[Senate Hearing 118-292]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 118-292


               THE SCIENCE OF EXTREME EVENT ATTRIBUTION:
                     HOW CLIMATE CHANGE IS FUELING
                         SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                            NOVEMBER 1, 2023
                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
  
  
  
  
  
  
              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
              
              
              
                           


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

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

55-612 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024 













               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
          SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
ALEX PADILLA, California             LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania

               Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director 
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                            NOVEMBER 1, 2023
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West 
  Virginia.......................................................     3

                               WITNESSES

Wehner, Michael F., Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Applied Mathematics 
  and Computational Research Division, Lawrence Berkeley National 
  Laboratory.....................................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    18
Jurado, Jennifer, Ph.D., Chief Resilience Officer and Deputy 
  Director, Resilient Environment Department, Broward County, 
  State of Florida...............................................    22
    Prepared statement...........................................    24
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    88
Dabbar, Hon. Paul, former Under Secretary for Science, Department 
  of Energy, Senior Research Scholar, Columbia University........    90
    Prepared statement...........................................    92
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Capito........    95

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Letter to Hon. Michael S. Regan, Administrator, U.S. 
  Environmental Protection Agency from the Public Service 
  Commission of West Virginia and the Delaware Public Service 
  Commission, October 4, 2023....................................   105
What can't extreme event attribution tell us?....................   131
Turning Down the Temperature on Extreme Claims About Extreme 
  Weather, the Breakthrough Institute, August 21, 2023...........   132
Number of deaths from disasters, accessed May 8, 2024............   138
Death rate from disasters, accessed May 8, 2024..................   139
Decadal average: Annual death rate from disasters, accessed May 
  8, 2024........................................................   140

 
                THE SCIENCE OF EXTREME EVENT ATTRIBUTION:   
                     HOW CLIMATE CHANGE IS FUELING  
                         SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS 

                              ----------                              

                      WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2023

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in 
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper 
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Whitehouse, Merkley, 
Markey, Kelly, Padilla, and Boozman.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 
            U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

    Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. I am pleased to 
call the hearing to order.
    Today, as you know, we are gathered to discuss a field of 
climate science known as extreme event attribution. My guess is 
you ask 100 people in this country what they think that means, 
they wouldn't have a clue. Until a couple of weeks ago, some of 
us would not have, either. But when we leave here today, 
hopefully we will know it and not just understand it ourselves, 
but actually be able to explain it to others.
    I am told that this may be the first ever congressional 
hearing on the topic of extreme event attribution. To 
understand why we are holding today's hearing, I think it might 
be helpful to ask and answer a few questions.
    First, what is extreme event attribution anyway? Besides 
being quite a mouthful, extreme event attribution looks at how 
a specific extreme weather event, such as a particular heat 
wave or flood, was made worse by climate change.
    Second, why is this kind of climate science important, real 
important? To answer that question, we need to first 
acknowledge the fact that human caused climate change is 
increasing the frequency of extreme weather events.
    Earlier this year, the American Meteorological Society 
issued a report by many of our Nation's leading climate 
scientists and meteorologists. That report detailed, as I am 
sure our witnesses know, how climate change has driven 
unprecedented heat waves, floods, and droughts this year and in 
recent years. We know that continues to be the case.
    When Phoenix, Arizona, experiences an unprecedented 31 days 
of temperatures at or above 110 degrees Fahrenheit as they did 
this summer, or when historic rainfall leads to severe flooding 
in places like Florida and Vermont as it did this year, many of 
us find ourselves asking, is climate change to blame for this? 
The honest answer is yes, yes, it is.
    It is true that we have always had heat waves, at least for 
as long as I have been around, 76 years. But it is also true 
that climate change is making them more intense. So, the better 
question to ask ourselves is, how much worse did climate change 
make this heat wave, or how much worse did it make that flood? 
That is the kind of question that extreme event attribution 
scientists, including at least one of our witnesses, Dr. 
Wehner, work to answer. These questions matter because the 
human harms and costs of climate change are massive, and sadly, 
they are growing.
    As many of our colleagues know, I represent the lowest 
lying State in our Nation, Delaware. In Delaware, we are 
already losing our dunes, we are losing our wetlands to sea 
level rise and nor'easters. As we work to repair our homes, 
businesses, and infrastructure and replenish our beaches 
damaged by these events, we are already paying for the costs of 
climate change.
    But this hearing is not just about Delaware. It is a 
hearing about 49 other States and a planet that we all share 
with people around the world. We are grappling with the costs 
of climate change.
    Today, we are going to focus on how it is fueling extreme 
weather, and maybe even more important, what we can do about 
it.
    Now, in one sense, climate change is already affecting 
every aspect of our weather. Overall, NASA tells us that global 
temperatures have increased a little more than 1 degree 
Celsius, that is about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, since 1880. That 
is due mostly to human caused climate change.
    Because our planet is warmer, on average, the hot days are 
becoming hotter. And because a warmer atmosphere holds more 
water vapor, rain storms are growing more intense.
    Warmer oceans are also producing stronger hurricanes. Last 
week, we saw Hurricane Otis wreak havoc, wreak devastation in 
Mexico when it rapidly intensified from a Category 1 storm to a 
Category 5 in less than 10 hours. Think about that. Less than 
10 hours. I couldn't believe it, but it is true.
    Let me close and turn it over to Senator Capito, but first 
let me say, you and I don't experience planetary averages. We 
live through, and we clean up from, and we pay for specific 
weather disasters. Extreme event attribution science helps us 
to explain these events.
    So, recognizing that we as a planet must prepare for more 
frequent and intense weather in the future, and as elected 
leaders we also need to understand what to expect in our States 
and our communities. How much worse will our heat waves become 
in the years to come? How likely is it that a community will 
experience an even larger flood next time?
    Extreme event attribution science is helping us answer 
those questions, as well. The ability to do so will be critical 
as we plan future infrastructure projects, we work a lot on 
that kind of stuff here in this Committee. We wrote big parts 
of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, this lady right here and 
I, and we had the privilege of managing it on the floor, one of 
the biggest infrastructure bills in the history of the country.
    Making more informed policy decisions will help us protect 
more Americans from extreme weather and allow us to use 
taxpayer dollars more effectively.
    Let me close by reminding everyone that while climate 
change is driving extreme weather, we are not helpless, and we 
are not hopeless. The situation is not hopeless. Working 
together, we can prevent the worst impacts of global warming by 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And that is what we are 
doing.
    Thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill that I just 
mentioned and the Inflation Reduction Act, we are beginning to 
turn this adversity into opportunity. Importantly, we are doing 
so in a way that invests in American made clean energy, lowers 
energy costs, creates good paying jobs all over the country, 
and makes communities all over the country more resilient.
    Still, it is important to acknowledge that we have a lot 
more work to do ahead of us to tackle this challenge. So, as we 
take those steps to better prepare for extreme weather and 
manage its impacts, extreme event attribution can be an 
important tool.
    With that, we look forward to hearing from our witnesses 
today about how communities can better understand and 
anticipate what is coming and increase their resilience to 
climate fueled extreme weather.
    Before we do that, we will hear from our Ranking Member, 
Senator Capito, for her opening statement.
    Senator Capito, welcome. You are recognized. Thank you.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Chairman Carper.
    Before I begin, I have a throat lozenge in my mouth, so if 
I sound weird, or if I start choking, I would ask you to help 
me out.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Capito. So I apologize for that. It is preventing 
me from coughing.
    Senator Carper. I can see the headline: ``Carper saves 
Capito from throat lozenge.''
    Senator Capito. An extreme throat event.
    Anyway, I want to thank our witnesses and our Committee for 
its strong bipartisan work to reduce emissions and make our 
infrastructure more resilient. The Chairman talked about that.
    Legislation such as the USE IT Act, reducing barriers to 
the deployment of carbon capture, the AIM Act, directing a 
phasedown of heat trapping HFCs, the Nuclear Energy Innovation 
and Modernization Act, supporting carbon free nuclear energy, 
and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that the 
Chairman talked about, with its investments in emissions 
reductions and resiliency, all passed in a bipartisan way.
    As we continue to build on that record by passing the 
ADVANCE Act in the NDAA to help deploy advanced nuclear 
reactors and technologies, as well as to renew our efforts on 
passing a permitting bill that will allow us to unlock American 
innovation across all types of technologies and bring American 
manufacturing back home.
    Several provisions of the IIJA are especially relevant to 
today's topic. That law's reauthorization of our surface 
transportation programs included a climate title for the very 
first time, establishing formula programs to help States build 
more resilient infrastructure and reduce certain emissions.
    The law also included funding for hydrogen hubs, like the 
Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub, known as ARCH2, that 
will benefit my State of West Virginia and our region.
    And the IIJA included $25 million to help EPA process Class 
VI permits and $50 million to help States obtain primacy for 
permitting Class VI wells, a necessary step toward broader 
deployment of carbon capture and storage.
    Despite the resources we provided in the IIJA, the EPA has 
not granted Class VI primacy to any State under this 
Administration, nor has EPA granted an individual Class VI 
permit to store carbon dioxide since the Obama administration, 
with 169 Class VI wells now waiting to be permitted, under the 
EPA.
    Commercial scale deployment of carbon capture and storage I 
think is vital if we are to meet our energy reliability needs 
while also addressing emissions. The Administration must 
quickly review and process Class VI primacy applications from 
States, as well as individual permit applications for projects 
in States without primacy.
    As our bipartisan work continues, there is widespread 
agreement that the climate is changing and that greenhouse gas 
emissions are contributing to that change. But I am not sure 
that is the focus of the hearing. I am not sure that the focus 
of the hearing is on that scientific consensus.
    At the end of the Obama administration, the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a question and 
answer page about extreme event attribution that remains on the 
agency's climate.gov website today.
    One question posed there is, ``What can't extreme event 
attribution tell us?'' I will enter the entirety of the answer 
into the hearing record, but the short answer is it can't tell 
us whether global warming caused a specific event. With global 
warming and extreme events, it is not a yes or no question.
    I want to be clear: This does not mean that climate change 
has no impact on the intensity of weather patterns. The trends 
are clear, and we need to be ready, and with technologies and 
adaptation strategies like those I have described, are policy 
areas about which this Committee has demonstrated expertise.
    It is critical and crucial that we have effective solutions 
that reduce flood risk and coastal storm risk across the 
country.
    Since 2014, the Committee has kept to a biennial schedule 
of passing bipartisan water resources legislation to advance 
these solutions. And I look forward to continuing this track 
record; we have already had several hearings, with our next, 
latest WRDA bill.
    By contrast, I think some regressive regulatory policies or 
carbon taxes that pick winners and losers could inhibit our 
U.S. energy production disproportionately and will harm our 
most vulnerable communities through lost opportunities and 
displaced jobs. Rising energy costs and weakening of our grid 
will leave these constituents without access to affordable 
electricity and other basic necessities. Recognizing this, the 
government should not put in place a one size fits all 
regulatory mandate.
    Successful climate technologies of the future may not even 
exist today, so we need to make sure we provide the adequate 
conditions for necessary innovation to take place. So I think 
there are reasons to be optimistic, and the Chairman shared 
that optimism. American innovation will rise to the occasion.
    I am interested in today's discussion of developing 
research, but I will be more interested to hear from our panel 
on what we should do today to build on the Committee's record 
of bipartisan solutions.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you very much, Senator Capito. ARCH 
is the name of your hydrogen hub, ARCH2?
    Senator Capito. It is, ARCH2.
    Senator Carper. That includes also Ohio and Pennsylvania?
    Senator Capito. Southwest Pennsylvania, yes.
    Senator Carper. First time I had ever heard of Arch, Arch 
One, was your father.
    Senator Capito. That is why I can remember the name.
    Senator Carper. He was Governor of West Virginia when my 
sister and I were little kids in Lavinia and Raleigh Counties, 
West Virginia. Arch Three could be another member of your 
family.
    Senator Capito. I have a grandson named Arch, so I have 
Arch Two.
    Senator Carper. And she has a son who, off the record, is 
running for Governor of the State of West Virginia, which is a 
great job.
    Now we are going to turn to our panel of esteemed 
witnesses.
    We are grateful to each of you for joining us today to 
discuss this important topic.
    We are going to hear from our witnesses in this order. Dr. 
Michael Wehner is our lead off hitter. The second witness will 
be Jennifer Jurado, and last but not least, we are going to 
hear from Paul Dabbar.
    Let me just say a word about each of our witnesses.
    Dr. Michael Wehner is a senior scientist within the Applied 
Mathematics and Computational Research Division at the U.S. 
Department of Energy Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, whose 
research focuses on extreme weather and a changing climate. Dr. 
Wehner was the lead author for the 2013 Fifth and 2021 Sixth 
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change. He was also lead author for the second, third, fourth, 
and upcoming fifth U.S. National Climate Assessment.
    Our second witness is Dr. Jennifer Jurado, Chief Resilience 
Officer and Deputy Department Director for Broward County, 
Florida. In this role, Dr. Jurado is responsible for leading 
climate resilience and environmental planning initiatives for 
Broward County.
    Then we are going to hear from Paul Dabbar, Former Under 
Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy. Mr. 
Dabbar is also a senior research scholar at Columbia University 
and serves as CEO of Bohr Quantum Technology.
    In reading through the bios, I came across someone who may 
have served in the Navy, is that true?
    Mr. Wehner. Yes, sir, Naval Academy.
    Senator Carper. Naval Academy, good for you. I got wait 
listed there, I had to go to Ohio State. But I turned out OK. 
So did you.
    All right, with that in mind, we are going to hear from Dr. 
Wehner.
    Please proceed with your statement. Your entire statement 
will be made part of the record. Then we will hear from our 
other witnesses; then we will ask some questions.
    Thank you. Welcome.

   STATEMENT OF MICHAEL F. WEHNER, PH.D., SENIOR SCIENTIST, 
   APPLIED MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTATIONAL RESEARCH DIVISION, 
             LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY

    Mr. Wehner. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 
Capito, and distinguished members of the Committee.
    Good morning, and thank you for the invitation to testify 
at this important hearing on the science of extreme weather 
event attribution.
    As you said, my research focuses on the behavior of extreme 
weather events and the changing climate. I must say that my 
remarks are my own, and not intended to represent positions of 
the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the University of 
California, or the United States Department of Energy.
    According to the U.S. National Climate Assessments Annual 
Report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it is 
unequivocal that humans have heated the Earth's climate. The 
best estimate is that human activities, principally the use of 
oil, coal, and gas, is responsible for all of the observed 
global warming since 1900.
    Our understanding about the effects of this human caused 
global warming on specific, individual weather events has 
advanced considerably in the past two decades. For many types 
of weather events, scientists can identify and quantify the 
ways that the human interference in the climate system has 
influenced extreme weather.
    Obviously, as you said, we have always experienced extreme 
weather: Heatwaves, droughts, extreme storms, and the like. But 
extreme weather attribution science attempts to quantify the 
influence of climate change on these specific individual events 
by answering two related questions. First, has global warming 
affected the severity of an event of a particular frequency, 
say, once in 100 years? And second, given the observed 
intensity of an event, has global warming affected how rare it 
is? And I detailed this a little bit more in my written 
testimony.
    Because we have only one planet Earth, to answer these 
questions, scientists must use both climate and statistical 
models to compare representations of weather events in the 
actual ``world that was'' to a ``world that might have been'' 
without climate change. Confidence is increased when multiple 
independent research teams use different approaches and arrive 
at similar conclusions consistent with observed trends.
    Confidence in quantitative attribution statements is very 
high about the human influence on heatwaves, agricultural 
drought, and certain classes of severe storms, including 
hurricanes. Indeed, as the Earth warms, every heatwave that we 
now experience is hotter than it would have been without 
climate change, including those this past summer in the United 
States and throughout the Northern Hemisphere.
    Throughout the lower 48 States, I estimate that any 
heatwave we now experience is 2 and a half to 5 degrees 
Fahrenheit hotter than it would have been. All Americans face 
increased health risks from these hotter heatwaves, 
particularly the very young, the very old, and the very poor in 
our society.
    Extreme storms have been made wetter by climate change as 
well. For instance, of the more than 30 different hurricanes 
have been studied in an attribution context, all analyses 
reveals significant human fingerprint on the total rainfall 
amounts.
    Recent advances in attribution science have gone beyond 
studying the human influence on the meteorology of extreme 
weather events to include the impacts of these events on real 
people. Take Hurricane Harvey and the record flooding it caused 
in the greater Houston area, for example. Global warming made 
the surface waters of the Gulf of Mexico about 2 degrees 
Fahrenheit warmer, increasing the rainfall during Hurricane 
Harvey by about 20 percent. This increased the area flooded by 
about 14 percent, importantly leading to a 32 percent increase 
in the number of flooded homes in Harris County.
    I estimate that global warming is then responsible for 
about a third of the $150 billion in damages estimated by NOAA 
during Hurricane Harvey. These damages were not equally 
distributed across socioeconomic groups. Half of these flooded 
homes were in low income, Hispanic neighborhoods. As about a 
third of Harris County is characterized as low income Hispanic, 
this disproportionate impact represents an environmental 
injustice, in my opinion. We are finding similar injustice to 
the most vulnerable of our society in an analysis of flooding 
in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania from the remnants of 
Hurricane Ida.
    This recent extension of attribution science from weather 
to impacts could be informative in negotiation for the Loss and 
Damages Fund to aid nations particularly vulnerable to climate 
change. This fund was established but not financed at last 
year's meeting of the Conference of Parties, the COP27, part of 
the United Nations framework convention on climate change, and 
will certainly be one of the topics discussed later this month 
at the COP28 in Dubai.
    The human influence on extreme weather and its impacts on 
people is quite clear. I am often asked, why do we do these 
attribution studies? I have three answers to this question. 
First, the public demand for information about how climate 
change affects them personally is very high. People want to 
know.
    Second, increasing the number and variety of individual 
extreme events studied increases our understanding of the 
extent of the human influence on them. And third, and perhaps 
most importantly, our quantitative understanding can aid 
decisionmakers, increasing the resilience of our society to a 
future, hotter world.
    Extreme weather event attribution has shown us that 
dangerous climate change is already happening. How much more 
dangerous we let it become is up to us.
    Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wehner follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    
    Senator Carper. Thanks very much for your testimony.
    You mentioned one planet Earth, I heard that at one point 
in your testimony, you said one planet Earth. That reminds me 
of something, that, not a witness here, but a fellow who came 
from France a couple of years ago and spoke at a joint session 
of Congress, President Macron, he didn't say one planet Earth, 
but he did say, no planet B. He said, there is no planet B. We 
are only going to get one planet; this is it. We have to take 
care of it. I was reminded of his comments when you said that.
    Next, we are going to hear from Dr. Jurado.
    Dr. Jurado, we have already talked a little bit about your 
background. We are delighted that you are here. Please proceed.

 STATEMENT OF JENNIFER JURADO, PH.D., CHIEF RESILIENCE OFFICER 
AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR, RESILIENT ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, BROWARD 
                    COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA

    Ms. Jurado. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 
Capito. Thank you for your leadership in convening this hearing 
today.
    As you shared, I am the Chief Resilience Officer for 
Broward County, the 17th largest county in the U.S. and the 
second most populous in the State of Florida, with nearly 2 
million residents. While we are leaders in many ways in 
adapting to a changing climate, we remain at the forefront of 
significant impacts.
    South Florida is no stranger to extreme weather. To manage 
nearly 60 inches of rainfall we receive annually, we have made 
extensive investments in drainage, flood control, stormwater 
management systems. Even so, as we grapple with the impacts of 
climate change, the limitations of these investments are 
evident and record breaking events are becoming more damaging.
    Most recently, on April 12th, 2023, a thunderstorm 
delivered an unprecedented 26 inches of rainfall in 12 hours, 
impacting much of our community. A 30 minute commute became a 3 
hour navigation of flood waters. Flooded vehicles were 
abandoned en masse. The Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International 
Airport closed for 40 hours. Fuel distribution from Port 
Everglades was disrupted, affecting 12 counties and 5 
international airports. Water levels reached 2 to 3 feet in 
several older neighborhoods, and the city of Fort Lauderdale 
remains without a city hall. Yet this event occurred outside 
the hurricane season, a one in a 1,000 year rainfall event.
    Less than 3 years earlier, Tropical Storm Eta delivered 22 
inches of rainfall in 3 days. The 6 week rainfall total was 
four times the historic average in inland areas, some of which 
remained flooded for 2 weeks.
    In 2017, an 18 inch rainfall event closed Sawgrass Mills, 
the region's largest shopping center, for 3 days. The economic 
loss was $30 million. These three extreme events all in the 
last 6 years account for the highest annual rainfall totals in 
the last 30, exceeding 88 inches in 2020.
    Congress has helped to ensure South Florida remains dry 
during wet weather events. In 1948, Congress authorized the 
Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project, the C&SF. 
It was constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Today, it 
serves 11 million residents, but it is under substantial 
stress, especially due to intense rainfall events and sea level 
rise.
    Given these new extremes, we have advocated for a new look 
at the C&SF system, and thank the Committee for its 
authorization of the comprehensive study of this flood control 
project as part of the 2022 WRDA. Without this study and 
funding for improvements, our local efforts would not be as 
effective.
    Of course, extreme conditions are not limited to flooding. 
This year, Broward County experienced 37 days with a heat index 
over 105 degrees Fahrenheit compared to an average of 5 days 
per year historically. We know that extreme heat 
disproportionately impacts the under-represented residents, 
outdoor workers, health compromised individuals, our youth and 
elders, affecting finances, earnings, and physical health.
    To better prepare for extremes, Broward County has 
incorporated sea level rise and rainfall intensification in 
updated design standards for our drainage systems, seawalls, 
and building elevations. We are developing a countywide 
resilience plan to address both flood and heat risks with 
emphasis on green infrastructure, especially where heat islands 
and vulnerable communities intersect.
    Although I am formally representing Broward County, I would 
like to highlight the efforts of our Southeast Florida Regional 
Climate Change Compact, a collaboration amongst Broward, Palm 
Beach, Miami Dade, and Monroe Counties to address shared 
climate challenges. Jointly, we are developing the priority 
climate action plan supported by the EPA's Climate Pollution 
Reduction Grant program under the Inflation Reduction Act, and 
expect to emphasize energy efficiency improvements in lower 
income housing.
    We have also pursued grant proposals under NOAA's recent 
Coastal Resilience Challenge, and strongly support additional 
funding along these lines.
    Additional Federal collaborations and programs aiding our 
efforts include modeling and monitoring supported by the USGS, 
technical assistance of NOAA, the Corps, USGS in providing 
future conditions guidance for planning, DOE grant support for 
electric vehicle charging infrastructure, the IRA's Direct Pay 
Tax Credits, aiding clean energy and energy efficient 
investments by local governments, FEMA's Brick and Hazard 
Mitigation grant programs, and the totality of the Corps' 
resilience efforts in our region, including shoreline 
protection, Everglades restoration, the C&SF project, Back Bay, 
and navigation studies.
    Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing 
our region. Continued leadership and support for transitions to 
clean energy, alongside aggressive adaptation actions, is 
critical to our economic and community vitality. We look 
forward to continued collaborations with our Federal agency 
partners, and thank you again for the opportunity to speak 
today.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jurado follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
       
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Dr. Jurado. You packed a lot 
into 5 minutes. That is pretty impressive. I could learn from 
you.
    Finally, we are going to hear from Mr. Dabbar.
    You are recognized. Thanks so much for joining us. Please 
proceed.

   STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL DABBAR, FORMER UNDER SECRETARY FOR 
    SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, SENIOR RESEARCH SCHOLAR, 
                      COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

    Mr. Dabbar. Chair Carper, Ranking Member Capito, I am 
honored to be before the Senate again, for the first time 
before this Committee, to discuss climate impact, energy 
innovation, and policy.
    Over my career, I have been engaged on all the various 
aspects of energy, including liberating neutrons at a reactor, 
and addressing solutions for the environment, in particular as 
Under Secretary for Science at the Department of Energy.
    Other than Senator Kelly, I have likely traveled to more 
remote locations to collect climate data. I am one of the few 
people who has been to both the geographic North and South 
Poles, both in government service, and in part both missions 
were around climate data gathering.
    As Under Secretary, we supported gathering data and 
computer simulation of the climate, including the work of Dr. 
Wehner, at many of the national labs I ran including Lawrence 
Berkeley, as well as at NETL and others in support of research 
at universities in everyone's State here at the Committee.
    The world has been successful at reducing different types 
of emissions, due to innovation. And I believe the right 
strategy for the world today is to continue discovery, 
innovation, and deployment of new options. America has been the 
dominant country at investing in discovery, and the lead in 
deployment of new energy technologies, and America is the 
global leader of the pipeline of new prospects.
    I am quite positive about these prospects due to the U.S. 
being the world's leader in public and private energy R&D, 
including at the world's leading universities and national 
labs, the dominant winner of Nobel prizes in the physical 
sciences, and the global leader in venture capital and 
startups.
    I reach this positive conclusion based on a lot of data. 
Most of what we are deploying today was invented within the 
last generation, such as commercially effective lithium-ion 
battery chemistry, wind turbines, innovative drilling 
technologies, and PV solar. As Under Secretary I enjoyed the 
Nobel prize reception in the Senate vestibule for winning the 
Nobel for the lithium-ion chemistry.
    The pipeline of future innovation is very strong. For 
example, Form Energy, which has recently opened a plant in West 
Virginia, has developed an iron-air battery, that literally 
rusts and de-rusts for its chemistry, that produces power for 
25 times longer than lithium-ion, and is 80 percent cheaper. X-
energy, an SMR fission company, is in the process of building 
the next generation of nuclear all over the country. And 
Montana Technology has developed a MOF based HVAC cooling 
technology that uses up to 75 percent less energy and emissions 
than current compressor systems, and no freon. American 
innovation has and will continue to lead the way to solutions.
    One final innovation take away that we should consider is 
that regulators or elected officials mandating winning energy 
technologies is poor technology policy. The innovation 
ecosystem has a track record of inventing new options that were 
not predicted.
    For example, President Bush's famous 2001 energy assessment 
had a long list of predictions of winning energy technologies, 
and most them were significantly wrong. Unpredicted innovations 
in drilling, solar, and batteries came along and remade the 
landscape, including for emissions. It is better policy for the 
EPA and States to allow for technology neutral, innovation open 
strategies, that allow for the competition of discovery.
    We need balance in energy policy. We need to concurrently 
care about increasing energy availability, lowering energy 
costs, lowering emissions, and national security. Due to 
American innovation and a solid all of the above bipartisan 
pro-supply policies over the last generation, we were able to 
deliver on all those concurrently. I have confidence we can do 
that again this generation.
    While we certainly need to understand the drivers of 
climate change, we should focus on solutions also. America is 
the global energy superpower. We went from the largest energy 
importer in the world to the largest energy exporter. We 
invented for us and the world a portfolio of technologies that 
are making an impact on emissions. And there is a pipeline of 
even better ones to come. Policy to allow the ingenuity of 
Americans to harness and allow deployment of their new ideas, 
will be the solution.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Dabbar follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
   
   
    Senator Carper. Great, thank you very much.
    Let me start with Dr. Wehner.
    Your colleague to your right, Dr. Jurado, has told us that 
Fort Lauderdale and surrounding communities in southeast 
Florida have experienced several devastating torrential 
rainfall events over the last couple of years, including 26 
inches of rainfall over 12 hours last April. Twenty-six inches 
over 12 hours. My question, Dr. Wehner, is would you consider 
this torrential rainfall event unusual? Should we expect to see 
more extreme rainfall events as climate change worsens?
    Mr. Wehner. Thank you, Senator.
    Yes, indeed, we talked briefly prior to the hearing about 
this storm. And what she said to me about this astonishing 
amount of rainfall, and most of it falling in a very short 
period of time, is completely consistent with my previous work 
on extreme storms, showing that the rainfall increases at a 
rate greater than humidity increases.
    Now, humidity increases at a certain rate determined, that 
we know, very rigorously from first principles. But rainfall 
seems to be supercharged from climate change.
    So what I would interpret is that this storm has been made 
more violent and hence more efficient at increasing this 
available moisture. And we would expect yet more of that 
throughout the country, not just in Florida, actually 
throughout the world.
    Senator Carper. How about heat waves? Absent climate 
change, would we be experiencing events such as the Pacific 
Northwest 2021 heatwave, or this past summer's heatwave in the 
U.S.?
    Mr. Wehner. It is interesting that you would highlight the 
2021 heatwave in the Pacific Northwest. I consider this one a 
teachable moment for climate scientists. If you had asked me 
before that event when it would be 120 degrees in Canada, I 
would have said not for a long time.
    Senator Carper. Would you have said when hell freezes over?
    Mr. Wehner. No, I would have said about 2060.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. That is when it is scheduled to freeze 
over.
    Mr. Wehner. So that was a surprise to us. This will be an 
event that is probably the most stunning extreme weather event 
of all time. Currently, there are at least 20 different papers 
on an event that happened just over a year ago. I have three 
myself, three of those 20 are mine.
    We are learning a lot. And it is kind of scary, because it 
was scary beforehand, and clearly this event was unprecedented, 
caused a lot of people to die. How many more died because of 
climate change is not something I know.
    But I would say that it was at least 2 degrees warmer from 
climate change, possibly 4, not much more than that. That 
doesn't sound like a lot. But when you look at the effect of 
high temperatures on mortality, a small change from 110 degrees 
to 114 degrees actually has a large effect on the number of 
people that die. So that is important.
    Senator Carper. One last question of you, Dr. Wehner, then 
we will turn it over to Senator Capito.
    We have been joined by two of our colleagues; welcome, 
gentlemen.
    Dr. Wehner, as communities across our Nation experience 
increasingly extreme weather events, resiliency, and adaptation 
are front of mind for State and local officials, in Delaware 
and West Virginia and every State that is represented here. Our 
infrastructure, our roads, our bridges, our pipes, our wires, 
are essential to our daily lives. They have to be able to 
withstand more frequent and severe weather events.
    My question is, would you please share an example of how 
attribution science can inform the design and engineering of 
infrastructure projects to better manage the impacts of these 
extreme weather events when they occur?
    Mr. Wehner. Yes, Senator, I can. I had a project with the 
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which I believe is 
the first time that a city actually funded research at a 
national laboratory. The city of San Francisco is charged with 
rebuilding the wastewater management, the sewers. And they are 
charged with considering climate change in this. They had 
people telling them about sea level rise.
    They asked me about extreme precipitation. So what we did 
is we asked them to give us a dozen storms since the satellite 
era that were impactful, and we would take a look at them. We 
were able to analyze six of those. The atmospheric river storms 
that had the so called bomb cyclone associated with them 
responded in a way that again I was surprised about twice the 
expected rate. and that was used by their consultants to modify 
their IDF curves.
    Senator Carper. What are IDF curves?
    Mr. Wehner. Intensity Duration and Frequency. It is a 
design tool that engineers use. And that is the extent of my 
knowledge.
    I will quote what Susan Leal said, who was the former 
director of the Public Utilities Commission, and now one of 
their consultants. She said, ``There ain't no pipe big 
enough.'' That has sent the engineers and designers back to the 
drawing room, saying, how are we going to accommodate these 
storms, in a world that might be considerably warmer.
    Senator Carper. I am going to ask you to hold it right 
there.
    Dr. Jurado, I am going to come back to my next round to ask 
another question, and ask you to follow up on what he has 
already said.
    But now, Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Dabbar, I love this one term that you used in your 
statement, ``technology neutral, innovation open.'' I think we 
need to focus on solutions. Everybody has talked about it.
    As one of the things we have seen in the data, that 
mortality from natural disasters is significantly lower in more 
technologically advanced societies with access to energy and 
resilient infrastructure. Recent reports by reliability experts 
show that we are projected to go, we as a Nation, are projected 
to go backward on our grid reliability this decade. And many 
point to some regulations that will lead to early power plant 
retirements. We also see the rise of the electric economy that 
is being moved forward rather rapidly.
    Everybody has mentioned that the most vulnerable are those 
that are in the lower economic echelon of our society. That is 
troublesome, obviously, for me.
    How will extreme weather impact energy demand, and how do 
you think grid reliability will impact our vulnerability in 
these events?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Senator. I agree with your point that 
greater reliability has actually been decreasing. I think the 
most stark example that most people don't know about is that 
there have actually been more power plant shutdowns in many 
areas of the country. New England is one, New York is another, 
Texas is another, it is actually all over.
    More power plants are being decommissioned, for various 
reasons, than are being built. The ones that are getting built 
have a lower capacity factor, so the number of megawatt hours 
is way lower.
    So I think we should be concerned about that. That gets to 
regulatory processes and siting, whether it is State or 
Federal. In the kind of world that we are trying to electrify, 
we are actually de-electrifying. I think that is a long and 
complicated process that needs to be streamlined.
    Senator Capito. OK, thank you.
    We have had near term emission reductions, but we are still 
and will continue, I think everybody is in agreement here, 
experience climate change impacts until globally our greenhouse 
gases are reduced. But it may continue then. There is stuff we 
don't know, that we don't know into our future.
    How do we create economic conditions for innovative 
solutions, for technology neutral innovation opened, that would 
increase our resilience and our disaster readiness? At the 
Department of Energy you probably saw this, you probably see 
this as well, certainly overseeing the national labs. Dr. 
Wehner is at a national lab.
    Are there near term technologies that can be deployed to 
improve our adaptation strategies?
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Senator. As I mentioned, we don't know, we 
cannot clearly see which technologies are going to be best. So 
having regulatory processes or mandates from States and so on 
that allow for those new things, instead of mandating, we are 
only going to have this type of technology, we are only going 
to have EVs, we are only going to have nuclear, we are only 
going to have wind, whatever it is, is poor technology policy. 
We should be allowing all of those to be neutrally supported, 
whether it is through EPA or State approvals or through 
funding. Because if you overly fund one area, you are going to 
get more of that. Being more neutral across that for regulatory 
and funding purposes is better technology policy.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    In terms of where we are headed, I thought it was 
interesting in your statement you mentioned that President Bush 
in 2001 was trying to predict, his commission was trying to 
predict over 20 years where we are going to go. How do you see 
what accelerated now? I feel like we are on a much more 
accelerated path through some of the bills that we have passed. 
How do you see that developing? Are we the global leader here, 
or are there other technologies around the globe that we are 
looking at?
    Mr. Dabbar. America by far leads the world in energy 
discovery. Manufacturing is a different topic. But when it 
comes to energy discovery, America rules the roost on many 
different metrics.
    So there are many things; we are accelerating, Senator. 
There is a reason why that process has improved significantly. 
But you can look at California, or you can look at what is 
going on in Massachusetts, fusion is much more likely than it 
used to be for various reasons. And many others.
    So I think the acceleration of discovery has dramatically 
improved. We are in a much better space on that front.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to my first question, when 
I talked about electricity reliability. I want to submit a 
letter, it is to Administrator Regan from the Chairman of the 
West Virginia Public Service Commission and the Chairman of the 
Delaware Public Service Commission, that is cautioning what the 
Administration is doing on the Clean Power Plan to look at how 
it will impact our States.
    Senator Carper. Without objection.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    [The referenced information follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
    
    
    Senator Carper. I was reminded in that exchange that just 
took place that we can be proud as Americans that we are 
leading the pack in terms of addressing climate change. There 
is a statement, I don't know if it is in the Bible or what, to 
whom much is given, much is expected. We are a Nation richly 
blessed, as you know. And we are, frankly, a leader in putting 
emissions in the air in our planet that are actually leading to 
climate change and global warming.
    So, given that we helped create this problem we have maybe 
an oversized obligation into addressing it. I think we are. I 
think we are, we are doing good work in this panel, we are 
doing good work with this Administration, and hopefully with 
the next Administration that comes, much will be put around the 
country. Thank you.
    OK, we have been joined by Senator Markey. Senator Markey 
has been working on these things for a long time, and we are 
delighted that has joined us, along with Senator Boozman and 
Senator Padilla.
    Senator Markey.
    Senator Markey. Thank you so much.
    So we are the first generation to suffer from climate 
change, but the last generation which can do anything about it. 
That is our challenge. In answer to Senator Capito, in terms of 
innovation, up in Massachusetts we have a center, it is called 
Green Town, there are 300 companies up there all doing, like 
MIT, Harvard, Tufts related research. One of the companies is 
called Form Energy, which is actually creating a manufacturing 
plant down in West Virginia for 800 jobs.
    Senator Capito. Mr. Dabbar talked about that in his 
opening.
    Senator Markey. Great. That is a perfect partnership 
between the innovation community up in Massachusetts, the 
manufacturing capacity in West Virginia, and there are many 
more companies up there who are looking at West Virginia, for 
example, for where they will be doing the manufacturing to 
accelerate this.
    By the way, their breakthrough is, for batteries, it is not 
lithium-ion, it is iron, I-R-O-N, which is going to be the 
battery, the third most common element in the world. So that is 
a big breakthrough in terms of battery technology.
    There is just so much that is happening, because of the 
IRA, the tax benefits that flow, and then the State of West 
Virginia or other States then have initial benefits to 
manufacture there. So I think it is a good team effort to 
accelerate this transformation.
    And just like the many things historically, this year alone 
we have seen severe flooding and deadly heatwaves. And we need 
to be able to do something about it.
    Dr. Jurado, you mentioned in your testimony that Melrose 
Park, a predominantly Black neighborhood in Broward County, was 
disproportionately affected by flooding in April. Dr. Jurado, 
does effectively managing climate fueled disasters, including 
flood management, mean prioritizing investment in 
infrastructure in neighborhoods that have suffered from chronic 
disinvestment for decades, environmental justice communities 
like Melrose Park? Would they be benefited?
    Ms. Jurado. Yes, Senator, absolutely. We are conducting 
comprehensive modeling, overlaying vulnerability and disease, 
really focusing on the combined impacts and exposures with 
flood risks, damages, heat exposures, economic conditions, 
economic burden, all of those things being overlaid. We are 
desperately concerned about uninsured losses. We saw with the 
April event many residents lost their homes in addition to 
their vehicles. And in the circumstance of Melrose Park, this 
is a community that is not in a flood zone and has been hit 
twice in the last 6 years with this level of flood impacts.
    So it is bringing to light these very dramatic exposures, 
and the need to bring all of our community into the solutions 
to support their well being.
    Senator Markey. Thank you.
    And we know it is not a coincidence that disproportionately 
Black, Brown, and low income communities are more likely to 
struggle with extreme weather events fueled by climate change. 
Dr. Wehner, in your research, do disasters fueled by climate 
change hit some neighborhoods harder than others? And does that 
drive increasing inequality resulting from climate injustices?
    Mr. Wehner. Yes, it certainly does. But I would caution 
that every event, every disaster is different, and affected 
differently. I think the important point is that the very poor 
are indeed the most vulnerable, because they are the least able 
to recover from these kinds of events. So that is pretty 
obvious.
    Senator Markey. Yes, it is obvious. And do you agree with 
the research that says that extreme weather events are up from 
three times per year in the United States in the 1980s to 20 
per year now in the 2020s? Do you agree with that?
    Mr. Wehner. I might have written that.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Markey. Please expand. Because obviously that is a 
sevenfold increase in the number of extreme weather events in 
the United States over the last 40 years. We know it hits poor 
people disproportionately, although it hits all people who are 
impacted.
    Mr. Wehner. Senator Capito made a point that climate change 
didn't cause these events. I think that is something I 
completely agree with. We borrow from epidemiology techniques 
to sort of understand how climate change has affected these 
events. Some events might be less frequent, blizzards, for 
instance, in a warmer world, they become rainstorms.
    But certainly for heatwaves and violent rainstorms, like 
hurricanes or this one that hit Fort Lauderdale, are more 
frequent.
    Senator Markey. Let me ask another way. NOAA data shows 
that disasters that cause more than $1 billion in damage rose 
from three per year in the 1980s to more than 20 a year in the 
2020s. Do you agree with that?
    Mr. Wehner. Yes, absolutely.
    Senator Markey. Dr. Wehner, does climate attribution 
science show that fossil fuel pollution is underpinning this 
rapid increase in devastating, expensive disasters?
    Mr. Wehner. I would agree with that, too.
    Senator Markey. OK. I think that is the important factor, 
it has gone from three to 20, it is not all attributable to one 
thing, but from your research, it is the underpinning of the 
rapid increase, is that correct?
    Mr. Wehner. Yes, it is.
    Senator Markey. Yes. And then we know that poor people are 
going to be ultimately disproportionately negatively impacted.
    Thank you so much, sir.
    Senator Carper. Senator Padilla, welcome. You are on. 
Thanks.
    Senator Whitehouse, nice to see you. Thanks for joining us.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I know I am speaking a little bit to the choir here, but 
for the record, according to the Fourth National Climate 
Assessment, which is a report from a congressionally mandated 
program, climate attribution studies have indicated that 
throughout the western United States human induced climate 
change is substantially reducing winter and spring snow pack, 
which is then increasing the likelihood of chronic drought.
    The report also indicates that under no change to water 
management practices, several important western U.S. snow pack 
reservoirs, including in Sierra Nevada, California, will 
effectively disappear by the end of this century. Dr. Wehner, 
as a contributor to the assessment, can you walk us through the 
impact of snow pack loss for California and other western 
States?
    Mr. Wehner. Yes, Senator, I can. In fact, our research was 
initially performed by Dr. Alan Rhoades at Berkeley Lab when he 
was a graduate student.
    In that we are basically, if we continue on a business as 
usual or a no policy scenario of emissions, by the end of the 
century the snow pack in the Sierra would be effectively gone, 
as it would also in the Wasatch Mountains, which is an 
important source of water for Utah and Salt Lake City.
    So in California and throughout the West, we rely on the 
snow pack as a temporary reservoir to supply water for both 
agricultural needs and for our urban requirements. And that 
infrastructure was built over the past century and was assuming 
that the snow would melt on a schedule that was in the past. 
And that has changed. There are studies that show that the snow 
melt has begun earlier. As that continues, it will overwhelm 
our ability to manage water, so we will run out in the latter 
parts of, before it starts snowing again or raining again.
    Senator Padilla. Yes, we are just compounding the effect. 
This last winter was an anomaly, so we have less precipitation 
earlier, quicker runoff that leads to very difficult scenarios 
later in the summer and early fall each and every year, with a 
growing population and a growing economy. So just laying that 
out for my colleagues. We need to do different going forward, 
and we need both policy and investments building on what we 
have done with the Inflation Reduction Act, building on what we 
have done with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    Now, speaking of precipitation, I do want to also 
acknowledge the historic summer events that took place this 
last winter that illustrated our Nation's vulnerability to 
heavy precipitation and flooding, when we get the little rain 
that we do get too much too quickly. Atmospheric river 
rainstorms are responsible for nearly 85 percent of flooding on 
the West Coast, which threatens our vital infrastructure and 
vulnerable communities. In California specifically, we had nine 
successive atmospheric rivers in January, which caused 
flooding, power outrages and mudslides resulting in an 
estimated $4.6 billion worth of damages.
    I lay that out because it is important to get the data to 
better understand what we are grappling with here, so we can 
inform how we adapt and how we respond. So I was actually glad 
to see the President's supplemental request funding for NOAA's 
acquisition of two hurricane hunter aircraft replacements, 
which is something that both Senator Graham and I, both members 
of the Committee, pushed hard on.
    These plans can help provide real time data from inside 
atmospheric rivers to increase vital decisionmaking which is 
important to protect life and property.
    Dr. Wehner, back to you, in your testimony you mentioned 
that climate attribution research in heatwaves and hurricanes 
is more advanced. Can you talk more about the need for research 
and development around atmospheric river events?
    Mr. Wehner. Indeed, the literature on hurricanes is long 
and detailed. Although we don't know everything, obviously, 
about hurricanes. Atmospheric rivers weren't even named such 
until about 20 years ago. And so it is a much younger field of 
research, and there is much more to be done.
    In fact, what you mentioned about sending airplanes out 
into these storms has only just begun. But it is really 
critical to get that kind of data, so we understand why some of 
these disturbing findings that we have found about atmospheric 
rivers, particularly the ones that are associated with the so 
called bomb cyclones, have such a sensitive response, large 
response in their precipitation amounts from climate change.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you.
    I know my time is up. I will just end with this. Having 
been briefed post these atmospheric river events earlier this 
year, a lot of the impact on the ground to communities, 
particularly vulnerable communities, were a result of the 
atmospheric river storms not behaving as they were initially 
predicted, again, because of the lack of research historically 
when it comes to atmospheric rivers.
    So the quicker and better we can understand how they are 
more likely to behave, whether they just stay stationary over a 
certain geographic area or move further north, south, east, 
west depending on greater climate factors, the more we can 
prepare to protect life and property on the ground.
    I appreciate all your research and testimony here today.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Capito [presiding.] Senator Whitehouse.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
    Dr. Jurado, I am a Senator from Rhode Island, a fellow 
ocean State. So I think I will focus my questions on you. I 
gather you are seeing continuing and increasing tidal flooding, 
sometimes referred to as sunny day flooding that has nothing to 
do with a rainstorm, but has to do with sea level rise and 
tidal action?
    Ms. Jurado. Yes, Senator, absolutely. I think that these 
events were first observed with increased regularity about 10 
years ago. Then we began to see longer fall tidal flooding. 
Now, the flooding also occurs into the spring months.
    So you can really set your clock by the expansiveness and 
frequency of these events. They are particularly compounding 
flood conditions, because when it rains and we are having this 
high tide flooding, none of our flat landscape can drain. We 
actually find tidal flooding contributing to inland flooding 
miles inside the county, because of the interconnectedness of 
these systems.
    Senator Whitehouse. A head up to my next question, well 
done. So if you are nowhere near the coast in Rhode Island, but 
you are potentially in a riparian zone, near a river that is 
going by, or a canal that is going by, you could well be 
flooded with fresh water because of the sea level rise creating 
hydraulic back pressure on the escape of that fresh water from 
Florida's land surfaces?
    Ms. Jurado. That is exactly the condition. In fact, some of 
our most western communities, we see tidal signals in the canal 
network that are 15 miles inland. And so that increase in water 
level that carries through the entire network is not 
constrained to the coast by any means. But clearly the most 
severe impacts are happening in the coastal area. But that can 
extend 6 miles inland.
    And it is not only affecting what happens with surface 
water flooding, but we also find a rise in the groundwater 
table that is extending 6 miles inland as well. And that 
affects all of the drainage infrastructure associated with site 
development, roadways, transportation projects as a whole.
    Senator Whitehouse. Along with the rise in the groundwater 
from effectively hydraulic sea level rise pressure, are you 
also seeing that salt water is intruding through the limestone 
into what previously were freshwater wells and water sources 
for homes and businesses?
    Ms. Jurado. That too is absolutely the case. We have 
estimated that we have lost about 30 percent of the coastal 
wells, or will, to salt water intrusion by about the year 2050, 
2060. We partnered with Palm Beach County to develop a very 
large surface water reservoir as an alternative water supply, 
holding 35 million gallons of water to help compensate for what 
is happening with salt water intrusion. It is very much driving 
the practices as we look at long term water supply investments, 
and impacts on our wastewater collection system as well. 
Because that water is driving into those connections.
    Senator Whitehouse. And is the warming of the ocean 
offshore, including measured up to literally Jacuzzi 
recommended temperatures, causing an effect on the strength of 
storms that hit Florida, particularly hurricane level storms 
that come from the ocean?
    Ms. Jurado. I believe the science is well documented that 
the warming is causing an intensification of these systems that 
contributes to additional rainfall that indeed, these storms 
move more slowly, they carry more rain, they dump more water on 
communities. So those impacts are very real, in addition to the 
environmental consequences for the reefs, which are suffering 
under 100+ temperatures.
    I think we are very much interested in looking at, in 
addition, how much of this additional warming is going to drive 
sea level in the short term and what types of measures can we 
take to really work to constrain the upper limit on sea level 
rise in addition to just talking about temperature, what can we 
do to really drive a cap on how much we're willing to 
accommodate in additional rise in sea level and as it impacts 
our infrastructure.
    Senator Whitehouse. How is the insurance industry 
responding to all these new risks?
    Ms. Jurado. Certainly we have seen sizable adjustments in 
what is happening with flood insurance policies. And then we 
have our windstorm policies on top of that. I shared at a 
roundtable at the White House a couple of weeks ago while the 
national average on homeowner's policies is about $1,400, most 
of the people I know in Florida are paying about $8,000 a year 
currently. That is just windstorm, not counting flood.
    Senator Whitehouse. And from what I understand, nearly a 
dozen local insurance companies have gone bankrupt facing 
claims, others have stopped renewing policies in order to avoid 
future risk. National companies are walking away entirely from 
Florida markets. And there is a resulting flood, if you wish, 
to a flight to your State backed insurance company. How much of 
a burden do you think your State backed Citizens Property 
Insurance Company will end up carrying?
    Ms. Jurado. It is hard to say. But currently, the Citizens 
program is trying to depopulate, and I know that many are 
receiving notices that they are required to consider these 
alternative policies. And one I read about recently was a 450 
percent increase in the annual premium to move to a private 
holder.
    So the options are significantly reduced. The costs are 
escalating beyond the level of affordability. And I think that 
it is one of the most treacherous conditions affecting home 
ownership. And the ability to live in South Florida, where we 
need people to be able to work and prosper, they can't even 
afford an annual insurance premium.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much.
    I have gone over my time. I appreciate the indulgence of my 
colleagues.
    I would only add that when I last checked, Citizens 
Property Insurance had reserves of $4 billion, Idalia so far is 
over $10 billion, Hurricane Ian was over $110 billion. So there 
is an enormous gap there.
    Senator Carper [presiding]. There certainly is. Thank you, 
Sheldon.
    Senator Merkley, good to see you. Welcome. Delighted you 
have joined us.
    Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
    I want to continue the impact on insurance. I picture 
middle class families who have a mortgage, and their mortgage 
generally says, you must maintain homeowner insurance. And so 
the family gets a notice saying, sorry, we are canceling your 
homeowner insurance. And the family has to go out and find 
separate homeowner insurance, otherwise the mortgage company 
will put the homeowner insurance on a very, very expensive 
policy. But it becomes increasingly hard to find that.
    So are middle class families who are really in the middle 
of a mortgage, they are not buying a new house, if you will, 
finding that they are in trouble in terms of securing the 
insurance they need to maintain their mortgage in good 
standing?
    Ms. Jurado. Thank you, Senator.
    I think the circumstance is one of, again, affordability. 
There is a lot of conversation of people simply needing to move 
out of the area because they can't afford the insurance options 
that allow them to afford their mortgage payment that allow 
them to stay in their home. Most recently, as well, the 
Citizens insurance provider has also required flood insurance 
coupled with the hurricane coverage.
    So again, it is another cost that somebody who was able to 
barely afford a mortgage at the time, at which they secured it 
may be just in a situation of having to let go. We do see many 
individuals leaving the State as a result.
    Senator Merkley. We do see in Oregon a lot of families 
affected by flood insurance issues. But I really want to focus, 
when you think about Oregon and climate chaos, you might hear 
people talk about the pine beetle infestation, you might hear 
them talk about the decreasing snow pack in the Cascades, which 
has dropped by an average of 240 inches over 90 years, so 
basically half the snow pack is gone. You might hear them talk 
about ocean acidification affecting the sea life off our coast. 
We have one of the richest grounds in the combination of the 
Pacific upwelling, the California current.
    But the thing that really is on people's minds are fires. 
We have seen such a growth in forest fires. In 2020, we had 
three simultaneous fires in three major watersheds. We had the 
Santiam Canyon fire, the Almeda Fire, the South Oberchain, and 
Echo Mountain, more than three. Essentially, we lost 4,000 
homes. I traveled 600 miles up and down the State, never got 
out of the smoke. We had massive collapse of communities 
turning up at the fairgrounds in refugee status. Seeing the 
burnt remains of towns, some 12 different towns were either 
obliterated or deeply damaged by those fires.
    I think maybe this is more for you, Dr. Wehner. People used 
to talk about 100 year events, they used to talk about 1,000 
year events. I think you framed in your testimony that things 
that occurred every 1,500 years have become once in a century 
events. Things that are very rare are happening with increasing 
frequency.
    You didn't mention in your testimony wildfires as a 
category of extreme weather which can be attributed with 
reasonable certainty. What can climate attribution science tell 
us about individual wildfires?
    Mr. Wehner. It can tell us quite a bit, Senator. I was the 
chapter lead author on chapter eight of the Fourth National 
Climate Assessment, Volume One, and fires was part of that 
chapter. That was back in 2017, and we saw a clear trend, 
particularly in Washington, Oregon, and California, of large 
wildfires, an increasing trend. That of course is much worse 
since 2017, there have been a lot of major fires in all those 
States.
    In anticipation of your question, I did do a little more 
research last night, trying to find specific things to Oregon. 
I don't have one. I have some more general statements, though. 
The leaders in this actually turned out to be Environment 
Canada and Victoria. They of course studied Canadian fires. But 
that is not all that different than Oregon.
    They found that the fire weather metrics that led to that 
big fire in 2018 in British Columbia were made 2 to 4 times 
more likely, and more importantly, that the area of the fire 
was increased by a factor of 7 to 11. So it became a record 
kind of fire.
    Senator Merkley. The fire was 7 to 11 times more 
destructive?
    Mr. Wehner. The area burned was 7 times larger, at least.
    Another study said that nearly all the observed increase of 
the burned area in California over the past half-century is 
attributable to anthropogenic climate change. So I am sure this 
is true in Oregon as well.
    Fire is very difficult, and perhaps one of the more 
challenging areas for event attribution, because there are, as 
all these kinds of extreme events, multiple causes. Wind is an 
instigator, and one of the things that my research and some 
others have found is that there is little trend in extreme 
wind. And so this increase in fire weather conditions is almost 
entirely due to higher temperatures drawing out the fuel of the 
forest, so that the fire seasons are longer. This is also 
reflected in the budgets of firefighters, wildfire fighters. 
They have to pay more because they are out there longer.
    Senator Merkley. We used to, if you asked an Oregonian 20 
years ago, when to come to Oregon, they would be like, oh, 
well, July, August, into early September are our golden time. 
Now if you ask Oregonians, they will kind of pause and go, you 
know, we have had a lot of smoke in July and August and 
September. It is just a huge change. We have furniture stores 
that can't sell their inventory because of smoke damage, we 
have wine grapes that have been contaminated by smoke damage, 
we have people in the hospital with asthma aggravated by smoke, 
we have communities trying to set up clean air sectors.
    In other words, it is so palpable, the change within a few 
decades is so real. If you are trying to hike the Pacific Crest 
Trail, there were hikers that used to come through in August, 
you cannot come through. There are so many fires on the Pacific 
Crest Trail or near it, threatening it. My wife and I have had 
to change our plans a number of times for those hikes. You 
don't want to be in the middle of wilderness with no cell phone 
connection or knowledge of fires erupting and be on a very 
remote trail. It is so many dimensions of our life in Oregon 
that have been affected. The Ashland Shakespeare Festival, huge 
challenge with cancellations due to air smoke quality.
    So it is very important for us to be able to capture this. 
We have seen the fire season grow longer. That one set of fires 
on Labor Day, 2020 burned over a million acres, and 4,000 
homes. A dozen communities were affected. It sent a very 
powerful messages to people across the country. They remember 
Paradise, California.
    Well, the devastation was greater in Oregon, but it was 
kind of like, oh, well, now it is not new, devastating fires 
that burn a community to the ground, and you see cast iron 
bathtubs and steel staircases still standing in beds of ashes 
and molybdenum wheels, where they melted and ran across the 
ground, creating strange sculptures. It is an architecture that 
we have just never witnessed before, or a scene we have never 
witnessed.
    So I think understanding this continued impact is 
incredibly important. Thank you all for bringing your insights 
to bear on the evolution and dynamics in many dimensions, 
certainly floods, droughts, and fires.
    Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Thanks for those very thoughtful questions.
    We are going to start a second round. You are both welcome 
to stick around if you can, and have another shot.
    I want to go back to Dr. Jurado. We had a question earlier, 
and I said I was going to ask you to pick it up. I think the 
question I asked was of Dr. Wehner, I asked him if he would 
give us an example or two of how attribution science can inform 
the design and engineering of infrastructure projects to better 
manage the impacts of these extreme events when they occur. I 
just want to ask, Dr. Jurado, are you the Chief Resilience 
Officer for Broward County?
    Ms. Jurado. Correct.
    Senator Carper. How important is it to have scientific 
information about the size of events that we may be faced with 
next? How important is that? And how can results of attribution 
studies inform local infrastructure planning and 
decisionmaking?
    Ms. Jurado. Thank you.
    It is an absolute criticality. One of the greatest 
challenges that we faced in South Florida was trying to account 
for rainfall intensification. We knew it was taking place. We 
have to be able to accommodate this additional volume of 
rainfall. If a one in 100 year event used to deliver 13 inches, 
but now it delivers 15 or 18, it alters the whole of 
infrastructure across the community, not just how we plan 
locally, but the integration with all of the State funded and 
federally funded projects as well.
    So we need to have harmonization across infrastructure, and 
we need to know with certainty, at a decent level of certainty, 
what is the percent change that we should be accommodating in 
our infrastructure for this intensification. So we worked very 
deliberately with our Federal agency partners to account for 
initially a 13 percent increase in rainfall, and ultimately 
made that adjustment to 20 percent.
    So this 20 percent intensification for rainfall events is 
now embedded in the design standards that we have for drainage 
infrastructure, surface water management infrastructure, we are 
ensuring that the improvements to the C&SF project also account 
for this rainfall intensification. It drives our flood 
elevations.
    So absolutely, we needed to be able to embed this in the 
various types of design infrastructure, and then be able to 
account for how it influences change in groundwater table, plus 
the flood elevation, plus the conveyance and storage needs. 
Very critical.
    And having that information allows us to not only design 
appropriately but also consider to the extent to which our 
mitigation activities in terms of reducing emissions and 
decreasing the intensity of these events can work to make a 
longer term difference over the course of the next several 
decades, how much of that can we mitigate through our missions 
improvements.
    Senator Carper. Thanks for that.
    I am going to come back to Dr. Wehner for another question, 
one dealing with beliefs and attitudes.
    In fact, I will hold off on that. We have been joined by 
one of the two retired Navy captains who serves in the U.S. 
Senate these days, and a former astronaut, a guy who has done 
all kinds of things in life, a guy who married up, as I did, 
Mark Kelly.
    Mark, thank you.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clearly married up, 
no doubt about that.
    Thank you, everybody, for being here today. I apologize for 
running a little late.
    Every summer in Arizona, it is hot. We know that. But this 
year, the heatwave hit a whole new level. In the month of July, 
Phoenix had a 31 day streak where the average temperature was 
above 110 degrees Fahrenheit, 31 days in a row. And in total, 
we had in Phoenix 55 days above 110 this summer. And that is 
unprecedented.
    The one stat that I saw describing this summer's heat 
stands out above the rest. I was just looking at a plot, this 
is a couple months ago, this is actually a global plot on 
worldwide temperature. And when you look at the summer of 2023, 
it kind of stands out. Data from the Copernicus Climate Change 
Service found that the average global temperature, which is 
what I am talking about, when I looked at this, it was a 3 
sigma variation, three standard deviations away from the norm. 
To me, as somebody who used to do a lot of stuff with data as a 
test pilot, it could be a bad data point. Could be.
    But you know, temperature is a pretty easy thing to 
measure. So in my view, and in my mind, it is either bad data, 
which it is not, or something very unusual has happened. That 
same data shows that in July and August of this year, we were 
1.5 degrees Centigrade warmer than pre-industrial levels.
    Dr. Wehner, when we see data like this, how easy or 
difficult is it to attribute all or even part of this to a 
change in the climate? When we see data increases like the 
change in summer temperatures from last year to this one, it is 
sometimes hard to communicate why this is such a big deal.
    So how does climate attribution shape the ways that we talk 
about the impact of climate change on data? If you can address 
those.
    Mr. Wehner. Thank you, Senator.
    Yes, this year is a particularly unusual one. Arizona 
wasn't the only place that had a heatwave. At the same time we 
had heatwaves in the United States, we had heatwaves in Europe 
and China simultaneously. So the whole northern hemisphere was 
hot. That is part of the reason why the global mean is a 3 
sigma event.
    Now, some of that is going to be an El Nino effect, we can 
quantify that. But not nearly all of it. Some part of it is 
quite clearly the anthropogenic effect, the human caused effect 
from our consumption of fossil fuels and our changes to the 
composition of the atmosphere.
    Senator Kelly. Dr. Wehner, could I ask you, if you go back 
decades or over the last 100 years, has there been another 3 
sigma event in temperature?
    Mr. Wehner. Not that I am aware of. But my knowledge isn't 
complete on that.
    So it is an unusual event. When I was coaching ice hockey, 
I would call this, in the words of the great basketball coach 
John Wooten, a teachable moment. This is a teachable moment for 
many of us, including climate scientists, so that we can better 
understand that. And attribution science is part of the key to 
understanding how all these different factors led to this 3 
sigma event.
    Senator Kelly. So part of it could be El Nino?
    Mr. Wehner. Some of it certainly is. Some of it could be 
natural.
    Senator Kelly. We have had El Ninos in the past.
    Mr. Wehner. Of course.
    Senator Kelly. What is the cycle on an El Nino?
    Mr. Wehner. It is every 4 to 7 years. But 1988 was another 
huge El Nino year, and then years afterwards were cooler. I had 
to write papers afterwards saying, the title of the paper was, 
``Is the Climate Warming or Cooling?'' It is because people 
were saying, well, climate change stopped. That is wrong, of 
course, you can't just start your analysis in the hottest time 
of the year, or hottest data point.
    Senator Kelly. Yes, the CO2, methane, carbon 
monoxide just didn't vanish from the atmosphere.
    Mr. Wehner. No. So the longer the data records, the more 
informative it is.
    Senator Kelly. And do you expect future 3 sigma events to 
occur more frequently?
    Mr. Wehner. That I cannot say. I don't think we understand 
changes in variability nearly as well as we do changes in the 
average. But I certainly can tell you that this summer event 
throughout the world was unusual. But it will be the norm in a 
very short period of time.
    Senator Kelly. And do you feel that the messaging in the 
United States and across the planet on this issue and this 3 
sigma event is sufficient, or do you feel like maybe media and 
others are falling short?
    Mr. Wehner. I am not sure how to answer that question. To 
me, the data always speaks for itself. But I am not an expert 
on media relations. So I think I will defer on that question, 
if you don't mind.
    Senator Kelly. When I saw the data, I was reading an 
article and just saw the plot. My reaction was wow, that is 
different.
    Mr. Wehner. One of the things my colleagues and I are 
working on is would this temperature have been impossible 
without climate change, would this summer have been impossible 
without climate change. Give me a few more months and we will 
get back to you on that.
    Senator Kelly. Yes, please, let me know. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    Did you say that you were an ice hockey coach?
    Mr. Wehner. Yes. I coached teenagers. It was fun.
    Senator Carper. Do you still do it?
    Mr. Wehner. Not any longer. I can't skate any more, 
unfortunately.
    Senator Carper. Who do you think was maybe the greatest 
hockey player who ever played the sport?
    Mr. Wehner. Wayne Gretsky.
    Senator Carper. Wayne Gretsky was once asked, Mr. Gretsky, 
why are you the greatest hockey player on the planet? He 
replied, as you probably recall, he said, I go where the puck 
will be, not where the puck is. I go where the puck will be, 
not where the puck is. That is a little bit like attribution 
science, you are going to help figure out where the puck is 
going to be to be able to address this. It works pretty well.
    I was just coming back to Dr. Wehner for some follow up 
questions. We may be joined by another colleague or two. I 
think every other committee in the Senate is meeting almost at 
the same time. We have a big bipartisan forum going on right 
now on artificial intelligence. This is our hearing here today, 
so we have some people who would like to be here and just can't 
be here. But they are very much interested. Some are watching, 
this is being televised live, and some are watching it along 
with their staffs. So the impact you are having is probably far 
greater than you might imagine. It is really important.
    I want to finish my question of you, and then I am going to 
tell a story and then maybe wrap it up. I was saying earlier, 
when we were joined by one of our colleagues, I said, in a 
recent poll on attitudes toward climate change, 55 percent of 
Americans said they had not personally felt the effects of 
climate change. During the July heatwave that Senator Kelly and 
others have alluded to, however, two-thirds of the U.S. 
population were under heat alerts and other climate driven 
events from wildfires to hurricanes. It harmed a lot of folks.
    It is worth noting that only 5 percent of TV news coverage 
of the heatwave even mentioned climate change. Didn't even 
mention climate change. So I think attribution science provides 
an opportunity to help Americans understand that what they are 
experiencing is actually the effect of climate change, it is 
not their imagination, it is not something that may or not be 
happening, it is actually explainable.
    As you explained in your testimony, Dr. Wehner, attribution 
studies detail the effects of climate change on extreme weather 
events. What are some specific ways that we can use this 
information to help the public better understand how climate 
change impacts their daily lives?
    Joe Biden, he and I have a lot of sayings that we swap back 
and forth. We rode the trains together to DC for years. I think 
I know every one of his, and he knows all of mine. One of my 
favorite Biden words is ``splainer,'' as in explainer. He is 
always looking for good splainers, I am surrounded on either 
side by good splainers. We are looking for ways that we can be 
better splainers. How do we do a better job helping the public 
understand how climate change impacts their daily lives?
    Mr. Wehner. In some sense, that is my job, is to try to put 
numbers on what has mainly this past few years become very 
painfully obvious. Maybe you don't even need me to tell you the 
climate is changing, and the weather is getting worse. All you 
have to do is pay attention.
    We talked about fires. I have lived in California now for 
almost 40 years, and I don't remember bad air days like we have 
had. I have a photograph taken from near my house where the sky 
was orange, an orange like an unnatural orange, like orange 
soda. It was apocalyptic; it was frightening.
    You don't need to be a climate scientists to know that that 
is weird, and that is unusual. These heat waves have affected a 
lot of people, they have killed a lot of people. They have 
killed a lot of people's grandparents. I think that is a very 
personal and very distressing thing, if that were to happen.
    These storms, Hurricane Ian in Florida was a very 
devastating storm. We wrote recently that climate change made 
the storm 20 percent wetter, but that is only part of the 
damages. We had this huge storm surge in Fort Myers, like 15 or 
20 feet, that wiped homes right off their foundations. Then a 
few days later, the fresh water, the rainfall ran through the 
systems and flooded a large fraction, a large number of homes 
outside of Tampa.
    So the insurance rates are an issue, it is an issue in 
California. Mine went from $2,000 to $5,000, my own. How this 
information is used I think is a question for you. I can tell 
you what happened, what is going to happen, our best guess as 
to what is going to happen. But what we do about it is up to 
you, it is not something I decide. That is something that the 
people decide through their elected representatives.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    I want to follow up with Dr. Jurado. How could policymakers 
and the media more effectively communicate this information 
that we are talking about here to the public?
    Ms. Jurado. Thank you for the question.
    I think the media conversation is the significant one. It 
is interesting; I have been in DC over the years and hear 
meteorologists speaking about climate change as part of the 
weather delivery. When it happens, it is almost stunning.
    But why aren't our weather forecasters integrating 
discussion of climate as part of the weather forecast? When was 
the last time that we collectively looked at the CO2 
concentrations at Mauna Loa? I remember when it passed 400 
parts per million. Do we ever talk about having lost that 
benchmark, and where we are going, and how these conditions 
relate to on the ground effects?
    Government at the local level, we are not the best 
communicators. We need assistance with this. No matter how many 
presentations we give and websites we deliver, the majority of 
the public are not aware of the conversation or the amount of 
work that is taking place.
    So I think it is about recognizing impacts, celebrating 
wins, celebrating investments, talking about the change in 
individual circumstance that comes with investing in 
resilience, broadcasting the types of programs that are 
available because of the concerns that are being expressed, 
providing more funding for the types of projects that the EPA, 
the Climate Production Reduction grant, great start. But $4.3 
billion across all of the communities in the United States is 
just one shot at a much larger problem that we have in terms of 
helping residents adapt and celebrating the types of 
investments that are making quality of life improvements as 
climate change is taking place.
    Senator Carper. Thanks for that response.
    As if things couldn't get any busier, the Senate is now 
beginning to vote. So we have all these hearings going on, this 
big bipartisan forum that is going on on AI, and we are trying 
to solve climate change here for the morning.
    Senator Capito has gone to vote, and I don't know that she 
is going to be able to come back and finish up with another 
round of questions. I have one or two more that I am going to 
ask, then we will wrap it up.
    One of the closing questions, I will ask you to think about 
this, I talked about ice hockey, and I am going to use a 
baseball metaphor, telegraphing my pitch. You can tell in 
baseball the way the pitcher holds the ball, maybe delivers the 
baseball to the batter, you can tell what kind of pitch it is, 
fast ball, curve ball, slider. But I am going to tell you my 
pitch. I am going to ask a question: Where do we agree? Where 
do the three of you agree? Maybe 10, 15, or 20 years ago there 
wouldn't have been as much agreement in this room, at this 
table.
    One of the Ranking Members here was a fellow named Jim 
Inhofe from Oklahoma, who was a climate change denier. He 
readily admitted it. I remember when it snowed here one time in 
warm weather, and we had about six inches of snow in the lawn 
in the front of the Capitol. He went out and made snowballs. He 
brought the snowballs onto the Senate floor and said, climate 
change, I don't believe that is real, look at these snowballs 
here in August. By the time he left here, he was a senior 
Republican on this Committee, he was my lead Republican on the 
Diesel Emission Reduction Act.
    So people can change their minds. They can learn.
    Quick question, then we will move toward wrapping it up. A 
question about how Inflation Reduction Act programs boost 
resiliency. The Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, which I am proud to say were largely 
written in this room, but in any event, they include programs 
to help States, programs to help Tribes, to help cities, to 
help counties reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to improve 
their resiliency.
    One example is the EPA's Climate Pollution Reduction 
grants. My question, Dr. Jurado, is, does your community down 
in Broward County want and need this Federal assistance? A 
follow up question to that is, how are you using Federal grant 
programs and clean energy tax credits? Is this assistance 
sufficient for communities to address climate change by driving 
down emissions and increasing resilience?
    Ms. Jurado. Thank you for the question, Senator.
    The support is absolutely needed. I am sure that many are 
aware that our State passed on the CPRG funding, and most 
recently on the solar project funding for residential 
investment. If that money is not made directly available to 
communities, meaning municipalities, Tribes, and counties, many 
of us will not be able to take advantage of these very 
critically needed investments. There frankly aren't alternative 
funding sources.
    Another challenge that we have is we have no investment in 
energy efficiency by our local energy utility. There are no 
programs. The statement is made that it is not cost effective. 
Well, it is not cost effective for the utility provider, but no 
matter how clean the energy is that is being produced, you 
still have many lower income individuals who are contending 
with significant rise in temperature. They are already energy 
burdened, and many are struggling with how to provide air 
conditioning just to sleep through the night.
    Older individuals who need that cooling, children cannot 
sleep and study well if they don't have an opportunity for 
their bodies to cool at night. The CPRG funding, that Climate 
Pollution Reduction Act funding, is critical for being able to 
aid with investments that help energy efficiency in single 
family, multi-family residences that need that support. We are 
also very eager to take advantage of that funding to support 
solid waste improvements where we have clean energy 
initiatives, with waste energy plants and those investments 
that are taking place in our community.
    It is a great initial start. We hope to see that funding 
renewed, or a continuation of that funding in some form. We 
know that those plans that are underway will be ignited with 
this individual investment, but the plans that are being worked 
on by our communities are intended to go far beyond the next 5 
years and continued investment there would go a long way to 
help meet our own goals, which include net zero by 2050.
    In addition, with regard to the direct pay tax credits, 
certainly in Broward County, we have been looking for 
innovative models to help support renewable energy projects 
over the years. We have maybe 14, 15 very large scale solar 
projects. But these tax credits are now allowing us to increase 
the size of our solar projects by 30 percent beyond what we 
could have otherwise.
    So it is a tremendous benefit to our ability to participate 
proactively with clean energy solutions that are coupled with 
our infrastructure and our sites, as well as electric vehicle 
charging networks, transitions within our fleets, support for 
community and local government projects.
    Senator Carper. Thank you for that response.
    I telegraphed my pitch, and said I was going to ask before 
we adjourned that, where do you all agree. Do you think there 
is a consensus in this panel, we might not have had it in this 
room at a similar hearing a couple of years ago, I won't ask 
you what has happened, I could ask you what has happened here, 
but let me start with Mr. Dabbar.
    Go ahead, if you would, please.
    Mr. Dabbar. Yes, Senator.
    I think as we collect more data and look at new solutions, 
I think that is a consensus driver. I think coming out of the 
sequester, very large bipartisan support for innovation, which 
has led to a lot of these technologies like Form Energy and 
others that we have been talking about here today.
    I would like to comment to the data aspect of fire that was 
brought up previously. There are solutions, and once again, you 
have these problems, but there are solutions.
    Let me give you one example around data and solutions on 
fire, which is, you could use, I ran the National Quantum 
Initiative for the United States, you could use the photons on 
the fiber that go down the power lines, and you can detect the 
power quality and ergo, the resistance of the power lines. You 
can predict when they are going to fall. We haven't been able 
to do that.
    So, using quantum networking and quantum sensing for these 
things going on in California and elsewhere, you could use that 
sort of new technology and detect meter by meter as the 
resistance of that line is degrading, and you could go fix it 
before the line falls.
    So this is an example of innovation that I think, back to 
your question, Senator, around consensus. I think the consensus 
around innovation, American leadership, things like the example 
I just gave you that would probably save lots of lives in 
Hawaii or California or elsewhere, I think that is part of the 
reason why things are moving forward.
    Senator Carper. Good.
    Dr. Wehner, same question, please.
    Mr. Wehner. I think we are in agreement on a lot of things. 
John Holdren, who was the science advisor for President Obama, 
said we have three choices. We can mitigate, we can adapt, or 
we can suffer. I would like to minimize the suffering. That 
means we have to mitigate more, and adapt more.
    So the things that Mr. Dabbar has talked about in terms of 
making our energy systems more, reducing the emissions of these 
technologies, is something this country can lead in. I strongly 
support that. But I think we also have to recognize that no 
matter what we do, we are going to be continuing to experience 
more severe and more frequent weather disasters, and so we need 
to adapt.
    One thing I did not get to say with the fires, in 
particular, is all of us, myself included, are exposed to this 
smoke. The eastern part of the United States this year was 
exposed to, for the first time, I think, to the levels that 
westerners are used to. I am particularly concerned about the 
effect on children. I raised this with a local politician 
recently. He told me something I didn't know, that there is a 
program in California to distribute HEPA air filters to 
families in need. I think those kinds of actions are things 
that are really necessary if we are to protect our most 
vulnerable, especially our children.
    Senator Carper. Great. Thank you for that.
    Dr. Jurado.
    Ms. Jurado. I think as we have moved on through time, we 
just see more in the way of personal impacts, friends and 
family that have been impacted in one way or another. It 
becomes undeniable that these conditions are being more broadly 
experienced.
    We have also, though, I think, appreciated with time that 
there is a great ability to take advantage of an opportunity to 
innovate, to look at the economic opportunity that comes with 
new technology, new investments, community betterment, areas 
where we have needed to make investments anyway, but we can add 
to the benefits being delivered.
    So it isn't just about adaptation; it is about economic 
innovation and really embracing an opportunity to create a much 
better future through coupled investments that address energy 
and adaptation and community betterment and economic 
opportunity all tied together. So I think being able to look at 
it as not just a burden or exposure, but an opportunity for 
repositioning our communities at the same time.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    Before we close, Senator Whitehouse is trying to get back 
here. He has already voted; I need to go vote very shortly.
    Our staffs, Democrat and Republican staffs, have heard me 
tell this story before, so I will ask their indulgence. I like 
to take the train; I love the train, and I take the train a lot 
up and down the Northeast corridor. Albert Einstein used to 
take the train a lot, too. I think he taught at Princeton. He 
would get on the train at Princeton and go to New York, he 
would come down here. He was a regular on the train, similar to 
how Joe Biden and I have been over the years.
    One day he got on the train and found a seat and started 
looking for his ticket. He reached into his pockets and his 
trousers and his briefcase, and he couldn't find his ticket. 
And finally, the conductor came up to him and said, Dr. 
Einstein, you ride the train a lot; we know who you are. You 
don't have to worry about it; we know who you are.
    Dr. Einstein kept looking for his ticket. The conductor 
walked away, and the conductor started walking into the next 
car, he turned around and looked back. Dr. Einstein was down on 
his hands and knees looking for his ticket. The conductor 
rushed back and said, Dr. Einstein, you don't have to do this. 
We know who you are.
    And Dr. Einstein looked up at the conductor, on his hands 
and knees he looked up to the conductor and said, ``I know who 
I am too, I just don't know where I am going.''
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. I think we know where we are going if we 
don't work together, pull together. We use science to guide us. 
I must say, I wish you could all have been here, I have been on 
this Committee 22 years, I wanted to be on this Committee when 
I got here 22 years ago. But to have heard the kinds of 
conversations we had then on climate change compared to what we 
had in this incredibly constructive conversation. I applaud 
each of you for taking the time to join us.
    Everything, as proud as I am of the work we have done in 
the Inflation Reduction Act and the work we have done on the 
climate change provisions within the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Bill, everything I do, everything we do we can do better. 
Everything we do, everything we do we can do better.
    It is one thing to write legislation and get it signed into 
law. The really important piece now is implementation. One of 
the things that Senator Whitehouse and my colleague, Senator 
Capito, are interested in doing is making sure we do a good job 
on the implementation. We don't just write legislation on this 
Committee; we actually help implement, we do oversight. We need 
to do a whole lot of that in the days going forward.
    I am going to hand the gavel over to Senator Whitehouse. I 
leave it in good hands.
    Folks around the country think we don't like each other 
here, Democrats and Republicans hate each other, we never want 
to work together. I have people who say to me, at least every 
week, Sheldon, when I am getting on the train station and 
getting on a train here or up in Delaware, people say, can't 
you guys just work together? Can't you work together? Can't you 
get something done?
    I wish they could have sat through this hearing. They might 
have been encouraged a little bit, because I think we have a 
pretty good idea of what is wrong. And we have a lot of good 
ideas about how to address it. If the American people would 
hear that, I think they would be encouraged.
    There was once a woman who ran for President not long ago, 
and her campaign slogan was stronger together. Stronger 
together. And I think that really applies here. I think that we 
are largely together, and we are stronger because of that. I 
just love getting things done. I love getting things done, and 
we are getting some good things done. If we keep this attitude 
going, we will do better still.
    Thank you for what you do with your lives, and thank you 
for joining us today.
    With that, a fellow who does great things with his life, 
from a small State, but as we know from Delaware, small States 
do great things, and they produce, at least in his case, in his 
State's case, great legislators.
    Sheldon.
    Senator Whitehouse. Small coastal States are the best, I 
think.
    Senator Carper. I am going to run and vote.
    Senator Whitehouse [presiding]. I will close out the 
hearing after my questions.
    I want to go back to Dr. Jurado again, because of the 
experience that you have had. In Rhode Island, our CZMA agency, 
the Coastal Resources Management Council, took a look at the 
FEMA flood maps and determined that they were defective. We 
have seen, for instance, in the Houston flooding, that it hit 
about 50 percent accuracy rate. So FEMA really seriously needs 
to upgrade its mapping.
    What has been your experience in your geographic area with 
respect to FEMA flood mapping and its predictive quality?
    Ms. Jurado. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
    I know that when our last FEMA flood map, well, let me say 
two things. First of all, FEMA utilizes our, Broward County's, 
hydrologic model. We developed a fully integrated surface 
groundwater model. FEMA has used our model; they have improved 
our model. The South Florida Water Management District has used 
our model and improved the model. Now we are utilizing the same 
model again. So we have the benefit of all of us utilizing the 
same model for existing planning, existing conditions and 
future conditions planning.
    Senator Whitehouse. Just let me interject for 1 second. In 
working on future conditions, do you take things like climate 
change and resulting sea level rise and storm severity into 
account?
    Ms. Jurado. Yes, sir. In fact, right now in our current 
modeling effort, we are coupling, we are evaluating 2 and 3 
foot sea level rise scenarios, carrying the modeling out to 
2070. It is actually 3.3 feet of sea level rise. We account for 
the change in the groundwater table.
    We account for the high tide condition under each of those 
sea level rise scenarios. We account for various storm surge 
conditions including 25, 50, 100 year storm surge. And we 
couple that with a variety of what we call design storm events. 
So 10, 25, 15, 100 year rainfall conditions, and look at the 
compound flooding under all those scenarios.
    So we are utilizing that now as the basis for our 
countywide water management planning and redevelopment 
strategies. How far can we adapt through infrastructure 
investments and development approaches, versus how much can we 
not address, such as with the one in 1,000 year rainfall event. 
There is going to be some element of flooding that again, just 
can't build a large enough pipe or have enough storage area.
    But with the FEMA flood mapping, I know at the time of our 
last update, we actually had 60 percent of the existing parcels 
that were removed from the map. Our engineers would say that 
that map by and large more accurately reflected current 
condition today flooding only because of a lot of refinements 
in the data. It was just better data, like LIDAR data that came 
into the modeling effort.
    However, just like Melrose Park, we still have communities 
that are not in a flood zone, which is always the case, that 
are still vulnerable to flooding. So we knew that when that 60 
percent of those parcels moved out that they would come right 
back in as climate conditions continue to evolve.
    So we actually use our own future conditions flood map that 
is not what we use a variety of tools for setting finished 
floor elevations. FEMA is one. But we require the highest of 
all of our tools be used for planning. And we have a future 
conditions flood map that integrates much of what I just 
described as one of those tools.
    So in many areas of the county, we are not relying upon the 
FEMA flood map. The FEMA flood map is most impressive where it 
now incorporates the coastal A zone. The distinction there was 
that we account for sea level rise, but hadn't accounted for 
storm surge. FEMA was accounting for storm surge, but not sea 
level rise. And that is why this current modeling effort is so 
critical, because it brings everything together.
    Senator Whitehouse. So the multi-party effort has been a 
significant improvement over FEMA alone in the wild doing 
mapping?
    Ms. Jurado. Improving the models with time and everyone 
jointly using the same models, but also integrating future 
conditions. Because we have to account for risk tomorrow, not 
just the risk today for all of our infrastructure. That is our 
perspective.
    Senator Whitehouse. Do you think the flood insurance 
program requirement that you build back in place needs 
adjustment where properties are predictably going to be flooded 
over and over and over again in order to protect the integrity 
of the Federal Flood Insurance program?
    Ms. Jurado. I think that we need to allow for a lot of 
flexibility in terms of where we reinvest and how we reinvest. 
We need to ensure that we are building for future conditions in 
terms of the design approach. But there will be areas where it 
will become increasingly evident that it would be beneficial to 
not replace infrastructure in the same area, maybe utilize that 
land for storage and buffer the storm surge, and alternatives 
to allow densification in other areas that may not be as 
exposed.
    Senator Whitehouse. Agreed.
    My time is now expired, and you have all had a long 
morning. So let me follow Chairman Carper's lead and close out 
the hearing.
    The housekeeping rule before we adjourn is that Senators 
must submit questions for the record by close of business 
Wednesday, November 15th. And we will compile those questions 
and send them to the witnesses, and we urge that you reply by 
Wednesday, December 6th. It is a pain in the neck to have to 
chase you, so we hope we can get, if there are questions for 
the record, timely and punctual responses.
    I thank you all for your presence here. And with that, the 
hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
    [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    
                                 [all]