    [Senate Hearing 118-313]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                     ______

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-313

     OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN DEPLOYING CARBON CAPTURE UTILIZATION
     AND SEQUESTRATION AND DIRECT AIR CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES ON FEDERAL AND
                               NON-FEDERAL LANDS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                NOVEMBER 2, 2023

    GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

                                   __________

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

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

                                ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     55-816          WASHINGTON : 2025

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

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

                          Renae Black, Staff Director
                          Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                 Chris Bowman, Senior Professional Staff Member
                 Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
                  Justin J. Memmott, Republican Chief Counsel
              Valerie Manak, Republican Professional Staff Member
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West
      Virginia.......................................................     1
    Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      Wyoming........................................................     5

                                   WITNESSES

    Crabtree, Hon. Brad J., Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy and
      Carbon Management, U.S. Department of Energy...................     7
    Pigott, Bruno, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office
      of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.................    15
    Burns, Erin, Executive Director, Carbon180.......................    23
    Barkau, Lily R., Groundwater Section Manager, Water Quality
      Division, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality..........    35

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Barkau, Lily R.:
        Opening Statement............................................    35
        Written Testimony............................................    37
    Barrasso, Hon. John:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
        New York Times Article entitled ``Offshore Wind Firm Cancels
          NJ Projects, as Industry's Prospects Dim'' by Stanley Reed
          and Tracey Tully, November 1, 2023.........................    53
    Burns, Erin:
        Opening Statement............................................    23
        Written Testimony............................................    25
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   101
    Carbon Capture Coalition:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   104
    Crabtree, Hon. Brad J.:
        Opening Statement............................................     7
        Written Testimony............................................    10
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    82
    Hoeven, Hon. John and Hon. Joe Manchin III:
        Letter addressed to Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm,
          dated June 7, 2023.........................................    66
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
        Chart entitled ``Class VI Well Permit Applications Pending
          Approval''.................................................     3
    Pigott, Bruno:
        Opening Statement............................................    15
        Written Testimony............................................    17
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    93
    Portland Cement Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   110
    Verde C02:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   113

     OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN DEPLOYING CARBON CAPTURE UTILIZATION
     AND SEQUESTRATION AND DIRECT AIR CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES ON FEDERAL AND
                               NON-FEDERAL LANDS

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2023

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin
    III, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

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

        The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
        Before we begin today's hearing, I want to take a minute to
    say that we are thinking and praying for the families and loved
    ones of the man that was killed at the Martin Coal Mine Prep
    Plant demolition site in Martin County, Kentucky this week, and
    the worker still trapped beneath the rubble that still has not
    been located. It is a tragic reminder of the dangers our coal
    communities face and the sacrifices they make to power our
    nation. In this case, the sacrifices continue, even after this
    facility has been closed.
        I also want to express my frustration that just this
    morning, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management announced that
    it will again delay the Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 261, despite
    the Director testifying before this Committee one week ago that
    ``all systems are go'' to hold the lease sale on November 8.
    BOEM is once again blaming the courts for delaying the sale,
    but the delays are entirely the Administration's fault. The
    Department of the Interior was so eager to meet the demands of
    environmental groups to restrict the sale that it bypassed
    important legal requirements, leading to this litigation.
        Moving to today's topic, we are going to be hearing about
    the examined opportunities and challenges our country has with
    deploying carbon capture utilization and sequestration, or
    CCUS, and direct air capture, or DAC. Both of these critical
    technologies have received significant bipartisan support from
    Congress in recent years, and that should come as no surprise,
    as they will play a vital role in protecting American energy
    security, keeping electricity reliable, and creating jobs here
    at home, while reducing our emissions for decades to come.
    Between the improvements we made to the 45Q tax credit in the
    Inflation Reduction Act and the funding that we included for
    deployment and demonstration in the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Law, CCUS and DAC are now on the rise. In the IRA, we increased
    the value of the 45Q tax credit from $50 per ton to $85 for
    carbon captured and sequestered, from $35 to $60 per ton for
    carbon captured and utilized, and more than doubled the credit
    for direct air capture because that technology is currently
    more expensive. These IRA provisions built off of earlier
    improvements to 45Q that our colleague Senator Barrasso
    spearheaded and I supported. In the IRA, we made important
    changes to the 45Q proposal in the BBB bill, which would have
    excluded many of our dispatchable coal and natural gas power
    plants from continuing to use the credit. Furthermore, our
    Committee's portion of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    included over $10 billion in DOE programs to commercialize
    large CCUS and DAC projects.
        We spent decades researching and proving CCUS technologies
    work. The program in the IRA and Infrastructure Law were
    intended to accelerate the full-scale deployment of them, and
    this legislation is attracting unprecedented private-sector
    investment. CCUS and DAC developers have submitted more than
    120 applications to EPA for Class VI well permits to sequester
    carbon since the IRA passed, and there are 169 total pending
    applications. You can see where we are, and not one approval
    has been made by the Biden Administration. The current
    Administration claims to be supportive of carbon capture, just
    as Congress has been.
        [Chart depicting Class VI well permit applications pending
    approval follows:]
    GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        The Chairman. They issued a report in June of 2021 which
    stated: ``The Administration is committed to accelerating the
    responsible development and deployment of CCUS to make it a
    widely available, increasingly cost-effective, and rapidly
    scalable climate solution.'' The same report also argues that:
    ``if the United States is to achieve its climate goals,
    research suggests that CCUS deployment should increase tenfold
    over the next decade.'' But it's hard for me to square this
    Administration's own report with its actions. Nearly two and a
    half years after that report came out, not a single Class VI
    well has been approved. The chart behind me shows the backlog.
    Many of these applications have been pending for years. At the
    same time, the Administration is more than happy to mandate
    widespread deployment of carbon capture on gas and coal-fired
    power plants.
        All we want is a level playing field, just a fair, level
    playing field. So let me be clear: issuing a mandate to use
    carbon capture on power plants while withholding Class VI well
    approvals is nothing more than a mandate to shut down all of
    our dispatchable coal and gas-powered plants prematurely, and
    the Supreme Court has been clear that Congress has not given
    EPA the authority to mandate a transition of our generation
    fleet. I am disappointed that the talk from the Administration
    seems to be completely out of step with their inaction.
    However, I am optimistic that as more states, including West
    Virginia, Louisiana, and Texas, are granted primacy from EPA to
    approve Class VI wells themselves, the backlog will decline,
    and we will really scale up carbon capture sequestration. I am
    also concerned that while the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    passed more than two years ago, much of the CCUS funding has
    yet to go out the door. As we wait for awards on the carbon
    capture large-scale pilot programs, financial assistance for
    CO2 pipelines, and other programs, the clock is
    ticking to deploy this technology and build out infrastructure
    necessary to do so.
        I am glad we have witnesses joining us from the EPA and DOE
    to discuss how to get these important permitting and financial
    assistance programs back on track. Earlier this week, the EFI
    Foundation, which is led by former Secretary of Energy Moniz,
    released a report highlighting the potential infrastructure
    needed to meet the EPA's proposed power plant regulations. In
    fact, it was released on Halloween, which is fitting, because
    it really presents a scary picture. As they explain,
    ``permitting CCS is a highly uncertain process that can take
    years in ideal conditions'' because ``the CCS value chain
    covers multiple sectors'' and there is ``little federal
    coordination.'' As one example, the report predicts that we may
    need to increase the total miles of CO2 pipelines
    from 5,000 to over 50,000, which is a 1,000 percent increase in
    just over a decade. The report specifically notes that the
    current Class VI well and NEPA permitting processes call into
    serious question the feasibility of EPA's power plant proposal.
        I have already expressed my grave concern with the EPA's
    power plant proposal, highlighting its threat to electric
    reliability and energy security, and EFI's analysis just adds
    to my concerns. If we are going to recognize the economic,
    energy security, and environmental benefits from CCUS and DAC,
    it will require much more coordination from the Federal
    Government. CCUS is also essential for applications much
    broader than coal or gas power plants. Hydrogen projects may
    rely on CCUS to realize the incentives for clean hydrogen
    production that we included in the Infrastructure Law and the
    IRA. Steel and cement companies will look to CCUS to
    decarbonize their manufacturing to compete in global markets.
    DOE's own analysis found that widespread deployment of carbon
    capture and removal technologies could add nearly $1.5 trillion
    to the economy by 2050.
        We are at an inflection point. We are really at an
    inflection point. Historic investment from Congress is meeting
    scientific innovation to deploy cutting-edge technologies and
    infrastructure. However, regulatory and permitting uncertainty
    could cause this tremendous opportunity to slip right through
    our fingers. This is an opportunity, not just for American
    companies here at home, but for us to lead the world in the
    energy economy of the future, and it's also an opportunity to
    learn from our partners abroad. For example, our allies in
    Norway are ahead of us sequestering carbon in subsea
    formations. They are already sequestering carbon at depths of
    more than 3,000 feet beneath the sea floor and are pursuing new
    projects beyond 8,000 feet. Yet here in the U.S., we are a year
    behind schedule even issuing the requirements to apply for
    carbon sequestration permits on our Outer Continental Shelf, a
    permitting program that was required by the Infrastructure Law.
        The U.S. has led the world in developing both CCUS and DAC,
    and forgoing that leadership because of government inaction is
    unconscionable. Its success is crucial to our energy security,
    our economy, and our environment. I hope today's hearing will
    shed some light on what else is needed to ensure deployment of
    these critical technologies, and I look forward to continuing
    to work with the Ranking Member and all members of this
    Committee to that end.
        With that, I look forward to an engaging discussion today
    with our panel of distinguished witnesses, and I will turn it
    over to my Ranking Member and friend, Senator Barrasso, to give
    his opening remarks.

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

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman.
        And before giving any opening statements, I want to
    address, like you did, the news from this morning, where just
    last week the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy
    Management, Elizabeth Klein, sat at this table, at that seat,
    and she told the Committee ``all systems are go'' for Lease
    Sale 261. She went on to say ``we don't see anything in the way
    of holding that sale.'' Well, she lied to the Committee,
    because today, this very morning, she postponed the sale
    indefinitely. This Administration is becoming even more brazen
    in its disregard for the law of the land and for the members of
    this Committee, and it is shameful.
        So Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding today's
    very important hearing. President Biden has made it clear that
    he wants to eliminate the production and the use of coal in the
    United States. Just last year, the President said ``we are
    going to be shutting these coal plants down all across America
    and having wind and solar.'' Well, the Biden Administration has
    followed through on this reckless promise. The Biden
    Administration has blocked coal leasing on federal lands. It
    has slow-walked mining permits. It has proposed emissions
    regulations aimed at shuttering coal-fired power plants. It is
    attempting to kill coal by a thousand cuts. This is a recipe
    for disaster for our country and for our citizens.
        According to the Department of Energy's Energy Information
    Administration, coal will be an important part of our energy
    mix for decades to come. It makes no sense to block American
    coal production and then import coal from other countries.
    There is a good reason that coal will be needed well into the
    future. In contrast to wind and solar, coal-fired plants can
    provide dispatchable power, that is, they can provide
    electricity 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In the last six
    months, this Committee has received testimony from
    representatives of FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission and NERC, the North American Electric Reliability
    Corporation. So we are talking about regulations as well as
    reliability. They all told us that the premature retirement of
    dispatchable generation, which includes coal--they all say it
    jeopardizes our nation's electric reliability. Eliminating this
    generation risks putting Americans in the dark and keeping the
    electric vehicles that they want to force on the American
    public parked and on empty.
        Instead of elimination, we should encourage innovation.
    Wyoming is doing just that. The Integrated Test Center in
    Gillette, Wyoming is a shining example of an innovative public-
    private partnership. It develops carbon capture utilization and
    storage technologies in real-world conditions. The University
    of Wyoming has also been at the cutting edge of research and
    development of carbon capture utilization and sequestration. It
    sponsored one of the original proposals picked to participate
    in the Department of Energy's CarbonSafe program. The program
    aims to develop geologic storage sites to store 50 million
    metric tons of carbon dioxide. The University was recently
    awarded additional funding under the program. This funding will
    be used to advance a carbon capture and storage hub in the
    Greater Green River Basin. It will do this with carbon dioxide
    derived from trona mining and direct air capture.
        Despite advances in carbon capture technology, challenges
    remain. For example, new carbon dioxide pipelines are needed to
    transport the carbon dioxide. And there is uncertainty around
    the rules that govern how to store carbon dioxide on federal
    land. Now, I believe we can overcome these challenges. More
    difficult are the ideological obstacles. Some environmental
    extremists don't want to see carbon capture move forward. To
    them, carbon emissions are not simply the problem. To them,
    coal, oil, and natural gas are the problem. The Environmental
    Protection Agency is under immense pressure from extremists to
    deny states the authority to permit carbon dioxide injection
    wells. Opponents of carbon capture fear that states would
    actually permit these projects in a timely manner. Well, the
    EPA appears to have buckled under that pressure from the
    extremist groups because only two states have the authority at
    this point to permit these wells--my home State of Wyoming and
    Senator Hoeven's home State of North Dakota. Projects in other
    states must get a permit from the EPA.
        Currently, 163 wells are seeking approval from the EPA in a
    process that can take up to six years. Meanwhile, the EPA is
    pushing extreme air regulations that require the widespread use
    of carbon capture technology long before it can be implemented.
    It appears the EPA's goal is not to help carbon capture
    technology, but to kill it. If we intend to maintain electric
    reliability in this country and reduce emissions at the same
    time, it is critical that we get this right. That means
    advancing policies that give carbon capture technologies a
    chance to reach their full potential. So I am hoping today's
    hearing, Mr. Chairman, will move us in that direction.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        As I mentioned, we have a distinguished panel of witnesses
    with us today, including The Honorable Brad Crabtree, Assistant
    Secretary for Fossil Energy and Carbon Management at the
    Department of Energy.
        We have Mr. Bruno Pigott, Deputy Assistant Administrator
    for Water at the Environmental Protection Agency.
        We have Ms. Erin Burns, Executive Director of Carbon180,
    and a proud West Virginian. I would like to note that Ms. Burns
    previously served her home state in my office from 2011 to
    2015. She earned her bachelor of arts from Carnegie Mellon
    University. It's always nice to have a fellow West Virginian
    and former colleague of mine working side by side. Erin,
    congratulations on two young children--one and three, I
    understand. That's wonderful.
        And I am going to turn to my colleague, Senator Barrasso,
    to introduce our final witness.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. I would like
    to welcome Ms. Lily Barkau, who is one of our witnesses today.
    She has traveled from Cheyenne, Wyoming to be here with us, and
    she is an expert on siting underground injection wells for
    carbon capture and sequestration projects. She has a bachelor's
    degree in geology from Wichita State University. She then
    earned a master's degree in environmental sciences and
    engineering from the Colorado School of Mines. She has served
    at the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality since 2006,
    which were the dates when I was back in the Wyoming State
    Senate. Lily, thanks so much for being here today, for sharing
    your expertise with the Committee, and I look forward to
    hearing your testimony.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        And now we are going to hear from our witnesses with their
    opening remarks, and Mr. Crabtree, we will start with you.

      STATEMENT OF HON. BRAD J. CRABTREE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
     FOSSIL ENERGY AND CARBON MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

        Mr. Crabtree. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member
    Barrasso, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to discuss with you the work being done at the
    Department of Energy to advance carbon management technologies
    and infrastructure to meet our energy security and climate
    goals. It is also an honor to join my colleagues, Bruno Pigott
    of EPA, Erin Burns of Carbon180, and Lily Barkau of the Wyoming
    Department of Environmental Quality. I appreciate the
    Committee's longstanding, bipartisan interests supporting
    commitment to providing the Department of Energy and the Office
    of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management with the funding and
    tools necessary to advance critical carbon management
    technologies and infrastructure. Thank you for that support.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have been investing in carbon
    management technologies for more than 25 years and across five
    presidential administrations, and this longstanding support
    from both sides of the aisle for this important work has
    enabled carbon management to emerge into a promising, scalable,
    and commercially viable decarbonization option in which the
    U.S. can continue to lead the world in the coming decades.
    Thanks to bipartisan legislation from annual appropriations to
    the 2020 Energy Act, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, bipartisan
    efforts, as the Chairman mentioned, to enhance the 45Q tax
    credit, and most recently the CHIPS and Science Act, the
    Department of Energy has been able to deliver a range of
    critical successes for carbon management. These include over
    5,000 miles of CO2 pipeline infrastructure and 13
    operating commercial-scale carbon capture projects across
    multiple industries that collectively capture, safely
    transport, and permanently store over 20 million metric tons of
    CO2 annually. This represents more than one-third of
    the 30 commercial-scale projects operating globally at the end
    of 2022.
        The past several years of legislative progress have enabled
    us to build on this foundation of success, and have prompted a
    significant shift in the commercial outlook for deployment of
    carbon management projects. Nearly 200 projects have been
    publicly announced in response to improvements to the 45Q tax
    credit, a massive increase over today's 13 operating commercial
    projects. Given the powerful leveraging effect of the
    Infrastructure Law investments in the 45Q tax credit, our
    Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, the Office of
    Clean Energy Demonstrations, and the Loan Programs Office, have
    been working aggressively on implementation to ensure that
    federal funding can flow to the highest-impact projects as
    quickly and effectively as possible. DOE's carbon management
    research development, demonstration, and deployment activities
    are also evolving alongside this shift in commercial outlook,
    and our funding opportunities have begun to focus on later-
    stage innovation, including implementation of the
    Infrastructure Law funding for pilots, demonstrations, and
    hubs. We are also expanding our focus to enable carbon capture
    at a wider range of industrial facilities, often in
    collaboration with other offices at DOE that are pioneering
    complementary industrial decarbonization strategies.
        Additionally, our Carbon Negative Energy Earthshot is aimed
    at advancing carbon removal by driving down the cost of that
    technology over the next decade to less than $100 per metric
    ton of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere, and we have
    expanded our CO2 conversion program to explore ways
    to convert waste carbon emissions, both carbon monoxide and
    CO2, into value-added industrial products that can
    help decarbonize our built environment and petrochemical and
    fuel supply chains. All of these advances are important for our
    domestic priorities, but they are also good news for
    international carbon management efforts, and for America's
    longstanding global leadership and initiatives to stand up and
    deploy these technologies around the world.
        Meanwhile, here at home, DOE recognizes that we simply
    cannot realize the full deployment potential of the funding,
    financing, and incentives in recent legislation without broad-
    based understanding and support from local communities and
    other stakeholders. To that end, we are including community
    benefit plan requirements in our funding opportunities to
    ensure that the recipients of DOE funding create high-quality
    jobs, protect the environment from unintended pollution, and
    ensure that projects are sited and operated with significant
    input from and benefit to local communities. And finally, we
    are exploring a voluntary responsible carbon management
    initiative designed to identify and elevate industry best
    practices and encourage project developers to pursue the
    highest levels of safety, environmental stewardship,
    transparency, and community engagement and benefits.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the Committee's interest,
    support, and commitment to providing DOE with the funding and
    tools necessary to increase the speed and scale of carbon
    management deployment. I look forward to your questions. Thank
    you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Crabtree follows:]
        GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Pigott.

         STATEMENT OF BRUNO PIGOTT, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
     ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                 AGENCY

        Mr. Pigott. Good morning, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member
    Barrasso, and members of the Committee. My name is Bruno
    Pigott. I serve as the Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator
    for Water at EPA. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
    before this Committee today on the critical topic of carbon
    capture and storage. Prior to my serving in my current position
    over the past year and a half, I served in bipartisan
    administrations for 20 years in a coal state--Indiana--in a
    variety of roles at the Department of Environmental Management
    in Indiana, including as its Commissioner. That state
    experience taught me the importance of issuing timely,
    defensible permits, and I am committed to doing the same here.
        The Biden-Harris Administration set a goal of reducing
    greenhouse gas emissions 50 percent by 2030, and net-zero
    emissions economy-wide by 2050. Carbon capture utilization and
    storage, widely known as CCUS, will be central to achieving
    those goals. The growth of CCUS is expected to produce between
    390,000 and 1.8 million good-paying jobs, especially in those
    communities that have been most affected by the transition to a
    net-zero economy. CCUS, then, holds enormous environmental and
    economic potential, and recognizing that potential, Congress
    provided historic funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Law and Inflation Reduction Act. Thank you for that.
        CCUS is a proven technology. It has been used for decades.
    It traps carbon emissions from industrial sources and stores
    them permanently. EPA's role, under the Safe Drinking Water
    Act, is to ensure that these activities do not contaminate our
    waters, and that is why we issue permits for injecting
    CO2 in underground wells. These permit requirements
    protect America's drinking water from contamination, and as a
    result, protect public health.
        I would like to talk for a minute about primacy. EPA
    strongly supports efforts by states to obtain primacy for the
    Class VI program. My time in Indiana taught me that states play
    a key role in regulatory programs, and we are working hard to
    grant primacy to states for Class VI, as we have in most of our
    other permitting programs. We are grateful to Congress for the
    appropriations we received to grow our state primacy team, and
    for the more than $50 million Congress provided in the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to support primacy activities.
    EPA is announcing this morning the opening of the application
    process for those dollars for states. Currently, as indicated,
    North Dakota and Wyoming have primacy for Class VI, and
    Louisiana is in the final stages of the application process.
    Texas, West Virginia, and Arizona are all in the pre-
    application phase, and 21 other states and two tribal nations
    have expressed interest in primacy. We believe this grant
    program will provide the resources states need to set up these
    programs. Thank you so much for that funding.
        Where states have not obtained Class VI primacy, EPA issues
    permits. EPA is committed to reviewing the Class VI
    applications efficiently. Permit applications are technical
    documents. They contain information about the geology to ensure
    the area is free of faults and fractures, the injected
    CO2 plume, to know where that CO2 goes,
    and specifics about well construction to make sure it is
    operated in a way that works. We evaluate this information to
    ensure our source water is protected. Interest in Class VI
    wells has grown exponentially over this last year. To meet the
    increased demand, EPA is using the resources from both Congress
    and the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council to
    increase our staff of experts to review these permits.
    Additionally, through interagency agreement with the Department
    of Energy, many of the applications are being reviewed by the
    National Laboratories that DOE operates to ensure that we
    review the models appropriately.
        EPA's goal is to make permit determinations within 24
    months after receipt of a complete application. Our job is to
    ensure all people are fully protected from the adverse
    environmental and health hazards and have equitable access to a
    healthy environment. EPA has taken several actions over the
    last year to fulfill this commitment. Most recently, in August,
    the agency finalized guidance to provide clear expectations for
    transparency in community engagement. And these common-sense
    practices will help set clear expectations. EPA and our growing
    Class VI team are committed to clear, consistent, speedy
    issuance of these permits.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pigott follows:]
        GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Now we have Ms. Burns.

                       STATEMENT OF ERIN BURNS,
                     EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CARBON180

        Ms. Burns. Thank you.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
    deployment of direct air capture in the United States. I am
    Erin Burns, the Executive Director of Carbon180, an independent
    non-profit organization focused on reversing two centuries of
    emissions. I also want to take a moment to say I am
    particularly honored to be here today. As Chairman Manchin
    mentioned, I previously staffed him, my home-state senator,
    when he was a member of this Committee.
        Direct Air Capture can play an essential role in meeting
    climate goals through addressing legacy emissions. It can also
    bring enormous benefits beyond climate, including bolstering
    American technological leadership and driving economic growth.
    And those benefits can be realized across the country. Today,
    the U.S. is the global leader in direct air capture. The
    majority of DAC companies are headquartered here in the U.S.
    And while some of the largest companies are not U.S.-based,
    they still have their first full-scale deployments planned
    here. That is because of legislation like the Energy Act, the
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the Inflation
    Reduction Act.
        Today, global DAC capacity is in the tens of thousands of
    tons. Recently enacted policies, however, are estimated to
    result in one to eight million tons of DAC deployment by 2030,
    and by 2035, that figure could be as high as 84 million tons.
    This deployment can create new jobs and businesses, it can
    promote market and economic growth, and it can provide long-
    term wealth-building opportunities. According to an analysis
    released just this past month, a 500,000-ton direct air capture
    plant could generate more than 1,200 jobs in construction,
    engineering, materials, and equipment, and more than 300 jobs
    in operation and maintenance over the facility's lifetime.
    Eight million tons of deployment by 2030 would mean up to
    24,000 jobs. Eighty-four million tons of deployment by 2035
    could mean more than 260,000 direct air capture jobs. To fully
    realize this economic opportunity, however, we must also invest
    in domestic supply chains. Around a third of the jobs
    identified are in supply chains, and direct air capture plants
    should be built using steel and other materials produced in the
    U.S.
        There is also enormous private-sector demand for direct air
    capture that can be unlocked by policy support. Voluntary
    carbon removal markets are estimated at $10 to $40 billion by
    2030. But in that same year, demand for direct air capture is
    expected to exceed productive supply. Importantly, direct air
    capture projects can be sited in many regions, including those
    that are navigating an economy impacted by a reduction in the
    production and use of fossil fuels where workforces have many
    overlapping skill sets with those required in the construction,
    operation, and maintenance of a direct air capture facility.
    Personally, this opportunity on economic growth and wealth
    creation is one I am particularly excited about. I am from
    southern West Virginia, an area whose history is deeply
    interconnected with coal, and I want to see a DAC industry
    where the wealth created goes into the pockets of those folks
    who are doing the work, supporting high-paying union jobs and
    the benefits that come with those jobs. The opportunity for a
    place like West Virginia to build a new industry that leverages
    our existing skill sets, that has a long future in a world
    where markets have a preference already for low- and zero-
    carbon industries, is one that I am personally deeply invested
    in.
        To make those potential benefits a reality in places across
    the U.S., however, we are going to need additional policy. My
    written testimony includes several specific recommendations,
    but I would like to highlight three, in particular. First, one
    of the most significant barriers to direct air capture
    deployment today is infrastructure. We need to capture billions
    of tons of CO2. Those are going to need to be safely
    and securely stored. The Department of Energy should coordinate
    with the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure timely and
    thorough Class VI review for things like the Direct Air Capture
    Hubs projects, and also provide technical assistance to those
    projects. We are also really excited about more ambitious ideas
    like the DOE and EPA looking at pre-permitting carbon storage
    hubs, including in places where communities might opt-in to
    hosting those hubs.
        Second, we need continued, robust R&D support. Over the
    past few years, Congress has passed really groundbreaking
    legislation, and it has helped secure American leadership on
    direct air capture. Continued funding can and should include a
    diverse portfolio of direct air capture pathways supporting
    emerging technologies alongside those being deployed today.
    This can increase learnings, drive innovation, and prevent
    technology lock-in. DAC will also require additional clean
    energy coordination across DOE's applied offices and can
    support research on key questions at the intersection of carbon
    removal and renewable energy.
        Finally, with a $35 million Carbon Dioxide Removal
    Procurement Prize, the Federal Government can play a unique
    role in establishing high standards for direct air capture and
    other long-duration carbon removal pathways in ways that unlock
    additional private capital and increase public acceptance.
    Robust performance-based standards across a portfolio of
    durable carbon removal technologies and solutions will help
    drive the market toward quality and consistency, de-risking
    investment, crowding in private funding, and setting the stage
    for more robust policy support.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Burns follows:]
        GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Now we have Ms. Barkau.

    STATEMENT OF LILY R. BARKAU, GROUNDWATER SECTION MANAGER, WATER
     QUALITY DIVISION, WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

        Ms. Barkau. Good morning, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member
    Barrasso, and honorable members of the Committee. I appreciate
    the opportunity to be with you here today.
        My name is Lily Barkau, and I am the Groundwater Section
    Manager at the Water Quality Division at the Wyoming Department
    of Environmental Quality. The Groundwater Section oversees the
    implementation of the underground injection control program.
    Wyoming received primacy of the Underground Injection Control
    (UIC) program in 1983 for five classes of wells, and in
    September 2020, the Department received primacy of Class VI
    wells for permanent storage of carbon dioxide. Our long history
    in implementing the UIC program demonstrates expertise and
    experience that is easily transferrable to the Class VI
    program. Wyoming began enacting legislation in 2008 to allow
    and promote CO2 storage.
        Within Wyoming's regulatory framework, prospective
    CO2 storage operators can pursue CCS in an
    environment with well-defined risks and liabilities. Wyoming is
    also well-suited geologically for CO2 storage due to
    the number of high-storage potential sedimentary basins in the
    state. Because of these factors, Wyoming is poised for
    successful deployment of CCS, and interest in CCS projects is
    high. Currently, 12 proposed Class VI wells in Wyoming are in
    various stages of the permitting process, ranging from the pre-
    application stage to the permit issuance stage. The Department
    anticipates issuing its first three Class VI permits for well
    construction by the end of the calendar year. In order to help
    applicants meet the Department's rules and expedite permitting
    of these Class VI wells, the Department has developed and is
    implementing a streamlined permitting process that encourages
    operators to meet with regulatory agencies early in that
    process. The Department anticipates it will be able to issue a
    Class VI permit authorizing injection within one-and-a-half to
    two years from the date it received the application. However,
    the permitting timeline ultimately depends on the condition of
    the submitted permit application and the responsiveness of that
    applicant.
        Permitting for CO2 storage is only one facet of
    the CCS process. Other factors may pose obstacles for Class VI
    permitting. CO2 storage on federal lands needs
    further consideration. Given the high concentration of federal
    lands located in Wyoming, large-scale CCS projects are almost
    certain to implicate federal holdings, generating questions
    about how federal land agencies, such as the Bureau of Land
    Management, will approach CCS and access to pore space, in
    particular. Current federal law does not provide a legal
    definition of pore space, much less clarify the ownership of
    pore space in situations of split estates where the surface
    rights are privately owned but the mineral rights are federally
    owned. Therefore, clarification on federal pore space and
    unitization of that pore space is needed to support timely
    permitting of CCS projects.
        Furthermore, improved coordination between the Department
    and Wyoming BLM is needed to ensure that Class VI permit
    issuance and BLM right-of-way authorizations are issued at the
    appropriate times and such that each agency has the information
    it needs to make its decisions within its regulatory
    authorities. The Class VI permit authorizes injection of
    CO2 such that underground sources of drinking water
    (USDWs) are protected. Whereas, under the BLM right-of-way, BLM
    is charged with ensuring access to federal pore space and the
    federal mineral estates are not damaged. It is important to
    keep these two roles and authorities distinct. Further,
    clarification on financial assurance through bonds for Class VI
    permits on federal lands is needed to identify what portions of
    the CO2 storage site require bonding through the
    Department and BLM. Avoiding duplication of bonding will be
    important to CCS projects financially.
        In addition to federal pore space just discussed,
    interstate pore space may pose an obstacle as well. Wyoming's
    sedimentary storage basins traverse or are situated near state
    borders. The CO2 storage site is defined as a
    CO2 plume, pressure front, and any displaced fluids,
    and is referred to as the Area of Review. The federal Class VI
    program regulations do not consider pore space in the issuance
    of the permit, and only require public notification to local,
    tribal, or neighboring states in the Area of Review. However,
    the process for acquisition and storage in a neighboring
    state's pore space has not been identified, especially if that
    neighboring state does not have current regulations regarding
    pore space.
        Another topic of consideration is that Class VI regulations
    require that CO2 injection occur below the lowest-
    most USDW, and do not allow for new aquifer exemptions to be
    approved. Wyoming has deep formations that may be considered a
    USDW, but under other UIC well classes, would be afforded an
    aquifer exemption in accordance with federal regulations. Not
    allowing aquifer exemptions for Class VI may eliminate
    additional storage reservoirs. And finally, there is currently
    no federal funding being provided to states to implement Class
    VI primacy programs. While under the Infrastructure Investment
    and Jobs Act, EPA is offering one-time grant funding to support
    states either with or seeking Class VI primacy, long-term
    funding opportunities and grant requirements are not available.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to be here, and I will
    gladly answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Barkau follows:]
        GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        The Chairman. Thank you. I want to thank you all for your
    introductory statements, and now we are going to start with our
    questioning. I will begin with Mr. Pigott.
        This May, EPA proposed a new rule under the Clean Air Act
    to restrict carbon emissions from both new and existing coal
    and natural gas plants, largely using carbon capture. A typical
    Class VI well can sequester around one megaton per year,
    depending on the geology. According to EPA's own greenhouse gas
    inventory, the U.S. power sector emits around 1,500 megatons of
    CO2 annually. Even if we want to capture one-third
    of that, that would be 500 Class VI wells. So, as you know, the
    EPA has the permitting responsibility. Do you think they will
    be able to permit enough wells to meet the demand created by
    these rules that have been proposed by you all?
        Mr. Pigott. Thank you, Senator Manchin. It is an important
    question, and it recognizes that importance of the Class VI
    program to all of these projects. The Class VI well application
    process is a linchpin to the success of these things. And we
    have been--thank you to you all--the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Law and the Inflation Reduction Act granted the funding to
    increase our staffing to ensure that we meet that demand. But
    also, I recognize, as we have heard from Lily, the importance
    of states in ensuring that we allow them to have primacy that
    has been granted for all of our permit programs because states
    can operate efficiently and effectively to issue permits.
        The Chairman. Let me add to that as you go into your final
    statement here. Do you believe that carbon capture is cost
    effective?
        Mr. Pigott. I believe that carbon capture is the linchpin
    to ensuring that we use all the tools necessary to meet our
    climate goals, sir.
        The Chairman. Do you believe it can be done?
        Mr. Pigott. I believe we can accomplish this together, and
    through the funding provided by Congress, we have increased our
    staffing from 7 people to 34, and because of the Federal
    Permitting Improvement Steering Council, we have more funds to
    direct for increased staffing at the same time that we award
    primacy because the good work that we have seen----
        The Chairman. We have seen the surge of demand. There are
    169 wells that are still in the permit process waiting for
    actions. And that depends an awful lot on whether we are able
    to meet the demand that's going to be brought on by market
    conditions. That's what we are concerned about. So I would say
    with the additional funding that you have, and DOE's role in
    this too, hopefully, you all are able to get up to speed.
        Let me segue into that. Ms. Barkau, a proven way to bring
    more resources to speed up Class VI wells is allowing primacy.
    Primacy means that the states would have the responsibility. In
    Wyoming, you are one of the two states that successfully
    applied for Class VI primacy. I can ask you two things--how has
    it affected, and how long did it take you to get that? We have
    been trying since 2022 in West Virginia because we have a lot
    of formations that'll work also. How long was your process in
    getting your permit, and how has it affected uptake since
    receiving primacy in your state?
        Ms. Barkau. Yes, so we have received--it took approximately
    33 months to get through the entire primacy application process
    from submitting that application in January 2018 through
    receipt of that in September 2020. Since receiving primacy, we
    have held numerous informational meetings to work with
    operators on getting those permits issued and setting up the
    program to outline the exact needs so that we can streamline
    that permitting process. So it's very important for----
        The Chairman. It took you about two years to get approval?
        Ms. Barkau. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. Do you have any wells in activity right now?
    Any wells permitted in Wyoming?
        Ms. Barkau. We are about to issue three permits for
    construction. We don't have any to date that have been
    permitted.
        The Chairman. How long will it take to put that in
    production? How long would it take for those to get in
    production once you permit them?
        Ms. Barkau. They will have to construct those wells. They
    are looking to possibly construct them starting in May and then
    that will take several months. We will have to do any kind of
    permit modifications to get through the authorization to inject
    and then it should be within a year or two.
        The Chairman. Ms. Burns, how important are timely Class VI
    well permits? Your organization is kind of watching what we are
    doing with all this CO2. We have a way to do it, we
    want to do it, and we have the technology to do it. We just
    have to have the will to do it in a timely fashion. So what is
    your----
        Ms. Burns. Extremely important. I appreciate why a lot of
    the focus, historically, on things like direct air capture has
    been in bringing down the cost of the technology, which we need
    to continue to do. I think we also have a really strong track
    record at the Department of Energy being really good at
    bringing down the cost of new technologies, and I am pretty
    bullish on the opportunities to bring down the cost of things
    like direct air capture. What worries me more is the
    infrastructure. We are going to need to store billions of tons
    of carbon dioxide and we need a robust and well-functioning
    Class VI permitting process.
        The Chairman. And have you weighed in on that with the EPA
    and with the DOE and all of them on how important it is to get
    this done?
        Ms. Burns. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. Yes. Okay.
        With that, Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me start with Mr. Crabtree. Welcome back to the
    Committee. This is a Committee with diverse opinions, and you
    were confirmed unanimously by the Committee and unanimously by
    the U.S. Senate, which shows there is a lot of faith in your
    ability to handle this problem. And you know, earlier this
    week, two offshore wind projects were officially scrapped. A
    story in the New York Times today, and Mr. Chairman, I ask that
    we unanimously consent to put this in the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The article referred to follows:]
        GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Senator Barrasso. ``Offshore wind firm cancels New Jersey
    projects, as industry's prospects dim.'' It says a combination
    of ``high inflation and soaring interest rates are making
    planned projects that looked like winners several years ago no
    longer profitable,'' and that this move ``will crimp the Biden
    Administration's plans to make the wind industry a critical
    component of plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,'' which
    says to me it's even more critical to achieve the goals of the
    Administration for carbon capture and sequestration to work. So
    if we are serious about reducing CO2, projects
    advancing this technology need to continue to move forward, and
    at a brisk pace.
        In May of this year, the Department announced it is going
    to award the University of Wyoming's School of Energy Resources
    a grant under the CarbonSafe program. The project is going to
    play a critical role in expanding carbon dioxide transportation
    and storage infrastructure in the region. My understanding is
    that the Department has not yet started negotiations with the
    University on this grant. It has been about five months. When
    do you expect the Department to begin negotiations with the
    University on this grant?
        Mr. Crabtree. Senator, just to clarify, is that the
    Sweetwater project?
        Senator Barrasso. Yes.
        Mr. Crabtree. Yes. I actually had a conversation this week,
    coincidentally. My understanding--so let me take one step back
    to answer your question. There is about $2.5 billion in the
    infrastructure bill for the geologic storage program. We are
    implementing that through an expanded CarbonSafe, of which
    Sweetwater is one of many projects that have been approved. Our
    goal is to enable, with private sector investment and federal
    investment, 20 to 40 regional geologic storage sites over the
    five-year life span of the funding from the infrastructure
    legislation. We need to make sure that we engage consistently
    with all the different projects and that we co-fund in a
    consistent way.
        I heard from one of your constituents concern that this was
    taking too long. I have followed up. And the reason for the
    delay is the team is trying to make sure that, in response to
    Wyoming's situation, we are treating Wyoming in the same way--
    in terms of the number of wells, types of wells--that we are in
    Pennsylvania or any other state. I was assured that they would
    be getting feedback shortly.
        Senator Barrasso. Great, because we do have a cowboy
    culture. We kind of get things done quickly, and that's an
    ability to do that, and in Wyoming we don't think we ought to
    be held back because of delays in other states. So thank you.
    Thanks for your attention.
        Mr. Crabtree. Well, sir, I am from North Dakota. I
    appreciate that.
        Senator Barrasso. Great.
        Ms. Barkau, if I could go to you, the Environmental
    Protection Agency granted the state the authority to permit the
    Class VI wells in 2020, the second state to receive the
    authority. How many applications is your agency currently
    working on? I know you said you had three that you are doing
    the permits for now.
        Ms. Barkau. We have five that are in house that are under
    review, the three that are about to be issued, one that has
    been somewhat stagnant and deficient and we asked the applicant
    to reattempt the application, and one that is currently in
    discussions. We received five additional ones for a pre-
    application phase. And then there are the CarbonSafe projects
    up in the Dry Fork Station that will be converted from Class I
    to Class VI in the near future, and a number of other permits
    submitted by them.
        Senator Barrasso. So do you believe that this authority
    that we have in Wyoming helps Wyoming stay on the cutting edge
    of carbon capture?
        Ms. Barkau. Absolutely. Basically, Wyoming knows Wyoming.
    So with us getting out there to issue these permits and do the
    reviews, we are protecting the underground sources of drinking
    water. We are able to streamline the process and work
    collaboratively with operators to move this forward. And so,
    having the primacy of the program really helps us to work best
    with the operators for the state itself.
        Senator Barrasso. Okay.
        So Mr. Crabtree, a rule that recently came out of the EPA
    requires coal plants to capture 90 percent of their carbon
    dioxide emissions. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can only
    rely on emissions reduction technologies that are ``adequately
    demonstrated.'' So could you name the commercial power plants
    that are currently and consistently achieving this 90 percent
    capture rate? Because I don't think there is one at all.
        Mr. Crabtree. Well, actually, Petra Nova--the project at
    the power plant in Houston--contrary, Senator, to all the
    criticism of the project that you see in the media, it has met
    all of its technical milestones. It was on time, it was on
    budget, and its capture rates were exactly what the Department
    of Energy was expecting. Now, as I think you know, the business
    model for that power plant was to store its CO2
    through enhanced oil recovery. They did not claim the 45Q tax
    credit. They were an early adopter. So they were in a much more
    challenging commercial environment to do a second-of-a-kind
    project in the world. And so they, when COVID happened and
    everything collapsed in terms of the oil market, they took that
    project offline, but it is now back up and operating. And so
    it's very much a success story in terms of the application of
    retrofit technology to a thermal power plant.
        Senator Barrasso. Yes, and it's not 90 percent. I mean,
    that's the concern, that the technology isn't there for broad
    distribution to really be at 90 percent, which is what the
    EPA--I think it's an unrealistic effort by----
        Mr. Crabtree. I feel a need to defend the technology
    because we have environmental critics asserting that is not the
    case. What is important to bear in mind is that that project
    was designed to optimize its economic performance given that it
    was a demonstration project.
        Senator Barrasso. Sure.
        Mr. Crabtree. So it's not designed to capture all the
    CO2 from all the flue gas stream. It's a portion of
    that flue gas stream. But what is important is that it is
    achieving 90 percent or better from that flue gas stream that
    it was designed to capture. So it's actually a technical
    success in that regard and important to recognize.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
        Ms. Burns, how important are the 45Q tax subsidies in the
    Inflation Reduction Act to both carbon capture and direct air
    capture projects?
        Ms. Burns. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        So the 45Q tax incentive for direct air capture to saline
    storage is $180 per ton, up from $50 per ton. That is really
    significant. It is based on an analysis out of 2019 from the
    Rhodium Group, looking at, really, what value is needed. And
    the fact that Congress was able to take quick action in
    response to that was really helpful in the direct air capture
    sector, and in particular, paired with other pieces of the
    Inflation Reduction Act, the infrastructure bill, all of those
    pieces combined--robust R&D support. Congress has been
    extremely responsive to needs identified through those
    analyses, through things like the National Academies Report,
    and it has really spurred, again, you know, even though some of
    the early direct air capture companies, like Climeworks and
    Carbon Engineering came out of countries not the U.S., we are
    still the global leader in direct air capture because of that
    policy support.
        Senator Heinrich. What would be the--as you know, there are
    a number of Members of Congress who have called for the repeal
    of the Inflation Reduction Act. What would be the impact on
    direct air capture, and for that matter, CCS projects in the
    pipeline right now, were the Inflation Reduction Act to be
    repealed in its totality?
        Ms. Burns. Yes, I think it would be, without any sort of
    formal analysis, pretty catastrophic. Again, it's because of
    the federal policy support that the U.S. is seeing far more
    deployment in technologies like direct air capture and other
    durable carbon removal pathways. There is excitement about what
    other durable carbon removal pathways could be supported
    through things like tax incentives that are modeled after the
    success of the 45Q tax incentive. And so, I think that would
    represent sort of waving the white flag on American leadership
    on things like direct air capture.
        Senator Heinrich. The word you used was catastrophic,
    right?
        Ms. Burns. Yes, sir.
        Senator Heinrich. Yes.
        Mr. Pigott, you were asked by the Chair about the economic
    viability of CCS and direct air capture projects. Setting aside
    enhanced oil recovery--and we have seen that that has a
    business case here--without 45Q, would any of these projects be
    economically viable at this stage in technology development?
        Mr. Pigott. Well, in the Class VI program, our evaluation
    is not of the economics of the viability, but how quickly do we
    process and ensure that the projects that are put in place
    protect our sources of drinking water. And therefore, our
    economic analysis is not in regard to the viability. I am sure
    that the incentives that have been provided through the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act, and
    other funding sources, such as the 45Q tax credit, have
    provided an incentive, and therefore, we have seen a dramatic
    increase in the interest in these Class VI applications and----
        Senator Heinrich. Mr. Crabtree, why don't you answer that
    question then? Without the 45Q incentives, what percentage of
    the projects in the pipeline for both direct air capture and
    CCS would be economically viable today, do you believe?
        Mr. Crabtree. Very few would be economically viable without
    a tax credit, as is the case with most clean energy
    technologies. That is the role that tax credits have
    historically played to accelerate innovation, and ultimately,
    deployment. I think--if I might?
        Senator Heinrich. Sure.
        Mr. Crabtree. It's really important to distinguish--if you
    think about the full suite of technologies we need to meet our
    climate challenge and net-zero emissions by 2050--carbon
    capture and storage, as a family of technologies, including
    carbon removal, has historically received very little federal
    policy support compared to other clean energy technologies.
    That started to change in 2018 with the reform and expansion of
    45Q. It has dramatically changed with the 2020 Energy Act,
    followed by the infrastructure legislation and the Inflation
    Reduction Act. Now, you know, parity can be defined in many
    different ways, but we have, broadly, parity across a family of
    technologies that we need. And what is really misunderstood
    about costs for carbon management is that it's the only set of
    technologies that are expected to justify themselves on a per-
    ton basis.
        But you can look at all the technologies we need from a
    climate standpoint, in terms of what they cost on a per ton
    basis, and what you will find across that cost spectrum is,
    whether it's carbon management, or renewables, or fuels, or a
    whole range of technologies, they go from very, very
    inexpensive to very, very costly. So we have carbon capture
    projects that will move forward now under the 45Q tax credit,
    ethanol production, gas processing, hydrogen production,
    fertilizer production, with just the tax credit, and dozens of
    projects will be likely moving forward. But when you get to
    things like heavy industry, power generation, then we will need
    the investments from the infrastructure bill to help de-risk.
        Senator Heinrich. If we repeal the IRA in its totality,
    what would happen to all those projects, Mr. Crabtree?
        Mr. Crabtree. Well, ``all'' is many, but historically, I
    think if you look at 13 operating commercial-scale projects,
    the reason there are only 13 is that until very recently, those
    projects could only be financed because a wide range of optimal
    things came together--location, infrastructure, opportunity to
    store CO2 through enhanced oil recovery. That is a
    very limited universe that nearly 200 projects that have been
    publicly announced would shrink dramatically to probably near
    nothing.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        I just want to add that. The whole purpose of these pieces
    of legislation is to mature proven technologies. And if we can
    mature them, the quicker we mature them, we all benefit by
    them. So that is really what we see happening. Sometimes we get
    in our own way, and everyone has their ideological beliefs that
    slow things down or they would like to see things fail. We
    never put the money toward carbon capture that we should have.
    We talked about it. We never did it. And now that we are doing
    it, it's going to basically, rapidly change the face of how we
    provide energy, the type of energy we can provide to have
    dependability and reliability.
        With that, Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We don't want
    to see things fail. In fact, we feel we have great,
    extraordinary opportunities up north, and as we think about
    carbon capture utilization and sequestration and direct air
    capture, I don't think there is a single climate model that
    exists that states that these technologies are not going to be
    needed in the future, and then, of course, dramatically scaled
    up.
        So I am curious this morning to hear how Department of
    Energy is implementing these provisions, how we are getting
    funding out the door, and I will start by expressing, Mr.
    Crabtree, my appreciation for the announcement that ASRC, in
    consortia with Repsol and Santos, was selected to receive funds
    for the feasibility of the direct air capture hubs up on the
    North Slope. We are excited about that. I also want to express
    my hope that the Department will take a real hard look at the
    existing Alaska applications for the carbon capture large-scale
    pilot project up there as well. It is really exciting. And when
    you think about it, it can be so transformative. What this
    application would do is, test the technology of these seven
    Frame-5 gas turbine generation equipment units there at
    Prudhoe. But when you think about the potential to make a
    difference, this alone has the potential to address 35 percent
    of the state's emissions--not just of the emissions up there--
    35 percent. And then again, once it's successful in
    demonstrating the replication of this technology, to then move
    that to 20 Frame-5 turbines, all located within a five-mile
    perimeter there on the Slope.
        So my question for you this morning is, when the Department
    is looking to make determinations on these pilots, and I know
    that you are somewhat restricted in giving too much
    information, but just more holistically, when you are looking
    at these applications, how important is the ability of
    replication for these projects to then be able to expand to
    address emission sources in nearby areas? Do you take that into
    account?
        Mr. Crabtree. We do, Senator. And by the way, I just have
    to say, I was as excited as you were to see the award on the
    North Slope.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes.
        Mr. Crabtree. If you would have asked me a few years ago,
    would we have Native Alaskan and industry cooperation around a
    direct air capture project on the North Slope of Alaska, I
    would not have imagined that.
        Senator Murkowski. Super-exciting.
        Mr. Crabtree. It is very exciting.
        Obviously, you already acknowledged this. I can't speak to
    projects under consideration, but yes, replicability, it's
    actually inherent in the whole approach to demonstration. The
    idea is, with the demonstration funding, as with the success of
    these projects, it will de-risk these projects and facilitate
    investment in future similar projects in the marketplace. And
    that's why it's so important that Congress provided--and you,
    Senator, played a role with the 2020 Energy Act in expanding
    the role, not just to R&D that DOE can play, but supporting
    commercial-scale demonstration of these technologies.
        Senator Murkowski. And that's why I think we are so excited
    about the potential out there, because we are in this unique
    ecosystem, if you will, given the topography and the geography
    of the Slope compared to other areas in the Lower 48. You know,
    you have an opportunity here where you can utilize both CCUS
    and direct air capture in a heavily concentrated and primarily
    industrialized area there between Prudhoe and Kuparuk. And so,
    you have an amazing opportunity up there to demonstrate in a
    way that is unique, driven by, again, the topography and how
    things are concentrated. So we are very, very excited about it.
        You mentioned the recognition that we are working with
    Alaska Natives--ANCs and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. I
    think you have been up to Alaska enough to know and understand
    the complexity of the institutions that are serving Alaska
    Native people. It's not just tribes--it's tribal consortia,
    it's the corporations. And I have heard from some applicants
    that there is a worry or a concern that there is this
    disconnect, or perhaps a lack of appreciation or understanding
    for how ANCs work as part of the project--their place in the
    community, how the benefits actually flow back to shareholders.
    So I hope that you can give me some assurance that these
    applications aren't being discounted because, perhaps, some
    within the systems lack an understanding about ANCs and how
    they operate.
        Mr. Crabtree. I appreciate that question. I would suspect
    that probably, more broadly, you encounter a lot of lack of
    understanding----
        Senator Murkowski. Yes.
        Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. Of Alaska Native Corporations
    and the role that they play. Because we have our Arctic Energy
    Office, for example, on my first trip to Alaska I was fully
    briefed. The team actually organized a dialogue for me with
    representatives of the corporations. I think a greater
    challenge, if I may, in Alaska right now that I think my two
    visits and the subsequent follow-up of my team has helped, you
    and I talked about this in Anchorage, is that you have enormous
    opportunities in Alaska for regional initiatives. Turning the
    Cook Inlet into a carbon hub, for example.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Mr. Crabtree. You have been mentioning the North Slope
    here. There is also the decarbonization of your regionally
    isolated grid.
        Senator Murkowski. Which we are really excited about.
        Mr. Crabtree. And there are enormous opportunities there,
    but when I--the first trip I made, I sensed there was not an
    appreciation for the multiple provisions in the infrastructure
    legislation and in the Inflation Reduction Act that could be
    layered together to do comprehensive projects. In my sense,
    that is changing. And from our DOE perspective, the Alaska
    Native Corporations are fundamental to all of that.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I will look forward to working
    with you, and if you have identified something that we need to
    speak to, just about how the whole system knits together up
    there, I am happy to do that. These are exciting.
        Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate that you and the Ranking
    Member have put this before the Committee today. I have a whole
    host of questions, not only for Mr. Crabtree, but Mr. Pigott,
    that I would like to ask to be included as part of questions
    for the record.
        The Chairman. Absolutely. And I think you might get another
    chance at this real quick.
        Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to inject, if you will pardon the term, another
    factor into this discussion, and that is time. We don't have
    time. There has to be a sense of urgency about this. We are in
    a race with climate change. We are seeing the impacts
    accelerating year by year by year. And Ms. Barkau, you
    testified about the process to get to where you are today, and
    the well will be ready, my calculation was seven years from the
    time it started in 2018. That can't be the standard. And I am
    very disturbed by the Chairman's chart of 169 applications, no
    approvals. This is--if the goal is protecting the environment,
    we have got to get on with it. We can't be delaying and slow-
    walking the process in order to achieve our climate goals,
    whether it's CCUS or transmission lines or any other of the
    necessary infrastructure, to achieve a green energy future.
        And so, I guess I want to start with Mr. Crabtree. Where
    are we on feasibility? And I am an old alternative energy/
    renewable energy developer. I think in terms of cents per
    kilowatt-hour. What are we talking about for CCUS when added to
    the cost of the output of a coal plant, for example?
        Mr. Crabtree. That is so site specific, but----
        Senator King. Give me a range, a ballpark. Are we talking
    two cents a kilowatt-hour or ten cents a kilowatt-hour?
        Mr. Crabtree. I would want to get back to you in a question
    for the record to show on that, but here is what I can say. For
    coal-powered power generation, the cost of carbon capture and
    storage is in the neighborhood of the 45Q tax credit. There is
    substantial commercial risk that increases the financing costs
    of projects. Some of the investments we are making, that we
    have been talking about, and CO2 transport and
    geologic storage, will help to de-risk those commercial
    investments because part of the challenge is that you are not
    just investing in the capital--in the operations of the carbon
    capture equipment--you have that whole value chain of the
    CO2 transport and storage.
        Senator King. Well, I would appreciate it if you could give
    me an answer on the numbers. In other words, will the cost of
    carbon capture equal the cost of producing the energy, or will
    it be more? Will it be less? And I just--that is a crucial
    factor because, again, one of the factors we are thinking about
    here is consumers--what they have got to pay for electricity.
    So I just would like that data, if you could. You don't need to
    answer now, but----
        Mr. Crabtree. I will definitely provide it for the record.
        Senator King. And Mr. Pigott, can we do this without
    damaging local communities? The objection is potential damage
    to local communities, water pollution--again, not a detailed
    answer, my time is ticking away, but can it be done in an
    environmentally sound manner?
        Mr. Pigott. We believe yes, it can, Senator.
        And I very much appreciate the sense of urgency that you
    brought to this discussion. We believe it's urgent too. That's
    why we are working to ensure and announce today the grant to
    ensure that states across the nation are able to put in place
    primacy applications. And we are willing to work with states,
    not only to provide them with the funding, but knowing on the
    front-end what they should expect in order to process and
    receive primacy.
        Senator King. Ms. Barkau testified that it took almost
    three years to get their primacy designation. That's not
    acceptable. I mean, if it takes you three years to get to the
    starting point, and then the state has to do the permitting,
    and then there is a period for construction, there has got to
    be a process to accelerate that primacy determination.
        Mr. Pigott. Senator, we are working every day, and I agree
    with that sense of urgency to expedite our processes. There are
    important considerations to keep in mind. The federal programs
    are required to be mirrored by the states. So the legislation
    and the regulations have to mirror the federal regulations. So
    when we talk to states--and we have a four-phase application
    process--one, as Ms. Barkau mentioned, is the preapplication
    meeting. And one of the ways to speed that process up is to
    communicate upfront what we need from their legislature and
    regulations.
        Senator King. Perhaps you could produce a national template
    to all the states and say, here is the need, and not make it
    one by one. I would remind you that Eisenhower retook Europe in
    11 months.
        Mr. Pigott. Thank you for that reminder, sir, and we agree,
    which is why we recently put out guidance to our regions and to
    states to ensure that they know what needs to be embedded in
    their processes when they submit permit applications. And it's
    all on our website and available for all the states and
    individual applicants. But we are meeting with them in addition
    to that, to ensure that they have all the tools on the front-
    end and that things are expedited, not delayed because
    something is not ready.
        Senator King. And Mr. Crabtree, finally, in just the last
    few seconds. This is a necessary technology in order to achieve
    the climate goals, is it not? I looked at my ISO app a few
    minutes ago--eight percent of our energy in New England is now
    coming from renewables--eight percent. That means fossil fuels
    are going to be there for a while, and we have got to be able
    to deal with the carbon impact.
        Mr. Crabtree. Yes, it is essential, not only from a climate
    standpoint and for decarbonizing fossil fuels, but I would note
    that if you just look at industrial processes, upon which
    modern life utterly depends, many of them, a majority of the
    emissions are unrelated to the energy inputs. The actual
    industrial processes themselves produce CO2, and if
    you don't capture and manage that CO2, we cannot
    decarbonize cement, steel, chemicals. On those industries
    alone, we will fail to meet our climate goals without economy-
    wide deployment of carbon management.
        Senator King. I would summarize my questions by the term
    ``hurry up.'' Thank you.
        Mr. Crabtree. Thank you, sir.
        The Chairman. Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding
    the hearing today.
        Good to see you, all of you. Thank you for being here and
    testifying today.
        Secretary Crabtree, particularly good to see you--of
    course, our time from North Dakota, working on these important
    issues, and I appreciate that you are working on them now in
    your current role. Given that you are from North Dakota, you
    are aware of our projects. Obviously, the Denbury EOR project
    in Bowman County has been operating for quite some time. Dakota
    Gasification company has been operating for--I think I turned a
    wheel on that for the carbon to go to the oil fields about 20
    years ago. Yeah, well, I wasn't far off then. Red Trail Energy,
    Blue Flint now. So Red Trail has been operating for a while
    now. Blue Flint is just added. Dakota Gasification company,
    now, in addition to their EOR, they are now adding
    sequestration. I think that they are getting very close. That
    will be the largest carbon capture project in the world when
    they have completed the next phase. And they will be capturing
    up to 85 percent of the CO2 they produce at that
    point. Project Tundra is moving forward--a conventional coal-
    fired electric plant adding CO2 capture. That one
    being a rural electric cooperative owned, and of course, Coal
    Creek, an investor-owned coal conventional plant also working
    to do the same thing. And undoubtedly, you are aware of the
    Marathon renewable diesel refinery project, which was part of
    the hydrogen hub for our area, probably a $2.5 billion project
    for carbon capture, fertilizer production, and so forth, on a
    renewable refinery that we have in western North Dakota.
        So, as the Ranking Member said earlier, North Dakota and
    Wyoming, two states with primacy. I have always said primacy is
    very important in terms of getting projects going. And I would
    encourage both you and Secretary Pigott to, you know, work with
    more states to get the ability to get primacy. I mean, that is
    one way, I think--I know you have been hearing it, and
    rightfully so, that you need to get these projects going. One
    way to help yourself is to get more states primacy, I believe,
    as a solution to get this done. You just get, you know, it's
    like, you just get a lot more hands on deck. And so, I am going
    to come to you in a minute and ask you, Secretary Pigott, about
    what you think can happen there to get more states primacy. We
    welcome the competition.
        But specifically, Secretary Crabtree, for you, and you know
    what's coming here--the regional partnerships. We could not be
    doing all these things without the work of the EERC at the
    University of North Dakota--Energy and Environmental Research
    Center at the University of North Dakota, which is the manager
    of the hydrogen hub for our region. Almost a billion dollars,
    and they will do a tremendous job, but their partnerships, the
    regional carbon sequestration partnership that we have with the
    outstanding University of Wyoming, the Cowboys, but also my
    partner just left, but Alaska, as well. We need those regional
    partnerships to be funded, and we worked very hard to
    appropriate funds to do that. I am also on the Appropriations
    Committee, as is our Chairman. And the Chairman and I recently
    sent a letter, and we want to know when the FOAs are going to
    go out and when we are going to get that funding for '23 for
    those regional partnerships. And I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will
    agree with me, that is an absolute priority that that get done
    and that outstanding partnerships like ours, and West Virginia
    has one too, are able to continue their good work.
        Would you agree with that, Mr. Chairman? I would like that
    to be on the record, if you would.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [Letter regarding regional partnerships follows:]
        GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

        Senator Hoeven. Secretary Crabtree, I didn't surprise you,
    did I, with this question?
        Mr. Crabtree. Didn't surprise me, and let me just say, I am
    very----
        Senator Hoeven. Kind of a question and a bit of a
    statement, yeah.
        Mr. Crabtree. Yes. Very excited about the projects in North
    Dakota. You recall many years ago when I used to harass you as
    the Governor about things we could do to encourage exactly
    these kinds of developments. So it has taken too long, but it's
    very exciting.
        With respect to the regional partnerships, I agree with you
    about their importance. As far as the funding, the NOI is out.
    The funding opportunity announcement will be out this year, and
    we will work to expedite its implementation once it is
    announced. That was a commitment we made to you and your staff
    and the Committee and we will honor that. As you know, things
    were challenging on the Committee. There were different views
    at the member level. We did not have four corners of agreement.
        Senator Hoeven. There certainly were.
        Mr. Crabtree. It strikes me from what I have seen, kind of
    reading the tea leaves, that maybe there is a coalescing on the
    Committee.
        Senator Hoeven. Good.
        Mr. Crabtree. So, as I have always told you, we have our
    own point of view about these things, but we will implement
    Congressional direction and we will gladly do it. That is our
    commitment to you. So I guess what I would want to emphasize
    though, and you were a lead sponsor of the SCALE Act, is what
    we are doing with the regional initiatives is now using them to
    drive commercial deployment of geologic storage, which is now
    fully commercial, and the $2.5 billion in the infrastructure
    bill, organizations like EERC are extremely well-positioned to
    lead that technical assistance effort.
        Senator Hoeven. No doubt.
        Mr. Crabtree. And so, that is what we are doing in our
    funding opportunity announcements. It's all about building
    facts on the ground--real projects, real storage. We will
    complement that with the CO2 pipeline infrastructure
    through CIFIA and all the other things that you supported prior
    to the infrastructure legislation. And so this can be a tool to
    see these results in project development on the ground.
        Senator Hoeven. This is really happening now, you know.
        Mr. Crabtree. It is.
        Senator Hoeven. You know, you and I talked about this 20
    years ago, and now it's really happening. And so----
        Mr. Crabtree. We are both a little older, Senator.
        Senator Hoeven. A little bit, yeah, a little lighter hair
    color and all, particularly me, but you know, your work is
    really important that we get this out there, so----
        Mr. Crabtree. Well, I feel the urgency of it every day.
        Senator Hoeven. Good.
        Mr. Crabtree. I agree with what Senator King said about----
        Senator Hoeven. And Mr. Chairman, I know I am over my time.
        The Chairman. Senator Hawley, he will give you a few
    minutes----
        Senator Hoeven. Oh, Senator Hawley, will you hold for a
    minute?
        Senator Hawley. Absolutely.
        Senator Hoeven. What about getting more states primacy,
    Secretary Pigott?
        Mr. Pigott. Senator, we agree with the approach that we
    need all hands on deck.
        Senator Hoeven. So you are pushing for that?
        Mr. Pigott. Absolutely.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay.
        Mr. Pigott. In fact, today we are announcing the
    availability of that $50 million that you all authorized us to
    grant to states to assist in that primacy process, and we are
    totally on board. And we are going to get that money out so
    that states can get primacy, and we worked together to issue
    these permits.
        Senator Hoeven. Well, that's good, because the Chairman has
    kind of a temper. Don't tell anybody.
        The Chairman. No, no, no, we have one we have been waiting
    for. We are just about there, hopefully. We are close, right?
        Mr. Pigott. That is correct, sir.
        The Chairman. Close.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the
    witnesses for being here.
        Mr. Pigott, I am going to address my comments to you, and
    what I am about to talk about will probably come as no surprise
    to you. It's not--I want to acknowledge at the start--it's not
    within your remit at EPA. But I want you to carry back to your
    colleagues at EPA my seriousness about this issue and my
    consternation about it. And I am talking about the radioactive
    nuclear contamination in the State of Missouri, and in
    particular, in the St. Louis and St. Charles areas. This dates
    back to the Manhattan Project, when St. Louis was used as a
    processing site for uranium. Proudly did their duty--the
    residents of St. Louis contributed to that important project,
    but when it was over, the Federal Government didn't dispose of
    the waste. They left it for the people of St. Louis to deal
    with. Worse than that, they negligently attempted to dispose of
    it themselves, the government did, and what it ended up doing
    was, a whole bunch of it got into, ran off--it was left in oil
    tankers, drums--there are photos of this--that just sat in an
    open parking lot for years. The runoff went into a creek called
    Coldwater Creek, North County, St. Louis, where many, many
    homes were at the time, and still are. Generations of kids grew
    up playing in that creek. Now, many, many of them have cancer,
    autoimmune diseases, you name it.
        Then, a whole other batch of it was put into a landfill,
    and that's what I want to bring to your attention, because the
    EPA has jurisdiction over it. It's the West Lake Landfill in
    Bridgeton, Missouri. That's just right outside of St. Louis.
    And there, for years now, that landfill has been sitting there
    with nuclear radioactive material underground, not cleaned up.
    The State of Missouri can't do anything about it because you've
    got jurisdiction. And now, there is a subterranean fire that is
    burning. I mean, you cannot make this stuff up. There is a
    subterranean fire that is burning in the landfill that
    threatens to ignite the nuclear material. Meanwhile, the
    material in the landfill is very close to the water sources, to
    the water table.
        Now, this has been going on--when I say years, I don't just
    mean for a few months--I mean for decades now, this has been
    going on for decades--decades, and it's not cleaned up at all.
    In 2018--2018--there has been a Superfund site, could I just
    say for the record, since 1990.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Senator Hawley. So in 2018, the EPA finally said, well,
    they have come up with a plan for remediation and it would take
    four years to remediate--2018. This is 2023. So far, no
    remediation has been done. The latest thing the EPA said is,
    well, maybe they would announce a remediation schedule to begin
    in 2024, but then in March of this year, the EPA announced that
    the contamination was worse than they thought, which the
    residents have been saying for years. And now they cannot
    provide a timeline for cleanup. I mean, this is unbelievable,
    which has led to my push, which I am proud to say has passed
    the Senate, to make sure that every resident in the St. Louis
    and St. Charles region who has been exposed to this nuclear
    contamination from their own government has their medical bills
    paid for. That is the only fair and just thing to do. Glad to
    say it passed the Senate. I hope it will soon pass the House.
        But here's the deal: I need the EPA to get moving on this
    and clean this up. A Superfund site since 1990 and there is
    still nothing being done. EPA sent me a response letter on
    August 24th of this year in which they said they still don't
    have a timeline for remediation. The letter reads, in part,
    ``Once the EPA approves the remedial design and there is an
    enforceable legal agreement in place with the responsible
    parties, then the remedial actions process can begin.'' Oh, my
    gosh.
        So Mr. Pigott, I need you to communicate once again to your
    colleagues at the EPA that this is--people are dying. This is
    not an acceptable situation. It hasn't been acceptable for
    decades. And I will just make one other point here, and that
    is, it's probably no coincidence that the folks who live in
    this area are not big-time donors to political parties. They
    are not big-time party activists. These are working people. And
    they have been taken advantage of for years, and the
    government, for years, has just expected them to live with it,
    and when they said over and over and over, this contamination
    is bad, this contamination is spreading, there is a ground fire
    in the landfill, they were told just shut up and live with it.
    And they are dying in record numbers. You go look at the cancer
    rates in the St. Louis region, you will find them off the
    charts. You go look at breast cancer for women, in particular,
    in the St. Louis region, you will find it's the leading center
    of it in the nation--in the nation.
        This has got to stop and we need the EPA to clean this site
    up. That's my message.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Pigott. Thank you, Senator. And I promise I will
    deliver your message directly back to us at headquarters to
    ensure that everyone is aware of the concerns that you raised.
    As a widower of a spouse that passed from breast cancer, I
    certainly understand the concern with which you raise these
    issues, and I promise I will deliver this message.
        The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.
        Just in time.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank all of
    you for being here, for your service, all your hard work.
        Mr. Crabtree, I will start with you. I share the view of
    the International Energy Agency and others, that view that we
    need to increase our carbon capture, our storage capabilities,
    to stay on track for zero emissions by 2050. We think of this
    in our office as a great transition. And it's part of
    artificial intelligence. I mean, all the technology that is
    changing is part of this energy transition as well, as
    different as they seem to be sometimes. I think what we have
    been lacking in the great energy transition is a business plan
    where we look at all the various risks and opportunities, try
    to be able to map out specific priorities, and why this
    priority over that priority. And I think that is part of why we
    need to get the private sector fully engaged. DOE was using
    funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to look at
    productive uses for carbon, including those uses to create
    revenue and hopefully generate long-term success.
        So can you describe a little bit more the Department of
    Energy's carbon utilization program and how they can help
    achieve long-term economic vitality in this arena?
        Mr. Crabtree. Senator, thanks for the question. Good to see
    you again.
        I actually really--everyone says appreciate the question--
    but I appreciate this question because carbon conversion has
    not actually received the attention it deserves. Part of it, I
    think, is that there are a lot of different technologies and
    potential business models. It's a much broader and more diverse
    and complex field than, say, capturing CO2 from even
    the industrial sector, but especially from power plants. And
    it's also, relatively speaking, newer, and so, the
    infrastructure bill was important because it actually doubled
    our office's funding for carbon conversion from $50 million a
    year to roughly $100 million. But if you look at the relative
    investments across a carbon management portfolio, in the
    infrastructure bill, it's still a very small part of the larger
    puzzle. We think it could be quite a bit bigger.
        And in terms of thinking about some of the pathways--first
    of all, it's not just CO2, it's also carbon monoxide
    that comes out of industrial processes, steel production, in
    particular, before it is combusted to become CO2.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Right.
        Mr. Crabtree. And so, we are going to be providing support
    to things like the development of building materials from waste
    carbon emissions. There is a lot of attention, of course, to
    taking cement and then, of course, making concrete and curing,
    having CO2 in that curing process. Also, substitutes
    for the portland cement, which is very CO2 intensive
    to produce. Those are all opportunities. We are also seeing
    lots of opportunities for mineralization in the production of
    products, taking captured carbon emissions. I am also very
    excited about biological pathways, but not the way most people
    would think--for example, taking carbon monoxide, and in
    effect, feeding that to microorganisms and then producing
    energy and products through those microorganisms.
        The other thing that is exciting about carbon conversion
    is, in some industrial contexts, you can avoid combustion
    altogether, so there are environmental benefits beyond reducing
    carbon emissions.
        Senator Hickenlooper. That's--I have got to cut you off.
        Mr. Crabtree. Sorry.
        Senator Hickenlooper. I have written questions as well.
        I do want to get a question to Ms. Barkau.
        The U.S. Geological Survey--I have bored most of you one
    time or another with the fact that I am an ex-geologist. The
    U.S. Geological Survey was my home base for part of my life.
    They have estimated that as many as 130 million acres of
    federal land have carbon storage potential. That includes large
    basins in western states like Colorado. There can be complex
    ownership issues--some mix of federal, state lands, private
    ownership, many places in the west where the surface ownership
    is different than the mineral rights. Sometimes those mineral
    rights are federally owned. And so, it makes it tricky to
    decipher who owns the pore space, that empty space between the
    grains, once the oil is taken out, where carbon would be
    injected.
        How does this ambiguity surrounding pore space on federal
    lands hamper carbon capture sequestration permitting, and what
    can we do--what can Congress do--to provide clarity?
        Ms. Barkau. Yes, it's certainly an issue that's in Wyoming.
    Our southwest corner of the state is a checkerboard pattern
    consisting of state or private lands mixed with federal lands.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Those old railroads.
        Ms. Barkau. Yes, exactly. And it is a problem. Not
    understanding how to correlate the right-of-way authorizations
    with the Class VI permitting and financial assurance will play
    a part of that. The split estate is certainly an issue that we
    are currently seeing with some of our permits where it is a
    private surface owner and so, in Wyoming, the surface owner is
    the pore space owner. But there are federal minerals there, and
    what exactly their role will be when it comes to the rights-of-
    way and the Class VI permitting and receipt of comments from
    BLM for this particular situation, there needs to be further
    guidance on how the roles and responsibilities of the different
    agencies, whether it's in a state with primacy, or EPA for that
    Class VI permitting and the BLM so that there's not duplication
    of efforts during the review process is really needed.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Duplication of efforts, not in
    government--I can't imagine that.
        Anyway, I have more questions, and I will submit them in
    writing, and I appreciate all of you being here.
        I yield back to the Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Chairman, thank you. Ranking Member
    Barrasso, thank you as well.
        Since taking office, the Biden Administration has
    promulgated rule after rule attacking Montana oil, Montana gas,
    Montana coal. At this moment in history, as we are watching
    what is happening in the Middle East, the world unraveling,
    whether it's what has happened with Putin invading Ukraine and
    natural gas, whether what's seen with the Biden Administration
    releasing sanctions on Iranian oil, at the same time shutting
    down Alaskan oil, shutting down the Keystone pipeline, shutting
    down oil and gas production wherever they can. It's insane, and
    it ties right back to national security.
        I don't know why this Administration is not trying to do
    all it can to produce more made-in-America energy, coal, oil,
    and natural gas. We have anti-coal EPA regulations, like MATS
    and the Clean Power Plan 2.0. This Administration is doing
    everything they can to kill jobs and make my home State of
    Montana an energy importer rather than the energy hub it has
    been and would continue to be if the Administration left their
    hands off our state. We should be able to come together to
    promote carbon capture technology, to reduce carbon emissions,
    to maintain a stable grid, and to build jobs, but instead, this
    Administration is focused on an ideology that has become a
    religion, focused on regulate first, ask questions later.
        Mr. Pigott, the EPA has proposed rules like MATS and Clean
    Power Plan 2.0 that seem to be directly focused on shutting
    down the Colstrip Power Plant in Montana. Both rules appear to
    give an ultimatum--install prohibitively expensive capture
    technology in a very short time period or shut down. Neither
    rule gives coal plants like Colstrip the time or the money to
    meet these prohibitive standards. Instead, they set
    unattainable requirements in hopes that Colstrip will be forced
    to shut down. Instead of over-regulating, we should be focused
    on innovation, making carbon capture technology affordable for
    coal plants to install to meet these carbon reduction goals.
        Mr. Pigott, why is the EPA charging forward with these
    impossible-to-meet standards before technology like CCUS is
    widely commercialized and affordable?
        Mr. Pigott. Senator Daines, thank you for the question.
        I will say the issues of air quality regulations are not
    within my wheelhouse, so I am not prepared to answer the
    questions about where we are or the impact of those, but what
    is in my wheelhouse is the carbon capture permitting program,
    the Class VI program. And we are committed to ensure that we
    put in place the resources, which is why we are announcing
    today that we are getting the $50 million that you and Congress
    have allocated to states to assume primacy, because we believe
    states are critical partners in ensuring that we get these
    Class VI programs off the ground and running. And we are fully
    committed to doing so and doing it correctly.
        Senator Daines. But we can't--it's a noble statement, but
    it's unattainable based on the timelines that have been set
    here. I mean, the technology is not ready for prime time, and I
    recognize, I mean, you are not in that specifically at the EPA,
    but please help us here, because you are talking out of two
    sides of the mouth in this, saying we want this technology to
    reduce carbon, but we are not going to allow the technology
    time to mature. I am a chemical engineer by degree. I am big in
    innovation. Love the idea that we continue to make coal an
    important part of our energy future because it will be, as we
    look long-term, because the sun doesn't always shine and the
    wind doesn't always blow.
        I am not opposed to renewable energy, but we need to expand
    our portfolio when the world is going to need 50 percent more
    energy in the next 25 years than we use today. So in other
    words, you have to take that portfolio and go like this (hands
    far apart) over the course of the next 25 years, not like this
    (hands close together).
        Mr. Pigott. Senator, I come from Indiana, where for 20
    years I worked at the Indiana Department of Environmental
    Management. As you probably know, it's a coal state. And so, I
    am well aware of the concerns about providing reliable energy.
    And I am committed to ensuring that we put in place an
    effective Class VI program that issues permits in a timely
    manner. And I am happy to communicate with our folks in the
    Office of Air Quality of concerns that you have had.
        Senator Daines. Maybe they will watch the hearing and they
    will hear it directly as well. It would be helpful. It's deaf
    ears right now. I don't think they want to hear it, I really
    don't. I have been around Washington just long enough to see
    they really want to see these plants shut down. They think it's
    a noble cause as part of their belief that they are doing the
    right thing here for everybody in doing so.
        Assistant Secretary Crabtree, the Department of Energy
    plays an important role in assuring grid reliability. Is the
    Department reviewing the EPA rules and the drastic effect they
    have on the reliability of the grid in places like Montana and
    the rest of the country?
        Mr. Crabtree. Senator, yes, as you know, we are not the
    regulator here, but we do provide technical input on the
    regulations with respect to reliability. I would urge a more
    optimistic perspective on the technology. As someone who has
    been an advocate for carbon capture for over two decades now,
    in the time frames that are in the regulation and what we are
    doing with respect to the build-out of----
        Senator Daines. With all due respect, are they talking to
    the folks right now--the engineers, the project managers--who
    are in charge of delivering this? That's the problem. I mean,
    there's a major disconnect here in terms of probably the time
    that I think it's realistically going to take versus the EPA
    mandates that are coming out. And it's an existential threat to
    our operations in Montana.
        And grid reliability is really important, because if you
    don't have baseload power, you don't have grid reliability, as
    you know.
        Mr. Crabtree. Well, and that's why I think carbon capture
    is so important, because it allows us to decarbonize power
    generation and have that 24/7 dispatchable power, and I am very
    optimistic about--I am working with companies that literally
    have projects over the next decade where they hope to manage a
    significant portion of their emissions.
        Senator Daines. Have you meshed that with the EPA mandates
    that are coming down to make sure there is enough room to get
    both accomplished? Have you looked at that in detail?
        Mr. Crabtree. Well, our technical team has, yes.
        Senator Daines. Okay. I am out of time. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        I am going to have to go vote and then Senator Padilla is
    going to have his questions and then Senator Cassidy. He will
    be chairing the remainder of this meeting. But thank you all so
    much. It has been a great influence for all of us and great
    input from you all. We understand how important this is. And
    the bottom line is, we need an all-of-the-above energy policy
    and we need to do everything we can to make sure all the energy
    that we have is done in the cleanest fashion. I think we can
    lead the world in that. And elimination isn't going to cure the
    problem, but innovation can cure the problem. I think that's
    what we are striving for.
        So with that, I turn it over to Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. You are now the Chair.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, myself.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Padilla. So proud that California remains committed
    to leading the nation in the innovation that Senator Manchin
    just spoke of in working to reduce our greenhouse gas
    emissions. As part of that broad portfolio, there are currently
    11 geologic carbon sequestration proposals in California
    undergoing review for Class VI underground injection control
    permits at EPA. Also pleased to hear that the Administration is
    carefully considering environmental justice concerns when
    reviewing these projects and applications. While these
    technologies have the potential to address disproportionate
    rates of illness experienced by vulnerable communities due to
    air pollution, we are mindful enough that we recognize it is
    vital that these new technologies do not inadvertently harm
    communities in other ways, including through harmful
    contamination of groundwater basins that provide drinking water
    to communities.
        A question for Mr. Pigott: you mentioned in your testimony
    that the EPA has a responsibility to ensure that carbon capture
    and storage technologies do not contaminate drinking water. Can
    you elaborate for a minute on how specifically the EPA is
    planning to ensure these projects do not have those adverse
    impacts?
        Mr. Pigott. Thank you, Senator Padilla.
        Yes, I can. I know that the geological formations in the
    ground are very important for us to consider as we look to
    ensure that we put these carbon wells in the right places. We
    examine the geology to ensure that the area is free of
    fractures and faults. We look at the injected CO2
    plume--where is it expected to go, and what is the likelihood
    that it could spread? And then we look at the specifics of the
    well construction itself to ensure that the well is constructed
    in such a way as to operate properly.
        But it does not stop there and it does not stop with just
    the issuance of a permit. Long after a well is closed, we
    ensure that there are requirements in the permits for the
    permittees to monitor and to put in place and have financial
    insurance in place, corrective action plans, in the event that
    something unexpected happens. So there are several technical
    aspects that we embed within our approval of our permits. In
    addition to that, we--our job being to secure that people are
    fully protected from adverse environmental consequences--have
    taken several steps over this past year to ensure that
    communities are involved and aware of that process. These
    common-sense practices set out clear expectations for
    communities and for the project proponents so that everybody
    knows what the expectations are. So there is a thorough
    analysis of where these wells are sited, but there is a
    thorough participation by the communities to ensure everyone is
    aware and assured of the functional ability of these projects,
    Senator.
        Senator Padilla. I am pleased to hear about the
    consideration, not just during the application and approval
    process, but ongoing. It is a very different type of facility,
    but you are speaking to a Senator who lives in the shadow of
    the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility in Southern California,
    which was the source of the largest methane gas leak, I
    believe, in our nation's history just a couple of years ago,
    due to aging and not sufficiently maintained, obviously, wells
    and other infrastructure.
        On a different topic, I know 45Q has been discussed a good
    amount earlier in the hearing, but I have a question with a
    slightly different angle to it. In 2020, the International
    Energy Agency published a report examining the role for carbon
    capture in the clean energy transition, noting that it would be
    virtually impossible to reach net zero without carbon capture
    utilization and sequestration and direct air capture
    technology. Now, some innovators in California and around the
    country are going even further in making products like cement
    with lower or even zero emissions. However, the 45Q tax credit
    only applies to companies that emit and then capture their
    emissions, but not companies that are directly lowering or
    eliminating emissions altogether.
        The question is for Mr. Crabtree. How should we think about
    balancing current incentives for carbon capture versus
    rewarding innovation or innovative technologies for low or
    reduced emissions?
        Mr. Crabtree. Thank you, Senator.
        So you have identified, obviously, what needs to be a top
    priority, which is if you can avoid the emissions in the first
    place, then you should do that. And so, I would note that
    outside the context of carbon management, fortunately, the
    infrastructure bill is comprehensive, as are the tax credits in
    the Inflation Reduction Act, so you mentioned the 45Q tax
    credit, but there is the 48C tax credit, there are other tax
    credits that are focused on decarbonization, as well as funding
    provisions in the infrastructure bill--one I would note that
    gets to, I think, your concern, is being implemented by the
    Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, and that is the
    Industrial Decarbonization provision. It's a $6 billion
    provision in the infrastructure bill and it allows for carbon
    capture, but it also funds things like advanced energy
    efficiency in industrial settings, electrifying of different
    heating processes.
        One of the major demands of energy and sources of emissions
    in the industrial sector is heat. And so, to the extent that we
    can electrify that heat, we are obviously avoiding emissions.
    That is assuming the electricity is decarbonized. And then
    there are just a range of--the role of hydrogen also can be
    brought into industry to avoid emissions in the first place. So
    that is, I think, a critical area where we can make progress
    and avoid emissions in the first place.
        Senator Padilla. Ms. Burns, would you have anything else to
    add?
        Ms. Burns. Thank you, Senator.
        I would say what Brad said on where we can reduce is
    incredibly important. And I would say also, you know, you
    touched on the role of California. I will say Carbon180 started
    out of California. We were proudly headquartered there until
    very recently. We are also a part of one of the direct air
    capture hubs projects, the Community Alliance for Direct Air
    Capture in the Central Valley. And I think we are particularly
    excited about the role that California has played in leading
    the nation on things like direct air capture, including the
    plant that is going to be unveiled next week in Tracy,
    California, led by Heirloom.
        And so, I think, looking holistically at the innovation
    that we can support in the state and across the country is
    really essential.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. Well, flattery will get you
    very far.
        And just a final note before recognizing Senator Cassidy. I
    think the longer-term question here is, as new technologies
    come, we want to make sure that we are keeping up with our
    incentive structure that reflects new technologies that will
    not necessarily always fit into the categories as we structure
    them initially.
        Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
        Mr. Pigott, Louisiana is seeking to get primacy for Class
    VI wells. I mean, this is like a year overdue. I think,
    literally, maybe two years overdue, but just amazing. And we
    were told--the Governor and I were on the phone with Mr. Regan
    not long ago--I guess it was a long time ago, maybe eight
    months, maybe six months, in which it was intimated that we
    were about to receive. We still haven't received. What's the
    holdup? Louisiana apparently is a model for many aspects of the
    application, and we still haven't received. Can you tell me why
    not?
        Mr. Pigott. Senator Cassidy, first I want to say I
    appreciate your concern about the primacy process and the
    number of applications that are currently under review. I share
    that concern, and we are working hard to provide that process,
    and we are following the rule process that we have articulated,
    which is, we public-noticed the rule and now we have 66,000
    comments. And we will be responding to each and every comment.
        Senator Cassidy. But you reopened the public--do I recall,
    did you reopen the public? I mean, you've done it. You
    completed that, and then you reopened it? Excuse my
    frustration, but I mean, I get the impression you don't want to
    give us primacy.
        Mr. Pigott. Sir, we are fully committed to this primacy----
        Senator Cassidy. Then why did you reopen?
        Mr. Pigott. We reopened it because Louisiana submitted
    additional documentation to us regarding the application. And
    we wanted to make sure----
        Senator Cassidy. That must be something that was solicited,
    because as far as the Governor was concerned, we were about to
    announce that we were going to receive it, and boom--it's
    reopened. So I am thinking that there may have been something
    like--kind of like, we need to hear from you guys again.
        Mr. Pigott. There was a change in the statutory provisions
    in Louisiana that Louisiana submitted to us. And in order to
    make sure that the primacy for Louisiana was fully defensible,
    we public-noticed that, and we did it for an additional 30
    days.
        Senator Cassidy. Can I ask--my staff tells me that the
    filing said no changes were needed because the application
    addressed the changes in the law.
        So I am hearing that--I am getting mixed messages here. And
    I am getting a sense that I am hearing an excuse as opposed to
    that which was actually offered. And I don't mean to be
    obnoxious about it, but how long does it take EPA, if you don't
    have--the state does not have primacy--how long does it take
    the EPA to permit, on average, a Class VI well?
        Mr. Pigott. The permitting process takes approximately two
    years, sir.
        Senator Cassidy. So okay, so Louisiana has direct air
    capture. We are trying to sequester carbon. We are trying to
    achieve the goals that have been laid out there, and we have
    met all the goals, and I am told that your filing said that we
    had accommodated our change in law by our application. But
    instead, it has been reopened. Tell me why I shouldn't be
    incredibly frustrated with EPA.
        Mr. Pigott. We are interested in ensuring that the primacy
    application is fully defensible, and now we are past the public
    comment period. We received 66,000----
        Senator Cassidy. And how long will it take to review those
    66,000?
        Mr. Pigott. We are in the end stages of this process.
        Senator Cassidy. So end stages. I used to talk to medical
    students, and they would say ``about to.'' Can you tell me what
    end stages means? Is it a week? Is it two weeks? Because it has
    been two years. So is it a month? Can you give me a time frame?
        Mr. Pigott. Senator, I certainly appreciate the frustration
    that you have with the process. And we are all very interested
    in----
        Senator Cassidy. Can you just tell me what is the time
    frame? Because I have limited time.
        Mr. Pigott. We are hoping in the near future----
        Senator Cassidy. The near future doesn't mean anything to
    me. Is it a month? Is it two months? Is it a week?
        Mr. Pigott. We will continue to ensure----
        Senator Cassidy. That is a non-answer and you know it. Can
    you give me a month?
        Mr. Pigott. Senator, we are committed--fully committed to
    issuing primacy for Louisiana. And I want to make sure that----
        Senator Cassidy. I hear you say that, but I see no evidence
    of it. No evidence whatsoever, and you won't give me a straight
    answer.
        Mr. Pigott. Senator, we have finished the process, except
    for the part where we are responding to all the public
    comments, which is required in that process.
        Senator Cassidy. If you have got 66,000 of them, how long
    does it take you to respond to 66,000 comments?
        Mr. Pigott. Well, we have been working to do that and we
    will continue to work on it.
        Senator Cassidy. I'm sorry. I apologize. I have to move on
    because I am not getting an answer.
        Mr. Pigott. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cassidy. And you know I am not getting an answer.
        Mr. Crabtree, another bit of frustration. Louisiana had a
    hydrogen hub application, which made all the sense in the world
    to me. We have the pipelines. We actually had the guaranteed
    offtake of the hydrogen that we were going to make, and we have
    the Mississippi River, which allows us to ship it around the
    world. Looked pretty good to me. But it turns out only one hub
    was approved on the Gulf Coast, even though we have the
    infrastructure, we have the natural gas, we have the
    transportation. A bunch were in the Northeast, which is quite
    remarkable to me, since they don't have, typically, the
    advantages we do. And yet, then I heard that the merit
    reviewers, paid by DOE to judge applications in some cases, did
    not ask questions or comment upon Louisiana's application. And
    DOE did nothing about that.
        Then we were told last week that there was no standardized
    way by which the questions were supposed to be formed on these
    applications. There isn't a uniform sending of questions or
    clarifications of any of the 28 hydrogen hub applications. Now,
    heck, I couldn't help but notice that a lot of the hydrogen hub
    places were blue states. Then I heard a rumor that they were
    just trying to spread the love as opposed to going where there
    was increased merit. So knowing that I am frustrated by all
    this, tell me why I should believe in this process when some of
    the reviewers didn't even comment or ask questions on the
    Louisiana application?
        Mr. Crabtree. Senator, so I was involved in my capacity as
    Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon
    Management, as many of my colleagues heading other offices
    were, in the development of the funding opportunity
    announcement for the hydrogen hubs. And we routinely do that
    with different provisions in the infrastructure bill. But at
    the point at which it was announced as a solicitation of
    funding opportunity announcement, my involvement in the
    hydrogen hubs process ceased. And as you know, a merit review
    process of federal civil servants takes over, and even in those
    funding opportunity announcements that are the province of
    FECM, the office I oversee, once the FOA is released, I am not
    personally involved as a political appointee----
        Senator Cassidy. So----
        Mr. Crabtree. I am not trying to dodge your question. I
    actually watched the hearing. I understand your concerns and
    all the arguments you laid out. And my understanding is that
    there is a process in place to follow up with the office that
    is responsible for----
        Senator Cassidy. So far, we have not heard from them.
        Mr. Crabtree. Okay, well, I can take that back, that
    concern, but my understanding is that you would have the
    opportunity to address your concerns.
        The one thing I would like to address, just as someone who
    is deeply committed to the bipartisan implementation of the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we make every possible effort we
    can to implement these provisions equitably, fairly. And I
    recognize your support and other members from both political
    parties for that legislation and how profoundly important it is
    that all regions of the country benefit. And I think if you
    look across the implementation of the infrastructure
    provisions, states like my own of North Dakota, yours, and
    others that are deeply red states, are very competitive and
    receiving significant funding in other areas.
        Senator Cassidy. I accept that, but the goal of it was not
    necessarily to give some to California because California has
    not received enough. It was to go where you are going to
    achieve the goals of the legislation, which is to remove carbon
    from the atmosphere or otherwise create lower carbon intensity
    products. That was actually the goal. And so, it should be upon
    merit, not upon let's make sure everybody gets a little piece
    of the pie. But whenever the Federal Government does that, we
    lose effectiveness.
        So I am way over time and I got to go vote, but thank you
    all very much.
        Mr. Crabtree. Senator Cassidy, I wasn't speaking to the
    hydrogen provision. I was speaking more generally to our
    commitment----
        Senator Cassidy. I agree with that.
        Mr. Crabtree [continuing]. With the bipartisan
    implementation.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Cassidy.
        I want to take a minute to thank, again, all of our
    witnesses for joining us this morning and for such a robust
    discussion.
        Announcement for members and their staff: members will have
    until close of business tomorrow to submit additional questions
    for the record.
        And with that, this Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT