[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]