenario, global hydrogen demand will more than double between 
2020 and 2030. But for widescale deployment of hydrogen as a 
fuel source, transportation, and delivery, infrastructure must 
be developed. Today, there are limited options for commercial 
transportation of hydrogen. The U.S. currently has a hydrogen 
pipeline network of only about 1,600 miles, compared to 300,000 
miles of natural gas transmission pipelines and 200,000 miles 
of petroleum product pipelines. Hydrogen reacts differently 
with steel than natural gas, so we will need infrastructure to 
be specifically prepared to handle hydrogen. We will certainly 
need to build some new infrastructure dedicated solely to 
transporting and storing hydrogen. There is also potential to 
adapt our country's extensive natural gas delivery network in 
the near term to support a blend of hydrogen and natural gas 
and perhaps, in the longer term, to transport pure hydrogen. 
More work is needed to look at the safety and feasibility of 
these modifications.
    Really, we have a lot of work to do to make our hydrogen 
goals a reality. We must accelerate these efforts for the sake 
of both our energy security and our environment. This takes me 
to my next point. We need to remove uncertainty regarding the 
regulatory process for developing hydrogen infrastructure. We 
should fully expect that the hydrogen network of the future 
will cross state lines. In West Virginia, we are anticipating 
that hydrogen could flow across our borders from Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and our other neighbors. Our Committee 
helped provide $8 billion in funds for regional hydrogen hubs 
in the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill to develop the hydrogen 
infrastructure needed to support a clean and secure energy 
future. The rules of the road must be very clear. Clarity is 
important for hydrogen pipeline developers, producers, 
consumers, and communities potentially affected by this 
development. It appears there is uncertainty today around which 
federal laws apply to interstate hydrogen infrastructure, and 
also about which federal agencies could or should be involved 
in siting, permitting, and setting rates for using this 
infrastructure. If that is the case, our Committee should take 
steps to ensure a predictable and effective regulatory 
framework, because regulatory uncertainty benefits no one.
    There is a compelling argument for FERC to play a role for 
interstate hydrogen infrastructure similar to the 
responsibilities it has for natural gas and petroleum pipelines 
today. For natural gas, FERC reviews proposals to site new 
interstate pipelines, storage, import and export facilities, 
and is the lead permitting agency. Under the Natural Gas Act, 
FERC has final say on a pipeline route, after receiving a 
proposal from the developer and input from state agencies, 
communities along the route and other stakeholders. I have 
certainly had my fair share of disagreements with FERC over 
natural gas issues recently. Still, it is clear to me that the 
Commission's natural gas siting authority helps avoid 
challenges that we see again and again developing in other 
types of interstate energy infrastructure. In the absence of a 
federal siting and permitting authority, years-long 
disagreements between different states and agencies over 
approvals have delayed or blocked projects that our country 
desperately needs, because many of the energy applications for 
hydrogen are similar to those for natural gas. It certainly 
makes sense to regulate hydrogen infrastructure in a similar 
fashion than the natural gas facilities.
    No matter what, the Natural Gas Act and FERC will play at 
least some role in the growing hydrogen economy. Researchers 
and natural gas companies, with support from DOE, are already 
piloting the transporting of hydrogen blended into natural gas 
pipelines. These blended pipelines are subject to the Natural 
Gas Act, as FERC's Chairman has confirmed. For oil pipelines, 
FERC also has a role, though it is more limited. FERC sets 
rates and service requirements, but siting is left to state 
authorities. This approach has its benefits and drawbacks too. 
I am interested to hear our witnesses' perspectives on both 
approaches today. I also want to acknowledge that ensuring the 
safety of hydrogen pipelines is absolutely critical. This is 
the responsibility of DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 
Safety Administration and our colleagues on the Commerce 
Committee.
    Now, with that said, we have a crisis in the country. We 
face huge challenges getting the energy infrastructure we 
absolutely need sited, permitted, and built. These challenges 
weaken our energy security and jeopardize our ability to meet 
our climate goals. My position is this: we cannot be short-
sighted here. We need to look to the future and play the long 
game. We must get the right regulatory structure in place now 
at the ground floor that will help us accelerate hydrogen to 
scale in this country.
    So I look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses on 
these topics to ensure our nation can start putting hydrogen 
infrastructure to use to fuel a cleaner and more secure energy 
future. And with that, I will turn to my Ranking Member and 
friend, Senator Barrasso, for his opening remarks.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
agree, we do have a crisis in the nation and I am glad you are 
holding today's hearing. The topic of federal regulatory 
authorities over interstate hydrogen pipelines is really an 
important topic for us to be discussing. Over the past several 
years, the private sector has shown a growing interest in 
expanding the use of hydrogen as a fuel source. Hydrogen is the 
smallest, the lightest, and most abundant element in our 
universe. It also offers great promise as a source of low-
carbon and carbon-free energy.
    The hydrogen we use is not found in isolation. It is 
commonly bound to other elements--methane, coal, water. 
Hydrogen must therefore be separated from these compounds, and 
for that reason, the places where we extract hydrogen will 
often be far from the places where we use hydrogen. That is why 
we need a safe, efficient, and cost-effective means, as you 
pointed out, to transport hydrogen. The hydrogen can be shipped 
in two ways. It can be chilled to a liquid and shipped by truck 
or rail or barge. Alternatively, it can be shipped as a 
compressed gas through pipelines. Most existing natural gas 
pipelines are equipped to ship methane blends which can include 
up to 20 percent hydrogen. As interest in hydrogen expands, our 
existing interstate natural gas pipeline network may become the 
principal means that we use to ship hydrogen.
    At some point in the future, there may need to be a vast 
pipeline network that can ship higher blends of hydrogen or 
even exclusively hydrogen, and that brings us to the question 
before us today. What authority does the Federal Government 
currently have over hydrogen pipelines? And, what does Congress 
need to know before we consider any next steps? Under current 
law, the Natural Gas Act provides the FERC--the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission--authority over natural gas pipelines. 
That includes pipelines that can ship up to 50 percent 
hydrogen. The Interstate Commerce Act provides the Commission 
authority over pipelines that ship hydrogen to be used as a 
fuel source. At this point, I am not convinced that there is a 
so-called regulatory gap that Congress needs to fill.
    It is important to keep in mind that the hydrogen industry 
is still in its infancy. Twenty years ago, many in Washington 
believed hydrogen would soon be a widely used fuel source. 
Despite millions of dollars in incentives and the backing of 
the Bush administration, that never materialized. We must 
therefore be cautious and acknowledge that excessive regulation 
does more harm than good. So let's not kill the hydrogen 
industry while it is still in the cradle. We must also not take 
steps that may empower those looking to block new natural gas 
pipelines. Wyoming, West Virginia, and many other states 
represented on this Committee have been blessed with abundant 
natural gas resources. These natural gas resources have 
provided tens of millions of American families with an 
affordable and reliable source of energy. Yet today, our 
country's natural gas pipelines are under unprecedented attack. 
Well-funded environmental extremist activist groups are 
throwing the kitchen sink at every new project. The current 
majority of the FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
wants to make it nearly impossible to upgrade pipelines or 
build new ones. I am concerned that some of the Commission may 
seek to make the ability to ship higher blends of hydrogen a 
reason to impose new conditions on new or upgraded natural gas 
pipelines. If that happens, it would be a disaster. Let's not 
give these activists or the Commission another weapon to use 
against natural gas pipelines.
    So I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today 
and joining us. I especially want to thank Dr. Krutka from the 
University of Wyoming, who traveled from Laramie, Wyoming. I 
look forward to the testimony of all of you.
    The Chairman. I would also like to welcome our panelists 
and thank you all for making for making the effort to be here.
    Our first is Mr. Andy Marsh. He is President and CEO of 
Plug. Andy, I would like to thank you again for your recent 
trip to West Virginia to explore the potential to grow our 
state's hydrogen economy. Our state is excited to potentially 
partner with Plug and other hydrogen leaders. West Virginia is 
well-positioned to quickly scale our hydrogen industry and 
attract a wide variety of manufacturers and other end-users, 
bringing good-paying jobs and continuing to do our part to 
provide energy and products that our country needs.
    Next, we have Dr. Holly Krutka, who Senator Barrasso is 
very proud to have come from Wyoming, and I know how beautiful 
Wyoming is, hard to leave this time of year, but we are glad 
you are here. She is Director of the School of Energy Resources 
at the University of Wyoming.
    Then we have Mr. Chad Zamarin, Senior Vice President of 
Corporate Strategic Development at Williams.
    And then finally we have Mr. Richard Powers, Partner and 
Head of the Energy Practice Group at Venable LLP.
    And I thank all of you for being here. Now, we will go to 
our witnesses' remarks, and we are going to start, Mr. Marsh, 
with you.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF ANDY MARSH, 
               PRESIDENT AND CEO, PLUG POWER INC.

    Mr. Marsh. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, and thank you, 
Ranking Member Barrasso and all the other Committee members. I 
am here to testify for Plug Power. I have been the CEO for over 
14 years, and we are spending billions of dollars building out 
the first green hydrogen network across the United States--over 
500 tons by 2025, 1,000 tons by 2028. We use our own 
electrolyzer technology developed in the U.S. for NASA and 
submarines. That technology allows us to take renewable 
resources to create green hydrogen. Also, we are involved in 
liquefication of hydrogen as well as transport of hydrogen. We 
probably know more about transporting hydrogen than anyone else 
in the world.
    That being said, when I look at the full ecosystem, I would 
like to highlight that hydrogen is used today. Plug has shipped 
over 60,000 fuel cells, has built over 185 fueling stations, 
and 30 percent of the food in the U.S. actually touched a fuel 
cell during the COVID crisis to deliver food to homes. You 
know, the hydrogen economy is important for many reasons--
decarbonization, social justice, but also for creating jobs. 
When you look at Plug before COVID, Plug had about 900 
employees. Today, we have over 3,000 employees. The hydrogen 
hub, which this Committee was deeply involved in helping put in 
place, will help us continue to grow. And I do encourage folks 
to really continue to look at the hydrogen tax credit and the 
extension of the investment tax credit for fuel cells. It will 
help us to continue to grow this industry.
    You know, as the Senator said, large-scale hydrogen 
infrastructure is really in the early stages and, you know, 
there is about 1,600 miles of dedicated hydrogen pipelines, and 
our numbers show about two million miles have natural gas 
pipelines. But you know, the potential to move through 
pipelines is really important. It costs about half as much as 
moving the same level of electricity. And that is a 
conservative number. So when I take a look at items also, it 
reduces the cost, and I live with these real costs. We 
mentioned compressed hydrogen. A kilogram of hydrogen costs 
about 80 cents to move 100 miles. A kilogram is equivalent to 
about two gallons of gasoline. If you want to move it through 
liquid, it is about 20 cents, and our estimates through 
pipelines, it is five cents per kilogram, dramatically changing 
the economics, and really allows us to connect. And this was 
important to hydrogen hubs, connect the end-users, and Plug has 
many, many end-users, from stationary products to material 
handling, to on-road vehicles, where you can generate low-cost 
energy in the wind belt and the sun belt, and pipelines are 
really the means to move that.
    So, that being said, I am not an expert on FERC. I have 
been in this hydrogen industry for 14 years. I am an expert in 
understanding what things cost. And when we look at--like many 
of the items that the two Senators spoke about--rules for 
blending hydrogen are really important, and blending hydrogen 
is going on around the world. And I think it is important for 
the United States to participate. Also, it will help us keep 
domestic jobs for industry. We create it. I think it is 
important from a purity level, you know, and I think that 
probably the most important item is the rights-of-way. So, 
rights-of-way, to be able to use present transmission line 
rights-of-way, natural gas pipeline rights-of-way, really, will 
help avoid unnecessary roadblocks.
    And of course, safety standards, and look, there are lots 
of people, not just us, who have been involved in safety in 
this industry for a long time. I would suggest that the 
Committee encourage FERC to lean on the industry experts. And 
look, electrolyzers, I think are critical to the long-term 
grid. They respond rapidly, within seconds. They turn off 
rapidly. They allow you to use renewable energy that would go 
to waste. We are a true believer in the importance of storage 
of renewable hydrogen. And let me just finally say that I 
really appreciate the opportunity to present here today. Thank 
you again, Chairman Manchin, and I am looking forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Marsh follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Marsh.
    And before we turn to our next witness, I would like to----
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is my pleasure to introduce Dr. Holly Krutka, who is the 
Executive Director of the School of Energy Resources at the 
University of Wyoming. Dr. Krutka holds a Doctorate in Chemical 
Engineering. She is a leading expert on advanced carbon capture 
technologies. She has led the School of Energy Resources since 
March of 2020. The school conducts world-class research in 
carbon capture and critical minerals, and hydrogen production 
and transportation. She holds three patents, and has served in 
leadership positions at the National Coal Council and the 
Carbon Utilization Research Council. She worked all through a 
long-delayed family vacation to prepare for this hearing. We 
are delighted that she is here. That dedication is indicative 
of her commitment to her work, our state, and the University of 
Wyoming.
    Thanks again. We look forward to your testimony.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Dr. Krutka, good to have you here.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF DR. HOLLY KRUTKA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF 
   THE SCHOOL OF ENERGY RESOURCES, THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING

    Dr. Krutka. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Manchin, 
Ranking Member Barrasso, and members of the Committee. Thanks 
for that kind introduction as well. I am Dr. Holly Krutka, 
Executive Director at the University of Wyoming School of 
Energy Resources. The School's mission is energy-driven 
economic development for the state. Wyoming exports over 90 
percent of the energy we produce. Our economy and our way of 
life are dependent on the energy and extractive sectors.
    Wyoming is and plans to remain an all-of-the-above energy 
state. The School leads and supports research programs focused 
on our existing energy sector, including coal, oil, and gas, 
including enhanced oil recovery and economic geology and more. 
We are also responsible for looking at new opportunities for 
Wyoming, such as carbon capture use and storage, advanced 
nuclear, rare-earth elements and critical minerals, and much 
more. We see hydrogen as an important component of the energy 
future and aim for Wyoming to be a ``hydrogen headwaters'' 
state. Today, I will share some examples of Wyoming energy 
projects focused on hydrogen and also explain why I think 
Wyoming is an ideal location to demonstrate and commercialize 
some of these hydrogen technologies. Finally, I will discuss 
the positive attributes of Wyoming natural gas and why it is 
critical that hydrogen regulations do not negatively impact 
natural gas production, transportation, and consumption.
    When it comes to standing up a hydrogen industry, Wyoming 
is standing on a strong foundation. In addition to being a 
leading energy producer, the state hosts a robust and expansive 
rail system, and that rail system could be used to transport 
clean ammonia. We also have an extensive natural gas pipeline 
network that offers the opportunity to transport clean hydrogen 
and blends of hydrogen and methane, which is probably the most 
likely opportunity in the near future. Wyoming industry 
partners are active in the research and development needed to 
build out a hydrogen energy sector in Wyoming. For example, the 
School is working with both Williams and Tallgrass on applied 
research related to commercial-scale projects in Wyoming. The 
School's Center for Air Quality and Wyoming natural gas 
producers have long collaborated to reduce the methane 
footprint of our natural gas production. For example, Jonah 
Energy has achieved the gold standard in the United Nations-
sponsored Oil and Gas Methane Partnership. Similarly, PureWest 
is working with Project Canary to verify 90 percent of its 
production in the State of Wyoming.
    In addition to these Wyoming-specific efforts, Wyoming is 
joining a four-state coalition that includes Colorado, New 
Mexico, and Utah. The coalition is focused on competing for 
hydrogen hub funding under the Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act, which this Committee was so instrumental in getting 
funded. And these hubs will provide a tremendous opportunity to 
understand how the clean hydrogen industry will be built out 
and what sort of transportation is necessary. The School is 
also a member of the Clean Hydrogen Future Coalition, and the 
35 members of that Coalition really represent the full spectrum 
of the hydrogen ecosystem. The Coalition is currently 
investigating various approaches for interstate pipeline 
regulation of hydrogen, but has not yet reached consensus 
conclusions.
    As I said, Wyoming natural gas producers are leaders in 
lowering the methane intensity of the natural gas they produce. 
Unfortunately, despite these efforts, and the value of natural 
gas generally, it remains difficult and time-consuming to 
construct new natural gas infrastructure that the United States 
needs for both electricity and heating. If, for example, new 
natural gas infrastructure would also have to comply with new 
FERC-imposed mandates related to transporting blends of natural 
gas and hydrogen, I would worry that the infrastructure would 
never get built. Therefore, I and others in Wyoming are 
concerned about the imposition of new federal standards that 
could have unintended consequences on natural gas production 
and transportation, which are so important to Wyoming and the 
nation's energy security and economies. Governor Gordon 
recently testified before the House Select Committee on the 
Climate Crisis about the critical role that natural gas will 
play in the evolving energy ecosystem. Similarly, the Wyoming 
Energy Authority filed comments that express Wyoming's concerns 
about pending FERC policies that may slow the build-out of 
necessary natural gas infrastructure.
    Wyoming, and thus the School of Energy Resources, is fully 
committed to becoming a leading hydrogen producer and exporter. 
I understand there is a question as to when and how to regulate 
this emerging industry. Between the research, hydrogen hubs, 
and coalition consensus building I have mentioned, much of this 
work is underway that can inform future regulations. We will 
learn a tremendous amount in the next few years. Thanks for the 
opportunity to share a Wyoming perspective on hydrogen and 
related federal regulatory authorities, and thanks so much for 
tackling such an important topic for Wyoming and the nation.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Krutka follows:]
    
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor.
    And now we are going to hear from Mr. Zamarin.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAD ZAMARIN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 
    CORPORATE STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT, THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES

    Mr. Zamarin. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member 
Barrasso, and distinguished members of the Committee. My name 
is Chad Zamarin, and I am the Senior Vice President of 
Corporate Strategic Development at The Williams Companies. 
Also, I was appointed by the Secretary of Transportation to 
serve on the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee, which is an 
oversight committee for PHMSA. I am a descendant of Ukraine. My 
great-grandfather left in the midst of world wars to seek 
freedom and security here in the United States, and I cannot 
tell you how proud that I am to work in an industry and for a 
company that every day is focused on protecting and advancing 
our energy security.
    At The Williams Companies, we are one of the largest energy 
infrastructure companies in the country. We move over a third 
of the nation's natural gas every day to heat our homes, cook 
our food, and increasingly power our electricity, and to help 
provide natural gas to our friends and allies around the world 
to help provide their energy security and also decarbonize and 
displace dirtier fuels. Our natural gas energy infrastructure 
is truly a national treasure. It is unique amongst the world. 
We can produce energy in places far from where it is consumed. 
We can move it across vast distances without losing it. We can 
store it underground without it depleting over time. And we can 
deliver it on demand, when and where it is needed. It is truly 
a resource that we, as a nation, must protect, and I truly 
believe, and we at Williams believe, that the only way to scale 
hydrogen is to leverage this critical energy infrastructure. We 
have effectively solved the renewable equation with the natural 
gas value chain--the ability to produce, transport, store, and 
dispatch on demand, and we can do that, we believe, with 
hydrogen as that economy develops.
    Now, we are here to talk about the regulatory authority for 
hydrogen pipelines, storage, and potential exports. FERC is, as 
has been mentioned, our primary regulator for interstate 
natural gas pipelines, and it does seem like that is in a 
likely venue for us to approach with respect to hydrogen. That 
said, we are concerned that we do not want to create a traffic 
jam before the car even gets out of the garage. The current 
FERC process has become an incredibly difficult process to 
facilitate the building of energy infrastructure. We proposed, 
in our written testimony, some very simple changes that if, you 
know, the Congress were to act, we think, could streamline the 
FERC permitting process and ensure that we can bring the 
infrastructure needed to not only continue delivering the 
critical natural gas here and around the world, but the 
hydrogen that we believe we can bring to market through our 
infrastructure. These changes are relatively simple and 
Congress has the power to implement them, and we believe unlock 
the hydrogen potential that our nation is seeking.
    We truly believe that we can build the energy economy of 
the future without destroying the energy security that we 
appreciate and enjoy here today. Thank you very much for having 
me here today. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Zamarin follows:]


[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    And finally, Mr. Powers.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF RICHARD E. POWERS, JR., ESQ., 
   PARTNER AND HEAD OF THE ENERGY PRACTICE GROUP, VENABLE LLP

    Mr. Powers. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
speak to you. I am here to offer my perspective as an energy 
lawyer for over four decades practicing before the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, state agencies, and courts of 
appeals, primarily on behalf of pipeline shippers and consumers 
in disputes with pipelines and in rulemakings under the 
Interstate Commerce Act and the Natural Gas Act. While the 
potential for hydrogen as an energy source has been around for 
half a century or more, the current environment may have the 
most potential. And I want, initially, to acknowledge my 
colleague, William Bolgiano, who has published an extensive 
paper on the potential regulation of hydrogen pipelines that is 
cited in my testimony.
    My written comments may seem fairly technical, so let me 
address it in a more general sense--the issue we are facing 
with respect to transportation of hydrogen. As a preliminary 
matter, I believe FERC, and not the Surface Transportation 
Board, is the agency that should regulate hydrogen pipelines 
because FERC has much, much more relevant experience in 
jurisdiction and other matters than the STB does. There are 
three options, as I see it, to regulate hydrogen pipelines at 
FERC: (1) to amend the Natural Gas Act to cover hydrogen, (2) 
to treat them as covered under the Interstate Commerce Act, or 
(3) to enact an entirely new statute. FERC's ICA regime has 
been the backdrop of all non-gas pipeline development since 
1906, and should be seriously considered as a shovel-ready 
option to provide clear and reasonable regulations for hydrogen 
pipelines. And to the extent hydrogen is transported in a 
natural gas stream, it would be covered by the Natural Gas Act. 
FERC oversees both the ICA and the NGA and an integrated, 
single-agency approach would be the most conducive, in my mind, 
for the continued development of the hydrogen industry.
    You have already talked about the various roles that FERC 
has--natural gas regulated under the NGA by FERC. Oil 
pipelines, which includes refined products and natural gas 
pipelines, are regulated under the ICA. Other pipelines are 
regulated by the Surface Transportation Board. Some have 
expressed the view that hydrogen pipelines fall under the STB's 
authority. But as you will see in my testimony, I believe that 
it is more appropriate to apply FERC's jurisdiction under the 
ICA. Integrating our pipelines into our nation's energy policy 
and infrastructure is best served having these carriers under 
one FERC roof. First, I believe FERC already has jurisdiction 
over the hydrogen pipelines under the ICA. Second, the ICA is a 
very flexible and adaptable regime. It applies traditional 
regulatory principles to pipelines carrying many different 
products. Under the ICA, FERC regulates pipelines carrying 
various grades of crude oil, refined petroleum products, and 
natural gas liquids. In contrast, the NGA is focused on one 
product--natural gas. FERC can apply its expertise to hydrogen 
pipelines under the ICA without changing its related 
regulations or deviating from its relevant precedent. Third, 
the ICA has a narrower scope than the NGA, which means this 
regime should not present obstacles to hydrogen pipeline 
infrastructure development, and more importantly, ICA 
regulation would not disrupt the operation of existing hydrogen 
pipeline and storage infrastructure that we all rely on to make 
fuel and fertilizer.
    When compared to the NGA, the ICA is much narrower in 
scope. It regulates transportation by pipeline. It does not 
need FERC--you do not need FERC approval to build pipelines or 
to begin service. The ICA requires that pipeline rates and 
practices be just and reasonable and non-discriminatory, and 
clearly stated in their tariff, just like the NGA does, but 
more importantly, the ICA, unlike the NGA, is a common carrier 
regime which mandates that infrastructure be available to all 
new shippers at all times. This could be especially important 
to potential producers, of which many are smaller and newer 
entities.
    Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Powers follows:]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    The Chairman. Well, let me thank all of you for your 
testimonies, and we appreciate it very much, you being here, 
again. We will now start our questioning, and I would like to 
start.
    Mr. Zamarin, I have heard that basically the type of steel 
that we use for pipelines for gas is different than what we 
would need for hydrogen. So is there any way to recoat that? Is 
there any type of technology that we have, or does it have to 
be repurposed? Can we re-sleeve it, or does it just have to 
have a whole new composition of pipe?
    Mr. Zamarin. Thank you for the question, Chairman Manchin. 
We truly believe that we can repurpose significant portions of 
our existing infrastructure to move hydrogen. I think that at 
blended levels--relatively low levels, even up to 20 percent--
we believe most of our existing infrastructure can accommodate 
hydrogen. And if you think about our Transco pipeline system, 
it is the nation's largest natural gas pipeline system. It 
moves over 20 Bcf a day of natural gas. Ten percent of Transco 
is two Bcf a day of hydrogen. That is more hydrogen than is 
produced around the world today.
    So we have an opportunity to scale-up a hydrogen economy 
with the technology that exists today in our infrastructure, 
and as we do that, we will continue to expand our ability to 
increase the amount of hydrogen and ultimately, we believe, get 
to 100 percent hydrogen in pipelines.
    The Chairman. So you believe this technology is there now 
to repurpose the lines you already have?
    Mr. Zamarin. At blends, we do believe that.
    The Chairman. At blends, you can, yes.
    Mr. Zamarin. And to get to 100 percent hydrogen, I think of 
it like the interstate highway system, where today we cannot 
put electric vehicles across the country because we need to 
add----
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Mr. Zamarin [continuing]. You know, charging stations. I 
believe that we can modify the existing infrastructure without 
having to replace significant portions.
    The Chairman. Mr. Marsh, you seem to be the leading 
proponent of, in real terms, in the commercial market today, 
and you found those markets for hydrogen. I am really a big fan 
of hydrogen because I believe it is the right direction for us 
to go. My biggest concern that I have right now is that we have 
not invested the money we needed to invest in hydrogen. When 
you look at basically how quickly we matured in one decade, 
wind and solar. Bottom line is, we put in about $100 billion to 
do it, with the tax credits and about $10 billion as far as 
investment for new technology. We have not done anything in tax 
credits for hydrogen. And so, as we have been talking and going 
back and forth on everything, tell me what would be the best 
thing that we can do, as Congress, to put hydrogen on the map 
to make sure it is going to be the lead of the transitory, does 
the heavy lifting, things of this sort.
    Mr. Marsh. Senator Manchin, not only do I think it can be 
put on the map for the United States, I think it can be put on 
the map to allow us to be exporting hydrogen. A production tax 
credit of $3 per kilogram for green hydrogen with a sliding 
scale for blue hydrogen will make us the leader around the 
world in renewable hydrogen production in a way that I would 
really like because I spent a lot of time in Europe where it is 
a top-down. By using the tax code to encourage----
    The Chairman. In what form would you transport it overseas 
or whatever? How would you do it? Green ammonia?
    Mr. Marsh. I would transport green ammonia.
    The Chairman. Got it.
    Mr. Marsh. Absolutely, from an energy density point of 
view, it is the right way to go.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you another thing in making 
hydrogen. Okay, we know that once we have the hydrogen it is 
used as carbonless, right? It is carbon-free?
    Mr. Marsh. Yes, it is.
    The Chairman. But making it can be carbon productive, and 
we have to be able to--I have asked people, I said, well, if 
you have gas as a transition fuel from coal, and if gas is a 
transition fuel, then why would you go ahead and do the extra 
step of making hydrogen and use as much exposure for carbon by 
making the hydrogen. And I was told, and I think maybe you and 
I talked about this, if you centralize that, if you centralize 
making your hydrogen where your gas production would be, so it 
is not being made as green hydrogen with renewables, and we are 
not in the area of the country that has enough renewables to do 
that, but then if you have--sequestering it, you'd have all of 
it made at one place and then the hydrogen would go into the 
utilities to make the energy that we need.
    Is that what you are----
    Mr. Marsh. Absolutely, Senator. You know, we are a pure-
play green hydrogen player. That doesn't mean I don't believe 
there are other solutions. And blue hydrogen with carbon 
capture and sequestration makes a great deal of sense to me.
    The Chairman. Can still be green.
    Mr. Marsh. You know, geological storage, you know, we have 
to be serious about that.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Marsh. Let me just add----
    The Chairman. If I can just, if I may, because we will have 
more questions. I want to go to Dr. Krutka real quick. You come 
from Wyoming, which is like West Virginia--a very intensive 
energy state. Tell me how you all look at this as a transition 
fuel or a fuel for the future.
    Dr. Krutka. So thank you, Chairman Manchin.
    So we work on all-of-the-above, and we really consider this 
as part of a portfolio and an opportunity to address heating 
and other opportunities for energy where, you know, you cannot 
apply carbon capture and storage and other things like that.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Krutka, to follow up, we are so glad you are here 
today. You have a doctorate in chemical engineering. It is my 
understanding that most natural gas pipelines, and we talked 
about them, are not equipped to ship blends of methane and 
hydrogen where the hydrogen component is greater than 20 
percent. Could you please explain to all of us how a 
conventional natural gas pipeline differs from a pipeline which 
is capable of shipping blends with more than 20 percent 
hydrogen?
    Dr. Krutka. Sure, thank you for the question, Senator 
Barrasso.
    Hydrogen, being such a small molecule and corrosive, can 
create cracks in and attack imperfections that lead to metal 
embrittlement. So the solution would be, short of what was 
already discussed about potentially recoating existing 
networks, but for existing infrastructure, the solution would 
be to, for natural gas, to have hydrogen you would want either 
a different carbon steel, or you would want it to be thicker, 
or both.
    Senator Barrasso. What would be the impact then in the cost 
of constructing, you know, from conventional natural gas 
pipelines versus a pipeline that does all the things that you 
just described?
    Dr. Krutka. The cost difference really depends on the size 
of the pipeline and the pressure. Often a number of ten percent 
higher is used, but NIST did a great study that was published 
in 2018 that said that depending on the pipeline size and the 
pressure of the pipeline, that that cost would range from ten 
percent up to nearly 70 percent. So it is certainly non-
trivial.
    Senator Barrasso. So then, Mr. Powers, you know, as someone 
who supports all forms of energy, including hydrogen, it is 
clear that we need and want private-sector investment to drive 
hydrogen development. I understand private-sector investors may 
want more certainty about regulation than they have at this 
early stage. At the same time, excessive regulation hurts 
industry development. Can you talk about the balance of and 
what kind of attributes of economic regulation would help the 
development of hydrogen infrastructure?
    Mr. Powers. Yes, Senator, thank you for the question.
    I grew up in Williston, North Dakota. My family is in the 
energy business and has been for 50 some years. I have seen all 
forms of energy. I have worked on solar projects, hydro 
projects. I think the key to that is certainty and 
predictability in any regulatory regime, especially one which 
is going to regulate some kind of economic activity. I also 
believe that some kind of consumer protections are important 
where industries like pipeline industries have monopolistic 
tendencies, because you do not want to hinder the development 
of efficient markets and industries. And then finally, I think 
you have to be very conscious of the scope of your regulation, 
especially when you are starting on a new industry that has, 
what, 1,600 miles of pipeline? That is my response.
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Zamarin, then in terms of some 
certainty, Congress enacted the Natural Gas Act in 1938 to meet 
a significant challenge. As the U.S. Supreme Court has put it, 
the purpose of the Act is to encourage ``the orderly 
development of plentiful supplies of natural gas at reasonable 
prices.'' Multiple states are involved. They have come up with 
this. The Act's siting provisions helped to solve this problem, 
and our natural gas pipeline network became the envy of the 
world. But over the last 18 months, in the Biden 
Administration, the FERC has made it harder to get pipelines 
approved. So does Congress need to be careful in terms of any 
changes to the Natural Gas Act to ensure that change is not 
going to enable the Commission to make it even harder and put 
even additional burdens on pipeline construction?
    Mr. Zamarin. Thank you for the question. And yes, Congress 
does need to be cautious. I think that Congress can actually 
enhance the legislation to address the deficiencies that 
currently exist and are being attacked by certain parties to 
stop critical infrastructure. In my written testimony I talk 
about establishing FERC's authority for issuing permits, about 
not allowing states to issue permits, but they should provide 
input. FERC should have the final answer and we should be able 
to build infrastructure. Once it has gone through a very 
rigorous environmental review process, that should be the final 
answer, and we should be able to build that infrastructure.
    Today, it takes four to five years to build a pipeline that 
we can construct in under a year because of permitting. That 
absolutely needs to be addressed.
    The Chairman. The cost, ask him what it does to the cost.
    Senator Barrasso. What does that do to the cost? Senator 
Manchin is wondering.
    Mr. Zamarin. The regulatory burden?
    Senator Barrasso. Yes.
    Mr. Zamarin. It is incredible. I mean, we used to have a 
rule of thumb that it would cost a million dollars a mile to 
build a large-diameter pipeline. It can now cost $8 to $20 
million a mile.
    The Chairman. Oh my God.
    Senator Barrasso. Yes. And then, Dr. Krutka, finally, you 
know, you talked about Wyoming being a hydrogen headwater 
state. You spoke about using natural gas as a source of 
producing hydrogen. What other energy sources are available to 
produce hydrogen in Wyoming?
    Dr. Krutka. Well, we have quite a bit available. So it 
might come as a surprise, but we are still interested in using 
coal to produce hydrogen. If it is going to work anywhere, it 
would be Wyoming. We obviously have low-cost coal, massive 
CO2 storage, and there are even opportunities to 
blend coal and biomass gasification to try to reach carbon-
negative hydrogen. Of course, I have already talked about 
natural gas. We have an advanced nuclear reactor being built in 
the state that is slated for electricity production, but we are 
focused on a nuclear industry that could also be used to create 
hydrogen, then, of course, our renewable resources as well.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Heinrich.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Powers, I have read your testimony, but I want to be 
very clear. Is it your position that currently, hydrogen could 
be regulated under existing authority under the ICA?
    Mr. Powers. Yes, sir.
    Senator Heinrich. Okay. Would that apply--because I know 
there is a definitional issue with respect to the fact that 
most hydrogen is currently derived from fossil fuel sources--
would it apply, in your view, to hydrogen from electrolysis as 
well, or would it need to be blended for that, you know, for 
that definition to still hold true?
    Mr. Powers. Senator, thank you for the question. Let me 
back up.
    Senator Heinrich. Sure.
    Mr. Powers. If you are talking about blending hydrogen into 
natural gas then that would be covered by the Natural Gas Act.
    Senator Heinrich. Right.
    Mr. Powers. If you are talking about hydrogen as its own 
source, or transportation of, if you go back to 1906, they were 
not thinking about renewable energies back then. So all the 
legislative history and so forth is sort of, you know, geared 
toward fossils.
    Senator Heinrich. Right.
    Mr. Powers. And clearly, if it is generated from fossil 
fuels, and it generates energy, I think the FERC can regulate 
it under the ICA. On the other hand, FERC has, but not the 
courts yet, decided that they can regulate things that are not 
just from fossil fuels, but are energy-producing, and that can 
compete with other energy sources that are transported on 
pipelines. But there is some, you know, maybe a little bit of 
uncertainty because even FERC has changed its mind on whether 
it is supposed to regulate ammonia or not. So I can say yes, I 
believe it is, but there is not a lot of hard precedent. That 
is why----
    Senator Heinrich. So we could use some clarity that the ICA 
would be an appropriate way to regulate transport of hydrogen, 
especially if that hydrogen is purely generated from 
electrolysis?
    Mr. Powers. Yes, Senator. I believe that is the case 
because, as you probably know, someone like me, we litigate a 
lot over what is covered and what is not.
    Senator Heinrich. Right.
    Mr. Powers. And what is jurisdictional and what is not. So 
a little more clarity would be, you know, I think perfect.
    Senator Heinrich. And talk to me some more about common 
access to pipelines, what you brought up with respect to new 
sources and how we make sure that new uses and new sources have 
access to our transportation infrastructure.
    Mr. Powers. Yes, Senator. The Natural Gas Act is more or 
less a contract. It carries a kind of provision or act. On the 
other hand, the ICA is a common carrier act. And the way FERC 
has implemented it, over the years, is that all new shippers, 
and all shippers, should have access to that pipeline and they 
require people to keep a certain amount of new capacity, 
generally two percent, available for new shippers. So I think, 
you know, and that is--it works fairly well. It maybe could be 
better. Some people say we should give more, but at the same 
time, at least there is a fair chance for somebody to get on 
that pipeline, and that is regulated by the Commission--by 
FERC.
    Senator Heinrich. For Mr. Marsh or any of you who have 
expertise in this, what are the prospects for downstream de-
blending? So using existing pipelines for blended methane and 
hydrogen and then pulling just the hydrogen out for end-use 
applications later?
    Mr. Marsh. Senator, we do spend a lot of time on that 
issue. And it is the opinion of our technical office that the 
technology really does exist today. So that is not the 
challenge. It is how to do it cost-effectively.
    Senator Heinrich. I was going ask if it is economical.
    Mr. Marsh. So that is really--and I really do not have an 
answer to the cost effectiveness, but you know, it is actually 
a pretty simple schematic, but how to implement it, you know, 
needs to be done and needs to be demonstrated at scale.
    Senator Heinrich. Okay.
    Mr. Marsh. I think it would be perfect, actually, for the 
electrolyzer bill, which was part of the hydrogen hub activity 
that demonstrates that type of technology.
    Senator Heinrich. Mr. Zamarin, talk to me a little bit more 
about the specifics of how you believe our existing 
infrastructure could be repurposed. What are some of the 
technologies and processes that you would use to be able to 
hold hydrogen in our existing pipeline infrastructure, and how 
do we avoid the sort of incredible leak issue that we have 
uncovered in recent years with respect to pure methane in 
existing infrastructure? How do we make sure we do not make 
those same mistakes the next time?
    Mr. Zamarin. Yes, thank you.
    Senator Heinrich. Especially given the size of the 
molecule.
    Mr. Zamarin. Absolutely, and we are committed to 
decarbonizing and lowering the methane emissions of the 
existing natural gas infrastructure, and we are already working 
on hydrogen projects to demonstrate this ability. In New 
Jersey, we are going to produce hydrogen driven by solar power. 
We are going to put that into our Transco pipeline system and 
deliver that to consumers in New Jersey. We also are developing 
a project in Wyoming where we would like to use wind power and 
natural gas production, show how we can complement those 
technologies, and move hydrogen blended in our existing 
pipeline and serve the Pacific Northwest. We have pipelines in 
Wyoming that deliver to Washington, Oregon, and onto the 
doorstep of California. So I believe we can demonstrate that it 
can be done.
    Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    And now we have Senator Lankford.
    Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thanks. Thanks for this 
hearing. Thanks to the witnesses for being here as well.
    I am pleased that we are actually talking about this issue 
because, to me, this is talking not about how can we fit 
hydrogen into an existing permitting structure, but how do we 
fix the permitting structure that we have, because whether it 
is a pipeline or whether it is an electricity transmission 
line, or whatever it is that we are moving, permitting has been 
our big issue. We have wind power coming out of Wyoming that 
started permitting in 2007 that still can't get out with 
TransWest. In Massachusetts, you have electricity lines that 
can go get hydropower from Canada, except they can't actually 
go get that in natural gas. Our problem is not a shortage of 
natural gas in the country, it is a shortage of pipelines to 
actually be able to move it. Our price issue right now with 
natural gas is a pipeline capacity issue more than it is 
anything else.
    So my first concern is, I don't want us to put hydrogen in 
and say we have such a good structure right now with permitting 
natural gas pipelines, let's do it like that, because I think 
it is a terrible idea to say let's do it like that, because 
that is not working very well right now. So my questions are 
all around how we do the permitting and how we fix this. Mr. 
Zamarin, you actually tried to identify five areas, and I read 
through your notes on this--establishing a lead agency to 
coordinate federal permitting so you are not dealing with all 
kinds of different agencies that have different timelines, 
different rules for permitting. If you are going to do a 
pipeline, you have to know who is in charge, and everybody goes 
through that. That is a pretty reasonable thing. Allowing the 
lead agency to issue the permits, allow the other agencies to 
consult them in the process on it, so that you kind of know who 
is the boss of the whole project. It is very reasonable 
establishing a timeline for a yes or no decision.
    You just mentioned before that it takes five years to be 
able to get a permit now to be able to do a natural gas 
pipeline. We cannot have that. People are not going to invest 
long term in that. So having a decision time period, it seems 
reasonable. We had the Canadian leadership in here not long ago 
talking about mining in energy production in Canada, the 
timelines that they have set here, ours seem to be endless with 
litigation. Theirs are very fixed, and so they are more 
predictable in the process, establishing in statute that 
critical infrastructure projects are deemed in the public 
interest. I think it is very reasonable. We need more energy. 
Lots of areas around the center part of the country right now 
are dealing with electricity availability right now because we 
do not have enough energy, actually. And so we have to be able 
to have that. And then revising the standard for judicial 
review to ensure infrastructure certificates and permits are 
approved unless the record lacks credible evidence to support a 
permit. Those are pretty reasonable changes on that.
    Is there anything that you want to add to that or highlight 
on that?
    Mr. Zamarin. Thank you, Senator. I would just like to say 
that we are not trying to eliminate, you know, sensible 
regulations. We are not trying to lower the environmental 
threshold for us building infrastructure. We are simply trying 
to address the gaps that exist in the legislation that have 
been leveraged to stymie development. So I appreciate you going 
through those.
    Senator Lankford. If we do not have enough pipeline 
capacity now, making it even slower to be able to get more, or 
to say, let us do hydrogen like we are doing natural gas, is 
not going to fix this. We are going to then bump our heads on 
why we can't get hydrogen pipelines in the ground and why we 
can't actually get this going. So do you think we need to fix 
the whole permitting process when we address hydrogen to be 
able to make sure that we are actually able to get energy done 
in the process?
    Mr. Marsh, I do want to ask you about this as well. The 
timeline you would expect on a hydrogen transition, is this a 
couple of years or a couple of decades?
    Mr. Marsh. It is a couple decades, Senator. It is not 
overnight.
    Senator Lankford. Okay.
    Mr. Marsh. I mean, I think that the goal is that by 2050, 
when you look at reports, about 20 percent of world's energy 
will come from hydrogen. And I think it is fair to say that it 
can be at linear from where we are today. So it is not an 
overnight transition.
    Senator Lankford. So if it is for home use or commercial 
use, not just for fuel cells and such, are we talking about not 
just changing the pipes, moving that hydrogen, but also 
changing the pipes in the house, changing the appliances, 
changing the orifice? Would all those things have to change as 
well?
    Mr. Marsh. I would say this, Senator, I think the world is 
different than that. If I was going to design the future for 
2050, it would be more things like heat pumps using 
electricity. I think old infrastructure will need to be able to 
be changed. There is lots of work going on in the industry 
today, especially in Europe where I am seeing devices that are 
able to take, for example, dryers which run on natural gas that 
convert them to hydrogen. So I think the technology will come 
for that last mile.
    I would think more about what they are doing in Denmark, 
where you have over 60 gigawatts of wind power they are looking 
to put offshore, put a huge hydrogen pipeline dedicated just 
for transmission, not to homes, but to provide things like 
fueling for vehicles and other activities. I think that is the 
right--this is really for B-to-B to start. It is not B-to-home. 
And it will eventually migrate to B-to-home as the technology 
advances.
    Senator Lankford. But you assume at that point that it is 
re-piping or changing from having a gas-powered whatever to be 
electric power. So that is a pretty dramatic transition in 
homes. So we are not talking something soon for on the home 
consumer side. That is a long way off.
    Mr. Marsh. No, I just, Senator, if you look at our business 
model, it is a B-to-B business model for the next decade.
    Senator Lankford. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all, 
again, for taking time out of your busy lives to be with us.
    I want to start with Mr. Marsh. As we embark on building 
out our hydrogen economy, we have to make sure that we are 
building out a low- or zero-emissions economy. This is going to 
require standardized methods for evaluating and certifying life 
cycle greenhouse gas emissions for hydrogen production and 
hydrogen transportation. There are efforts underway to create 
such standards, but we are still far from a consensus, as close 
as I am told. So what is needed to make life cycle analysis 
standards robust so that we can depend on them and we can build 
out, and how will they enable the expansion of this national 
hydrogen infrastructure?
    Mr. Marsh. I think that is a real good question, Senator, 
and it is real, you know, to me, fundamentally, it is a 
question of what is the CI score? Right? It is to lower the 
carbon index score, you know, it is, you know, pretty 
straightforward when you are looking from green hydrogen 
sources, at least when you are not thinking about Type 3 
emissions. It is a pretty straightforward calculation. I do 
think that there is a need for standard bodies to help, 
especially the DOE, and making sure it is well established. 
NREL has done some really great modeling, which we all 
leverage, and that, I think, is a good framework to direct 
people. And that is really what we use. But that calculation, 
CI, when I was in Scotland for COP26, it was the big issue. How 
do you really count carbon? And to me, that is something that 
the government can help a great deal with and NREL has done a 
wonderful job giving us good models to leverage.
    Senator Hickenlooper. As the Senator from Colorado, I am 
always sympathetic to hearing--the word NREL just makes my 
heart sing.
    Mr. Marsh. I did not know that, Senator.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Powers, I think that, you know, 
we have been focused largely on hydrogen pipeline regulations 
at the federal level, however, the states where those pipelines 
have to traverse, they have their own regulations that need to 
be taken into account. Are you aware of any pipeline 
regulations at the state level that conflict with each other 
which would make it difficult to establish interstate 
standards, interstate pipelines?
    Mr. Powers. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I have 
not actually done a survey of all the states and what their 
regulations are. I have seen some states like West Virginia, 
Pennsylvania, and so forth that have permitted pipelines, like 
for ethane. I have seen in Illinois, they permitted a crude oil 
line. In Texas, they have a statute that says if you want to 
have eminent domain powers, then you can subject yourself to 
the common carrier provisions in that state. So there are--I do 
see in various states that there are differences between the 
federal agencies at times and the states, and this has 
especially shown up in oil pipeline construction and oil 
pipeline routing and so forth. But I think, let me just pivot 
and say, for hydrogen, given that it is a new industry, and 
given that states should have a very big interest in developing 
hydrogen hubs, maybe there is a little bit of a different 
dynamic that could apply. But in any event, I think it is 
important to listen to people to see where they are having 
problems because it is not an easy thing to build any kind of 
infrastructure these days.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Got it. I appreciate that. I think we 
will have to all step up there and make sure that we do get to 
a comprehensive wave of equilibrating those differences.
    Mr. Zamarin, is that the right way to pronounce that?
    Mr. Zamarin. Zamarin, but you are fine, thank you.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Zamarin, sorry.
    As we build out our domestic clean hydrogen network, 
obviously, a number of other countries are doing the same 
thing. We want to ensure that we remain a competitive player on 
the international market in terms of production and export/
import, obviously, emission standards, cost. Is there adequate 
regulation for liquid hydrogen import/export to enable the 
international trade of hydrogen from the U.S. with the rest of 
the world market, and what would be needed to get to that 
point?
    Mr. Zamarin. Yes, I am not an expert on export of ammonia, 
and others may speak to that, but I would say that we do have 
an incredible advantage here in the U.S., as I spoke about the 
infrastructure that we have. Our ability to produce energy at 
low cost, transport it over long distances from many different 
parts of the country and export it. We have proven it with 
natural gas. I mean, we are the low-cost, low-emissions 
producer of natural gas and exporter around the world, the most 
powerful decarbonization tool the world has today by displacing 
foreign coal. I believe we can do the same with hydrogen. I 
don't know to your specific question, what needs to be 
addressed in order to ensure that we can export hydrogen 
effectively, but I will say, the natural gas infrastructure 
that we are building, we are working with each of the LNG 
export terminals to ensure that they will be ready for the 
export of ammonia and clean hydrogen in the event that we can 
scale that up as well.
    So I do believe that the U.S. can be a leader and can be 
the most cost-effective supplier for the world.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Great. I appreciate that. I am out of 
time. I have a couple more questions that I will submit in 
writing. Again, I appreciate all your time. I yield back to the 
Chair.
    The Chairman. Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Dr. Krutka, just to start off with a really basic question. 
I think I read once or was told that when you make hydrogen, 
the heat content of hydrogen or a hydrogen derivative is only 
about one-third of that of natural gas. Is that correct?
    Dr. Krutka. Yes, that is correct.
    Senator Cassidy. So that is kind of a problem, right? It is 
going to drive up the expense dramatically, right?
    Dr. Krutka. Well, yes, if you think about what natural gas 
is made of--methane--and you are letting go of that carbon 
atom, and all the energy that comes with combustion of that 
carbon.
    Senator Cassidy. Mr. Marsh, again, just to explore. By the 
way, I enjoyed our meeting a while ago.
    Mr. Marsh. Yes.
    Senator Cassidy. And thanks for considering the great State 
of Louisiana as the ideal place to----
    Mr. Marsh. We will be building a plant for you in the great 
State of Louisiana, Senator, with Olin.
    Senator Cassidy. Now, part of that seems to be though, that 
I gather that for green hydrogen it is like 38 kilograms or 38 
liters of water to make one of hydrogen. Now, Louisiana has 
more water than we know what to do with most of the time, but 
nonetheless, that also seems to be kind of a limitation on the 
production of green hydrogen.
    Mr. Marsh. So let me make two points. The first point, 
Senator, is that it is about the same for a kilogram of 
hydrogen, it is about equivalent to two gallons of gasoline and 
the amount of water required is about equivalent to one gallon 
of gasoline. So it takes about five gallons of water to make a 
gallon of gasoline. That being said, what we are doing in 
California is actually really exciting. We are actually using 
wastewater, which we are actually cleaning up from the local 
community and using it in our electrolyzer product, and some of 
that wastewater is actually going back to the local community 
to provide water to the area. So I think us in this industry 
continue to think through creative ways to leverage water to--I 
am from Philadelphia, that is why I don't say water right----
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Marsh [continuing]. Creative ways to leverage water to 
allow the community to benefit from the activities we are 
doing.
    Senator Cassidy. Mr. Zamarin, you have spoken of the need 
for regulatory reform, and we have kind of emphasized NEPA, but 
I think there are a lot of things on the table. Can we actually 
get to a net carbon neutral economy without significant 
regulatory reform expanding beyond NEPA?
    Mr. Zamarin. Thank you, Senator. I believe we can, and as 
an industry, we are committed to doing so. You know, we are 
very focused on decarbonizing the existing natural gas value 
chain. We recognize that methane emissions need to be 
eliminated. We also recognize the opportunity to further 
decarbonize the value chain through CO2 
sequestration.
    Senator Cassidy. Now, can you do that without significant 
regulatory reform, because it seems like sometimes you are 
walking in mud, deep mud, to get things done.
    Mr. Zamarin. Yes, I will say on CO2 
sequestration, the updates to 45Q, we fully support. We think 
that will be important. We also think that permitting for 
sequestration needs to be streamlined. It is a very slow 
permitting process, and there is not a lot of staff at the 
federal level that if we want to scale-up sequestration, we 
absolutely do need to streamline that process.
    Senator Cassidy. It does seem like we have met the enemy 
and he is us when it comes to getting that--us--I should say 
EPA. Louisiana asked for primacy in terms of how to do it. I 
think I was told we had like 32 geologists and EPA Region 6 had 
six, and it took them like almost a year to finally send it to 
D.C. EPA.
    Mr. Zamarin. Yes.
    Senator Cassidy. And our primacy, of course, has to obey 
all their rules.
    Let me ask you, in the infrastructure bill, which I worked 
on with my colleagues, there is a lot in there to help 
transition a state like Louisiana, which is very carbon-
intense, into one which is kind of a 2050 economy. Speak of 
your company. You started to speak of your company's efforts 
along those lines. Can you elaborate on that a little bit more?
    Mr. Zamarin. Sure. Louisiana is a great example. I mean, it 
is a really important state for us and for our country. We are 
one of the largest gatherers of natural gas in Haynesville, 
which is one of the lowest emissions basins in the world. We 
can produce natural gas in the Haynesville Basin in Louisiana 
with incredibly low emissions. We are gathering that. We have 
just announced a pipeline to bring that to the coast for LNG 
exports, to increase LNG exports to our friends and allies 
around the world, and we are working to develop a CCUS project 
alongside that will decarbonize that project. We do need help 
in streamlining the permitting process.
    Senator Cassidy. Now, that should be intrastate. So are you 
still--so is the CCUS as opposed to----
    Mr. Zamarin. The sequestration will require permitting in 
Louisiana, but it is intrastate.
    Senator Cassidy. And so, you are okay on the pipeline, 
but----
    Mr. Zamarin. Well, it delivers into interstate pipelines as 
well. So to get the LNG capacity built, it is such an 
interconnected network that we operate in the United States, we 
can build, you know, an intrastate pipeline, but we are going 
to hit a need to expand the interstate system in order to get 
it to the LNG terminals that we need to expand. So they are all 
co-dependent across the value chain.
    Senator Cassidy. One more thing, because Manchin and 
Barrasso explored, and you said quite dramatically, that you 
used to calculate a million dollars per mile of pipeline and 
now it is $22 million for that. Can you give us the cost basis 
of the intrastate portion of that pipeline as opposed to the 
interstate?
    Mr. Zamarin. I can follow up with you on that, sir. But it 
is significantly cheaper to----
    Senator Cassidy. I want to make sure that our values are 
still--we have an apples and apples versus now and before.
    Mr. Zamarin. Yes.
    Senator Cassidy. But we will get there.
    Thank you. I yield.
    The Chairman. Senator Hirono.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Hydrogen is a new fuel for most of the public, so I know 
that there are various jurisdictional issues that come up and 
questions as to how can Congress make sure that we have 
appropriate safety standards in place as we go forward. So I 
thank the Chairman for having this hearing.
    I have a couple of questions that were suggested by people 
in Hawaii because we do have a desire to go forward with some 
level of hydrogen use.
    For Mr. Marsh, you describe your company's efforts to 
produce zero-emission hydrogen using renewable power. What 
strategies do you think Congress should follow to support or 
accelerate the transition to hydrogen, and where would you want 
to see clear federal rules in place to allow companies, states, 
and communities to decide if or how they want to proceed on 
hydrogen as a clean energy source?
    Mr. Marsh. Thank you, Senator. You know, we are building 
out a clean, green hydrogen network across the United States 
using hydropower, using wind power, using solar power to create 
green hydrogen. You know, when I think about where the Federal 
Government can help, it really, you know, I am a businessman, 
and the production tax credit for both green and blue hydrogen 
would be incredibly beneficial to accelerate this economy, to 
create jobs, to provide independence. That, to me, will make 
the biggest difference, and we will be able to leverage what is 
best about, quite honestly, our economy, to be able to let 
companies like Plug raise money on Wall Street based on, you 
know, the certainty of the laws for the long term.
    Just to give you a feel, during COVID, we were able to 
raise $5 billion. And that Congress, with tax legislation, can 
do so much to accelerate this, more than everything else. There 
are experts on this panel that understand permitting and policy 
much better than I do when it comes to regulations. I can just 
tell you that, what we have found is that with most commercial 
properties, building hydrogen stations--and we have built it 
185 times--really has not been that big of an issue. I can 
build a hydrogen station in 13 weeks. This is a commercial, 
business to business today. The regulations associated with 
pipelines--three fellow people on this panel with me are much 
better suited to answer those questions.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you. I agree with you. I am a 
supporter of tax credits to really move us forward to support 
various policy considerations, and I think especially in the 
area of promoting clean energy and resort to clean energy. I 
think tax credits make a big difference, including, by the way, 
tax credits for non-profits who are also in this space.
    Again for you, Mr. Marsh. You testified about the potential 
hydrogen could play in reducing carbon emissions in critical 
industries, maritime shipping, and trucking. How many years and 
billions of dollars would it take to build or upgrade pipelines 
to accommodate hydrogen on the scale that you describe that 
would have an impact on the kinds of activities that I just 
described, and do you feel that the Federal Government has an 
appropriate, long-term strategy on hydrogen?
    Mr. Marsh. I think that the work that has been done by this 
Committee on hydrogen hubs is a very good starting point. I am 
a true believer that a good deal of the hub money should be 
dedicated to building out hydrogen pipelines to accelerate a 
wide variety of applications. You know, if I look at, for 
example, you know, in Europe we have a JV with Renault to put 
on road vehicles. That there, you know, we are working on 
pipelines and looking to put stations by the pipelines. That is 
really kind of the driver.
    As far as the federal policy goes, I guess, quite honestly, 
Senator, I am a believer that a general, high-level policy is 
great, but I believe policies that allow all technologies to 
compete equally, considering the true cost to society, are the 
best solutions for the government to put in place and allow us 
businesses to compete to show that we have the right solutions.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Now we have Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
to the panel.
    You know, when we think about hydrogen, it is kind of the 
new and exciting stuff, and yet, it is not really that new, but 
for purposes of what this is going to mean economy-wide, I 
think we can clearly see the great potential. Senator Cassidy 
and I were just speaking about how transformative this could be 
in some of the communities in Alaska that are very isolated, 
very rural. We are never going to have a pipeline. We are never 
going to have a pipeline out to these villages. So what is it? 
How are we going to make this hydrogen a reality? We are 
excited about the hydrogen hubs, whether it is for geothermal 
opportunity out in the Dutch Harbor, Unalaska area powered by 
the great Makushin Volcano. The possibilities that we have 
within Cook Inlet, where you can marry the natural gas that we 
have in abundance there, along with tidal or wind. There is 
great opportunity and excitement.
    I want to ask about lessons learned and how, because I am 
kind of looking at this and saying, we can design this now. 
Very seldom do we have the opportunity to design a system that 
is going to maybe avoid the pitfalls and the problems that we 
have seen when you are trying to overlay something on top of 
everything else. We can learn a lot by looking at natural gas 
and the build-out there that we have seen. Senator Lankford 
speaks to the permitting issue. I think we recognize that you 
can have the resource, but if you cannot move it because you 
cannot get things permitted, you are no further ahead than when 
you started.
    And so, if you have the ability, each one of you, to look 
at this clean slate for this, really, an extraordinary energy 
asset that can be transformative in so many different ways, 
what do we need to do? I don't know whether it is first and 
foremost, you know, one of the things that I think I would be 
curious to hear from Mr. Powers is whether the Interstate 
Commerce Act is a better regulatory act than the Natural Gas 
Act, again, the permitting issues. But how can we look to what 
we have learned and avoid the pitfalls so that, to your point, 
Mr. Marsh, you say it is a couple decades before we really see 
this difference, that maybe we can actually move that needle a 
little bit faster and have a more efficient system. What would 
your blank slate allow you to do?
    And let us just start with Mr. Powers and go on down the 
line. We have only got two minutes to get everybody's good 
ideas, so you both have about a half a minute to go.
    Mr. Powers. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
    I do believe that the ICA is a better vehicle than the NGA. 
First of all, it has two things that are clear in it--you have 
rates that are just and reasonable and you have tariffs that 
are supposed to be non-discriminatory. It does not regulate the 
kinds of things that the Natural Gas Act does, and so, with 
this nascent industry, I am not quite clear what even strapping 
the hydrogen industry and transportation with the Natural Gas 
Act would mean for that industry. So you are really sort of 
starting with a clean slate if you look at the ICA.
    And I would counsel against something that is brand new. 
There are tried and true methods of regulating under the ICA 
and I do not believe that they are burdensome. But at the same 
time, one other thing I want to raise, and I did not to Senator 
Hickenlooper, is that is he asked about states. Very few states 
regulate, as I see, in pipelines very much. California does. 
Texas does. Florida does not. So that is another thing we have 
to put into the calculus here. If the state does not regulate 
at all, what are you going to do?
    Senator Murkowski. Okay.
    Mr. Zamarin.
    Mr. Zamarin. Thank you, Senator.
    I believe you need to pass the PTC and ITC credits and the 
45Q credits.
    Senator Murkowski. Okay.
    Mr. Zamarin. This is not economic today and we will not 
kickstart this economy unless we make it more economic today. 
And then, I also laid out the changes that I believe can be 
implemented to empower FERC. Over the last ten years, we have 
repurposed the natural gas infrastructure in the United States 
and gone from needing to import natural gas to becoming the 
largest exporter of natural gas in the world. We can do this, 
and we have a model that I think demonstrates it. So I would 
like to offer that I think getting the incentives going and 
then allowing us to get, you know, get going and get this 
infrastructure brought to bear.
    Senator Murkowski. Good.
    Dr. Krutka.
    Dr. Krutka. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
    I come from a different perspective being at the University 
of Wyoming. I would say we can do parts and aspects of the 
hydrogen industry now, but continued research and development 
that is fuel-agnostic is really important for the future as 
well.
    Senator Murkowski. Mr. Marsh.
    Mr. Marsh. Senator, I am going to agree with Chad, but I 
also would like to say, going from one percent to 20 percent in 
20 years is pretty fast.
    Senator Murkowski. That is true.
    Mr. Marsh. And we could change the commercial industry 
really faster.
    Senator Murkowski. That is true. Good.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Thanks, Mr. Chair, I appreciate it.
    Dr. Krutka, the University of Wyoming, as well as the 
University of North Dakota, work on these regional carbon 
sequestration partnerships, and given, you know, our collective 
desire to advance CCUS projects, how important is it that DOE 
properly distribute funding--the FY22 funding--which we 
appropriated for these regional partnerships?
    Dr. Krutka. Senator Hoeven, first let me say how grateful 
we are to work with the EERC in North Dakota. They are a great 
partner in all this, a world class facility. I think releasing 
the FY22 funding for the regional partnerships is really 
critical. What we see in the Plains CO2 Reduction 
Partnership, and they still call it the Plains, even though 
Alaska and Wyoming are members. No hard feelings on that one, 
but it is--we have a lot of momentum in that partnership. And 
what we are seeing more than ever before are commercial 
entities getting involved. And so, we really feel that 
releasing that funding is important. And it is so important 
even--CO2 storage and hydrogen production are 
linked, and we feel that it is really important to have those 
funds released.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you. I totally agree. And that is 
exactly what we intended when we appropriated those funds. And 
so, you agree that DOE needs to move and get these funds 
released to those partnerships, as was intended by Congress, 
and do it now rather than mess around, trying to figure this 
out, some new paradigm or something which was not in line with 
the intent of Congress.
    Dr. Krutka. Yes, Senator Hoeven.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
    Mr. Zamarin, so you believe that we can use the natural gas 
pipeline infrastructure for hydrogen and that is a workable 
proposition without changes to those pipelines?
    Mr. Zamarin. I do believe that at blends, and we do have 
work to do to get to higher concentrations and pure hydrogen in 
all of our existing pipelines. But we believe that many of our 
pipelines will be capable of blends today, increasing 
concentrations, and ultimately, 100 percent hydrogen.
    Senator Hoeven. At the same time, we need more pipelines as 
well as transmission lines, correct? And so, talk a little bit 
about the importance of getting that additional infrastructure 
in order to move energy, whether it is traditional or renewable 
energy around this country.
    Mr. Zamarin. Sure, absolutely. I mean, we still burn 
heating oil in New York City, and we can bring natural gas to 
New York City and displace dirtier fuels. We have over 75 coal 
power plants in our footprint alone that can still be 
repurposed to cleaner burning natural gas. It has been the best 
decarbonization tool in the United States for the last ten 
years. We have talked about LNG exports. We believe that here 
and now, increasing the capacity for natural gas exports can be 
the greatest decarbonization tool around the world by 
displacing foreign coal, and we believe we can build that 
infrastructure in a way where it will be ready for the energy 
of the future. And if we can scale-up a hydrogen economy, that 
infrastructure will be ready to deliver that product.
    Senator Hoeven. So, Mr. Powers, you believe that the 
Interstate Commerce Act is an optimal regulatory approach for 
hydrogen infrastructure compared to the Natural Gas Act. Why is 
that?
    Mr. Powers. Thank you, Senator.
    First, let me say this--in terms of the natural gas 
pipelines and the Natural Gas Act, if you are injecting 
hydrogen into a natural gas stream, then I believe the Natural 
Gas Act can and should apply. There are many pipelines--The 
Alliance Pipeline, which comes from Canada, which has wet gas 
and people inject into it Butane and other products, and there 
are refined-products pipelines that are regulated under the 
ICA, for example, that have gasoline, diesel, and so forth, and 
the people inject things like Butane in them. But if you are 
talking about a hydrogen pipeline itself, not one that is 
governed by the Natural Gas Act, I think that the ICA structure 
is simpler. Now, there are going to be issues. People are going 
to talk about permitting and so forth, but I have not seen 
where the Natural Gas Act's permitting structure has really 
helped get a lot of things built. I think it is problematic and 
this is a very new industry. So I am reluctant to strap it with 
an infrastructure regime that grew out of another industry.
    Senator Hoeven. The number one thing we can do to get CCUS 
moving--just the number one thing? Start with Mr. Marsh.
    Mr. Marsh. I think, Senator, the production tax credit has 
tax credits for the generation of blue hydrogen as well as 45Q 
for storage. I think passage of those bills would dramatically 
impact and drive this industry.
    Senator Hoeven. Dr. Krutka.
    Dr. Krutka. 45Q enhancements.
    Senator Hoeven. Mr. Zamarin.
    Mr. Zamarin. Yes, increasing 45Q to $85 a ton would make a 
huge impact.
    Senator Hoeven. Mr. Powers.
    Mr. Powers. I believe focusing the regulation or 
development of this industry in one agency, like the DOE or 
FERC, would be very valuable. I also believe that an investment 
tax credit might be helpful as it did in the solar industry 
years ago.
    Senator Hoeven. Are you related to Jim and Tom Powers?
    Mr. Powers. Yes, those are my brothers.
    Senator Hoeven. Okay. You are obviously far younger, huh?
    Mr. Powers. Yes. Unfortunately not, thank you.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Hoeven. Yes, I know them both well.
    Thanks to all of you, I appreciate it.
    Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Senator Murkowski, any 
additional questions?
    Senator Murkowski. No.
    Senator Barrasso. Okay. I had a couple.
    Dr. Krutka, earlier on I was asking about what energy 
sources are available to produce hydrogen in Wyoming. Could you 
tell us a little bit about the research that is taking place 
now at the University of Wyoming and elsewhere on the 
transportation of hydrogen?
    Dr. Krutka. Sure, thank you, Senator Barrasso.
    We have a few different projects happening now that are 
focused on transportation. I already mentioned we are 
collaborating with Williams and Tallgrass. A few specific 
efforts are related to GIS mapping efforts in a DOE-funded 
project to really understand where production and consumption 
might happen, so to understand what sort of transportation 
infrastructure would be needed. In addition, the University of 
Wyoming Center for Air Quality has focused a long time, and I 
mentioned them on detecting methane emissions, and that is, all 
that work that has gone into that could be translated into 
hydrogen emissions tracking and measurement, and all that 
infrastructure and knowledge, it is all very translatable, but 
they are not taking that step now. They are still focused on 
methane. So we would need R&D funding to support that effort. 
But there are lot of opportunities in addition to what we are 
doing now.
    Senator Barrasso. I understand the Department of Energy is 
doing some work with hydrogen hubs in terms of a fund in 
establishing it. What do you hope to learn from them then?
    Dr. Krutka. So we hope to learn what projects in our region 
would be viable and what sort of transportation infrastructure 
would be needed to link those. There is a tremendous amount 
that would be learned, and where hydrogen would best fit into 
our regional economy.
    Senator Barrasso. And then, Mr. Zamarin, I would like to 
follow up on my prior question about the Natural Gas Act. Do 
you agree that any effort to encourage the use of hydrogen as a 
fuel source must not provide another tool for those who seek to 
keep natural gas in the ground?
    Mr. Zamarin. Absolutely.
    Senator Barrasso. And do you agree that any effort to 
encourage the use of hydrogen as a fuel source should support 
rather than undermine our existing natural gas pipeline 
network?
    Mr. Zamarin. I do not believe we can scale-up hydrogen 
without it.
    Senator Barrasso. Great.
    And then, Dr. Krutka, some environmental activists are 
skeptical about expanding the use of hydrogen as a fuel source. 
They also object to relying on methods that use natural gas, 
coal, or even water to extract hydrogen. How do you respond to 
concerns about the environmental impact of using hydrogen as a 
fuel source?
    Dr. Krutka. First, I would point to all the work that has 
been done on reducing methane emissions from Wyoming's natural 
gas. That is a strong foundation we can build on. We have also 
long worked on CO2 storage and we believe the state 
can be a leader in building that out. We have a lot of great 
work, and I think at the end of the day, we do believe fossil 
fuels can compete and have a low carbon footprint in the 
hydrogen sector and they are much lower costs. So I would say 
it is really important to remain fuel-agnostic and let the 
science and the data speak for itself.
    Senator Barrasso. Okay. Well, I want to thank all of you, 
again, all of our witnesses for joining us this morning for 
this very helpful discussion. Members may have until the close 
of business tomorrow to submit additional questions in writing. 
We would ask that you respond in a timely manner to those.
    And with that, the Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
    [Hearing reconvened at 11:31 a.m.]
    Senator Barrasso. Before you head out.
    The Chairman [presiding]. The only thing I wanted to ask, 
and I think, Mr. Zamarin, we could probably talk about FERC and 
the Natural Gas Act and who has control, who is doing what and 
how we do and put some guardrails on this thing to----
    Oh, I am sorry, I would like to reconvene the hearing.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Barrasso. It is good to be Chairman.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Now we can talk. I have a concern about the 
FERC's recent decisions related to natural gas pipelines. I 
think, hopefully, we have them back in line again. We brought 
them back in before the Committee and tried to basically make 
sure they understood where their lane was and that we intend 
for them to help us.
    Now, can you discuss the Natural Gas Act that could also be 
helpful, if applied, to the hydrogen pipelines? What can we do 
to make sure that we have the ability to build this out as 
quickly as possible? I know about all the permitting. We are 
working on that. It is ridiculous to have a permitting process 
that lasts 10, 12 years in America when most of the developing 
world does it with less than two at the worst. So anything you 
can do on that, and do you have any suggestions on how FERC can 
improve its natural gas review process?
    Mr. Zamarin. Yes.
    The Chairman. To make it work better for both natural gas 
and hydrogen.
    Mr. Zamarin. Yes, thank you, Senator. And I have some of it 
in my written testimony. I think the fix is actually relatively 
simple. If you are going to leverage the Natural Gas Act and 
FERC's jurisdictional authority, we believe that the 
legislation should be updated to implement timelines, after 
which, if an agency has not issued a permit, the permit is 
deemed as granted, seeing, you know, it should be reasonable. 
We believe that FERC should be the only permitting issuing 
authority, that a state should have input into the FERC 
process, but ultimately FERC should have permitting authority 
and that authority should be final.
    And so, there are some very simple changes. We are not 
asking to circumvent the process.
    The Chairman. Right.
    Mr. Zamarin. We are simply asking for the process to have 
set timelines and a lead agency that has the authority to issue 
the permit after proper consultation.
    The Chairman. I got you.
    Anybody else have anything they want to add?
    Thank you all, again. It was very helpful. I tell you, it 
is something I think that we can do and all of us can agree on, 
I would hope. Thank you.
    Members will have until the close of business tomorrow to 
submit additional questions for the record.
    Again, thank you, and we are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              


[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   [all]