CO2 Pipelines Are Safe…and We Need a Lot More

You’ve probably heard about a clean energy technology called Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage – or “CCUS” for short.

This is a method of capturing carbon dioxide or “CO₂” from emissions sources like power plants and industrial facilities. Another method for reducing emissions is called Direct Air Capture, which removes CO₂ that is already in our atmosphere — think a giant vacuum. If we’re serious about global emissions reduction — we need both.

In addition to driving down emissions, captured CO₂ is also a valuable commodity. CO₂ is not only used to make your beer fizz, carbon oxides can be used for everyday products like building materials, fertilizer, and fuels. CO₂ that is not in use can be permanently and safely stored – usually underground – where it resides for thousands of years.

Often, when CO₂ is captured, it’s not located near an available storage or use site and has to be transported to another location. Today, the best and safest way to move CO₂ is through pipelines.

Pipelines are everywhere – often without us even realizing it. They are beneath our highways, run through our cities, and connect our homes. Other essential resources, like natural gas, water, and waste, are all moved by pipelines. That’s because pipelines are the most land-efficient way to transport materials while minimizing environmental impact.

The Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, also known as “PHMSA”, has long regulated the security of this infrastructure. PHMSA provides national standards for pipeline design, construction, maintenance and operation. These ensure that all necessary measures are taken to mitigate risks and safeguard the well-being of your family and the environment.

Now let’s talk about CO₂ pipelines. The U.S. currently has more than 5,000 miles of these pipelines, which have been safely operating across our country for over 50 years. CO₂ is a stable, non flammable gas – we know it’s safe. We breathe it in and out every day – it’s even used in fire extinguishers. Over the last twenty years, there have been zero recorded fatalities associated with the very few CO₂ pipeline incidents that have occurred. A pipeline accident, like we saw in 2020 in Satartia, Mississippi, while concerning, is extremely uncommon and is not representative of the safety performance of this critical infrastructure over the last several decades.

As demand for clean, reliable, and affordable energy grows, so will the demand for effective carbon management technologies. That means, to meet our energy security and global emission reduction goals, the build-out of CO₂ pipeline infrastructure is vital. An estimated 30,000 – 96,000 miles of CO₂ pipelines will be needed by 2050 – that’s roughly 5 to 18 times the length of our existing network.

We get it, some people are uneasy about new infrastructure. But let’s face it, whether you care about climate change or U.S. competitiveness- we need these technologies. By building CO₂ pipeline infrastructure, we are not only building our capacity to reduce emissions and protect our environment, we’re also creating jobs, bolstering local economies, and continuing to use the energy sources that make our country strong. In America, we’re not afraid to build — it’s what we do.

And, through R&D and innovation, we’ll leverage the efficiency and maintain the strong safety record of this vital American infrastructure.

Let America build – A policy path to modernize energy permitting

Our team spends a lot of time on reliable, affordable, clean energy systems that run 24/7. These types of technologies are an integral part of our energy future, but with a growing economy and electricity demand doubling, we need MORE power.

This means building a lot of new nuclear, geothermal, and clean fossil power plants. We’ll also need immense new transmission and pipeline infrastructure to move energy around the country.

But we’ve got a ton of work to do in very little time.

Whether you are motivated by deep emissions reductions, furthering our nation’s energy security, or enabling the next generation of American manufacturing, the coming decades are essential. By many estimates, that means at least 10,000 new clean energy projects this decade alone. And, every one of those projects will require new permits to build.

Unfortunately, the U.S. has a world-class apparatus… for getting in the way.

Let me give you an example. The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, calls for developers to measure the environmental impact of their projects. But NEPA was passed years before we had other laws with strict environmental standards like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or Endangered Species Act.

Each of those are important — but all together … permit reviews can spiral into extremely long efforts, spanning thousands of pages with duplicative analyses and dozens of bureaucrats required to sign off on each individual project. And, this is not even taking into account the time it takes for any local permitting or state regulations. While this system may have made sense 50 years ago, the surge in new energy demand requires a new way.

When we think about how to build tens of thousands of new clean energy projects, and how to balance speed and safety, it’s obvious the U.S. needs a more predictable process.

At ClearPath, we always focus on solutions. Here are two that should be pretty simple:

First, grant immediate approval to projects on a site that have already undergone an environmental review.

Second, we must expedite court challenges so a final decision on projects is made in a timely manner.

Let me simplify both concepts.

Do you remember standing in line at the airport before TSA pre-check? That was brutal! Now, individuals who have proven they are not a risk can move through an expedited line.

Here’s another example.

There are mountains of evidence that some projects have little to no environmental impacts, such as an advanced manufacturing facility that produces parts for clean energy on a brownfield, or converting a retired coal plant to an advanced nuclear facility or siting a new geothermal plant at a depleted oil and gas well. These are the types of projects we should automatically permit to move forward.

Just like random screenings at TSA, we can audit the operators to ensure they’re complying with all environmental laws as we go. So new energy accelerates at no new environmental costs.

And for those projects that do need permits up front, we should ensure reviews are complete within 1 year and resolve any legal disputes within 6 months.

Under the current system, clean energy projects can suffer long delays, sometimes decades, largely because of obstructive litigation practices. We must strike the right balance while halting the never-ending cycle of frivolous lawsuits.

At ClearPath, we believe all of this can be done without rolling back environmental protections or eliminating the public’s opportunity to be involved in the review process. Even with these necessary changes, a project would still be required to comply with environmental laws during its entire lifetime.*

It’s a win-win. Let’s get building.

U.S. Development Finance Helped Rescue Europe from Russian Energy (The National Interest)

This op-ed was originally published by The National Interest on June 18, 2024. Click here to read the entire piece.

America is facing a critical period of intensifying international challenges. The aggressive maneuvers of adversaries demand an increasingly robust use of U.S. foreign policy assets. Energy to sustain growing economies is at the heart of these issues. America has the opportunity to ensure its influence on the world stage as a provider of affordable, reliable, and clean energy security for decades to come. As Congress considers reauthorizing the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC), whose authorization expires in 2025, it’s time to supercharge this agency as part of an integrated international energy security and climate strategy.

The DFC, the modernized U.S. government development finance institution ramped up during the Trump administration, with bipartisan Congressional support, is a crucial player in helping America compete in geoeconomic rivalries over the future of energy leadership. In 2022, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, America demonstrated its capacity as a global energy powerhouse. For decades, the European Union (EU) had depended on Russian natural gas imports, which grew in share even after the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014. In just one year, the U.S. surged its LNG exports, driving Russian market share in the EU down from 40 percent in 2021 to just 8 percent in 2023.

This lifeline to Europe was partly enabled by the DFC, which provided over $1.5 billion in financing to support Europe’s energy diversification away from Russian gas. This is just one example of how the DFC has become a key federal agency in supporting America’s geopolitical and geoeconomic interests.

Energy projects supported by the DFC cut across various sectors, ranging from diversifying natural gas supplies in Poland to developing an energy supply hub in Greek shipyards to fostering clean energy generation in Bulgaria and Georgia. This provides allies and partners with U.S. alternatives to malignant energy producers like Russia and the predatory lending for energy infrastructure performed by actors like China. Furthermore, unlike most federal agencies, the DFC typically generates a financial return for taxpayer dollars. In FY 2023, the DFC returned a net positive income of $340 million to the U.S. Treasury from projects it invested in abroad.

Click here to read the full article

The U.S. needs Natural Gas, Here’s a Playbook to Reduce Emissions

In spring 2024, the National Petroleum Council (NPC), a federal advisory council to the United States Department of Energy (DOE), approved the study, “Charting the Course: Reducing GHG Emissions in the U.S. Natural Gas Value Chain.” The study looks at ways to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions across the U.S. natural gas supply chain (NGSC). This study is the result of a two-year effort by 200+ individuals, including representatives from the oil and gas industry, academia, finance, nonprofits, including ClearPath, Native American tribes and public interest organizations.

Why should we care about these emissions?

In the U.S., natural gas is an abundant resource with an estimated 100-year supply at current use rates. Natural gas delivers the 24/7 affordable power that heats our homes, secures our power grid and drives our economy. American innovation in novel drilling technologies has allowed the U.S. to become the world’s largest natural gas producer and exporter of LNG, ensuring a cleaner and more reliable domestic supply and providing energy security to our allies abroad. In 2023, we consumed 89.1 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas, the most on record and the average price was the lowest since 2020. Today, we have a roughly $117 billion annual natural gas market and methane emissions have decreased by 16% in the U.S. between 2005 and 2023.

Natural gas is primarily made up of the chemical compound methane (CH4). When natural gas enters the atmosphere via venting, flaring or leaks along the NGSC supply chain, CH4 can act as a greenhouse gas. The NPC study recommends that DOE continue to sponsor efforts to develop and deploy innovative measurement technologies and monitoring systems. These technologies and systems will be essential to understanding the magnitude of these leaks as well as allowing for rapid mitigation. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions primarily occur when natural gas is used as a fuel to power equipment to keep the natural gas moving through the NGSC. The NPC study recommends that the federal government coordinate policies and initiatives for low carbon technology demonstration and deployment within the NGSC, including the deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) at LNG facilities and scaling electrified solutions. Deploying technologies that can either capture CO2 emissions or eliminate them is an important step in reducing this GHG emissions from the NGSC.

Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass LNG Facility, Cameron Parish, Louisiana

Finding ways to reduce these emissions without compromising U.S. oil and gas production will help maintain U.S. leadership in this critical clean energy asset for decades to come, reducing GHG emissions at home as well as abroad.

What did the NPC find?

The study found that meaningfully reducing NGSC emissions is an important challenge that will require long-term and close collaboration among U.S. industry, government and researchers to develop a variety of supportive federal and state policies that encourage public-private, technology-based partnerships.

The study provides analyses of historical and current CO2 and CH4 emissions from the NGSC. A few highlights from these analyses include:

Over the last 30 years, CH4 emissions have decreased by 20% primarily due to decreases in emissions from distribution, transmission, and storage segments of the NGSC;
The production segment of the NGSC is its largest source of CH4 emissions and these have increased by 16% over the last 30 years; and,
The largest source of NGSC CO2 emissions is from fuel use, primarily gas turbines, to power compressor stations that pressurize or refrigerate the natural gas.

The study designed three scenarios to evaluate options for the potential future reduction of NGSC emissions through 2050:

Existing Policies: If existing and proposed federal methane regulations are maintained, CH4 emissions are reduced by 59% while CO2 emissions are increased by 25%;
Continued Reductions: If existing and proposed regulations are maintained and improvements from voluntary efforts and technologies are added, CH4 emissions are reduced by 66% and CO2 emissions are increased slightly (2%); and,
Technology, Innovation and Policy: If significant changes in policy, technology development and market mechanisms are made, CH4 emissions are reduced by 70% and CO2 emissions are reduced by 33%.

The study identified five actions that are required to significantly reduce NGSC emissions by 2050:

Improve measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions tools and technologies, including efforts to harmonize emissions data and tools.
Increase the capability of oil & gas operators to reduce emissions through adoption of common standards/tools and sharing best practices.
Maximize effectiveness of current and proposed regulations and demonstrate and deploy technologies to meet regulatory requirements.
Develop new and expand existing incentives for emissions reductions, including market mechanisms, voluntary standards and technology investment.
Maximize effectiveness of community benefits and develop and disseminate best practices.

Gas Production Wells

Why is this study important?

Natural gas has already played a massive role reducing CO2 emissions from the power sector in the United States. The Energy Information Administration estimates that the deployment of natural gas is responsible for nearly two-thirds of domestic emissions reductions between 2005 and 2019. Despite this important progress, the NGSC still creates greenhouse gas emissions that must be reduced to meet reduction goals. The NPC study contains numerous consensus-based and actionable recommendations for DOE, other federal and state agencies and industry-related organizations to consider to meet this challenge.

We know that the U.S. not only leads the way in natural gas exports, we also lead in natural gas innovation – producing the cleanest natural gas in the world. Following this study’s recommendations like deploying innovative monitoring technologies, harmonizing emissions reporting, and developing supportive regulations and market incentives will give credibility to our claim that the U.S. is the world leader in reducing GHG emissions from the NGSC.

Promoting Sustainable Environmental Practices Through Trade Policy

House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade

Below is my testimony before the House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, entitled “Promoting Sustainable Environmental Practices Through Trade Policy” on December 14, 2022.

Watch Rich’s Opening Remarks
Read Rich’s Oral Testimony
Read Rich’s Full Testimony as Seen Below

Good morning Chairman Blumenauer, Ranking Member Smith and members of the Committee. My name is Rich Powell, and I am the CEO of ClearPath, a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to accelerating breakthrough innovations to reduce emissions in the energy and industrial sectors. To further that mission, ClearPath provides education and analysis to policymakers and collaborates with relevant partners to inform our independent research and policy development.

Given this Committee’s vital role in America’s energy trade policy, and how that relates to the global climate challenge, I will discuss three key topics today:

First, we need to think globally, and ensure that America leads the world in clean energy technology. U.S. emissions are a smaller and smaller part of the global total down from 14 to 11 percent, and unless we work together with international partners and allies our efforts at home will never solve the problem. A new energy revolution — both in the U.S. and globally — is going to require an enormous amount of resources. We have to be a leader among like-minded trading partners to ensure reliable, affordable clean energy supply chains for American-made products.
Second, we must unleash American energy resources and manufacturing capabilities to grow our economy and drive down prices. The fact is, U.S. industry is much cleaner than a vast majority of the rest of the world’s. Deploying advanced clean energy technologies in industrial manufacturing domestically today allows us to take the lead on future global trade relationships tomorrow.
Third, by exporting clean American energy we can lower global emissions while boosting our own economy. That includes exporting affordable, abundant American natural gas to lower emissions and provide energy security. It also includes exporting advanced nuclear reactors, clean hydrogen, and energy storage technologies.

We must not ignore that the climate is changing, and global industrial activity is contributing to it. We hear that statement from the oil and gas industry, power companies, the agriculture sector and the folks running our supply chains. Everyone is clear: it’s time to talk about solutions.

We can’t damage the economy in our efforts. And the good news is, we can point to solutions that are good for the economy and the environment. There are exciting opportunities to develop new clean energy technologies. Rapidly scaling and diversifying American clean energy technologies can reduce global emissions, foster economic growth, and provide safe and reliable energy on a global scale. If done right, solutions can meet the needs of everyday Americans and reduce household costs, while also lowering global emissions. It can also help with U.S. soft power by providing developing countries energy to improve their own economies and provide them with an alternative to projects with China and Russia.

But far too often, energy and climate change policy is oversimplified to false choices. Renewables versus fossil fuels, economy versus environment, emissions reductions around the world versus inaction here at home — these false choices ultimately cloud potential solutions. We can invest in innovative emissions reduction technologies alongside improved trade policies. Ultimately, we will need both.

Most studies suggest that climate change has intensified, but you don’t need a study to see the impacts across the U.S., and in American communities, and you don’t have to study science to realize the global market for new clean energy technologies is getting competitive. Other countries are rapidly investing in clean energy, with total investment in 2022 estimated at $1.5 trillion. Remaining a global energy leader by building and exporting clean energy technologies and products is one of the greatest economic opportunities for the U.S. available today.

Think global, and lead with America first

Ongoing aggression and coercive tactics by Russia and China underscore the need for the United States to both be energy secure and provide our allies access to technologies and resources they need to reduce their reliance on adversarial nations while reducing emissions.

The world is looking to U.S. leadership and we need to work with our allies and trading partners to tackle the global climate challenge, ensure reliable and responsible supply chains for clean technology, and grow our respective markets for these technologies. Concerted action with our friends around the world through American leadership is an essential counterweight to other nations that do not have our best interests, nor the world’s climate, at heart.

Trade policy is a critical aspect of achieving this. For instance, recent painstakingly negotiated trade agreements like the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement promote American industrial standards abroad. These help create the international economic conditions to support clean technology innovation and deployment, while establishing a bulwark against nations that do not adhere to such standards. Our network of trading partners is a powerful dimension of American leadership and should be continually expanded, in part, to help combat environmental arbitrage.

Critical minerals represent another area where we need to lead and expand our global trading relationships with like-minded countries to strengthen our clean energy supply chains. Mineral supply is an economic, environmental, and security imperative. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that global demand for minerals for energy systems will quadruple by 2050, creating market demand in the hundreds of billions of dollars. A new energy revolution is going to require an enormous amount of resources like lithium, copper, cobalt, graphite, and nickel. Currently, China dominates the supply chain and dependence on China increases global emissions and handicaps American businesses. At present, China has a dominant position in extraction, and especially processing, of minerals necessary for energy. Its midstream market share ranges from 35 percent to 60 percent of critical mineral supply and 80 percent of rare earths. The concentration of mineral supply chains creates risks of disruption from political or environmental events, poor transparency and traceability, and sacrifices the expertise necessary for value-adding innovation and jobs.

Relatedly, nearly 50 countries have markets for advanced nuclear power, a potential $500 – $740 billion market opportunity over the next 10 years, but Russia and China currently account for about two-thirds of reactors under contract worldwide. Furthermore, Russia controls 46% of uranium enrichment capacity, meaning that the near-term uranium supply for the United States is threatened. It is essential that the array of innovative new American nuclear technologies nearing commercialization accelerate through our own federal licensing and permitting process and then towards the global market, while we onshore and nearshore the nuclear fuel supply chain.

While the current Administration has convened a Minerals Security Partnership, along with other regional and multilateral clean energy dialogues with friendly nations such as Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea and others to address these challenges, both the public and private sector need to do more, faster to ensure reliable and responsible clean technology supply chains. Similar to how the U.S. has scaled up trade networks for crude oil and natural gas or how we are working with allies to commercialize energy storage, we can apply our talents for creating market-driven goals to develop alternative trading relationships for additional key energy technologies and their materials sourcing requirements.

Unleash American resource development

Energy intensive industries operate on very low margins and often face unfair international competition. We can’t afford to disadvantage American industry by saddling it with overly complex permitting processes and compliance requirements, nor should we neglect some of our most practical clean energy resources such as natural gas or nuclear energy. The fact is, American manufacturing is among the cleanest in the world. Global industry – China in particular – is much dirtier than U.S. industry. Numerous U.S. laws, programs, technology innovation, and voluntary actions by our industry have resulted in a much cleaner economy, and we need to level the playing field so America can remain a global leader.

We should focus on returning manufacturing to the U.S. using clean American energy technology, where production is more efficient and environmental performance is far superior to places like China or Russia. For example, American steel has the second lowest CO2-intensity of any country, and investors are clear they want clean and affordable steel. Two-thirds of U.S. steel is already produced using recycled steel and an all-electric process – and new processes are being demonstrated that make high-grade steel without any emissions. Yet, America is the largest importer of steel in the world. America must find a way to increase domestic production, reduce its reliance on foreign sources, and increase exports around the world that adhere to our strong environmental standards.

Getting the domestic policies right, will allow us to scale up our clean technologies by driving down costs, and we already have a perfect model for how to do this.

We often hear about public-private partnerships in the clean energy space, and for good reason. Hydraulic fracturing is one of the biggest success stories on this front — thanks to research, development, and deployment efforts supported by the Department of Energy (DOE), a breakthrough made by a Texas entrepreneur in the 1970s has become the most affordable source of 24/7 power in America.

George Mitchell figured out how to break up shale rocks to release the natural gas stuck inside. This process, known as hydraulic fracturing, initially got off the ground with support from DOE, which cost-shared research, development and demonstrations in the 1970s and 1990s, as well as tax credits from the 1980s to early 2000s.

Combined-cycle natural gas turbines now produce 24/7 reliable, affordable power. That early stage investment and production tax credit, together more than $10 billion, both expired as the technology matured. Now we have a $100 billion annual shale gas market in America, and saw emissions lower by 20% in the U.S. between 2005-2020. This is driving our rapid expansion of American gas into global markets that can be used to displace unmitigated Chinese coal or Russian gas, over time.

We should also accelerate American nuclear fuel production and expedite the deployment of emerging technologies such as advanced nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs). SMRs have the ability to deliver zero-carbon power generation, be built more rapidly, and at lower costs than traditional reactors. We lead the world in SMR-related patents, but countries, namely Russia, dominate uranium mining and enrichment capacity, thus limiting market potential. Russia and China are already operating next-generation gas and liquid metal cooled reactors, which the U.S. originally pioneered in the 1960s. Here, we should focus on building up our own fuel production capacity and again work with friendly and trusted trading partners such as Australia and Canada as alternative potential sources for uranium. We must modernize the licensing process for new nuclear reactors.

Unfortunately, we have neglected one of our most clean and abundant resources – geothermal energy. The geothermal resources under our feet could literally power 10% of the entire country, if properly tapped, and lead to the export of this scalable, clean energy technology abroad. We should fix the permitting processes on public lands that hold back geothermal developers to develop the technology here first.

The U.S. is well positioned to be a global leader in the production of low-carbon hydrogen, particularly hydrogen made from natural gas with carbon capture. Our abundant renewable and natural gas resources, CCUS technology, and related infrastructure are all key enablers for our potential capabilities with low-carbon hydrogen.

We made significant progress over the past year. In particular, the energy portions of bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) enacted last year includes significant funding for energy programs originally authorized by the Energy Act of 2020, signed into law by President Trump, as well as a number of new energy and climate programs.

Just last week, ClearPath launched a tracker to follow the status of the Department of Energy’s implementation of the energy programs funded by the bipartisan Infrastructure IIJA, because with great investment of taxpayer dollars comes great accountability. We’ve been able to visualize the progress the Administration has made on awarding projects with the infrastructure funds to help ensure we are making the best use of this investment in ourselves and bringing these projects to fruition.

We appreciate the focus of the House Republican Energy, Climate and Conservation Task Force on rolling out policies to unlock American resources, accelerate American innovation, cut through red tape, and invest in ourselves so that we can advance U.S. clean technologies globally to lower emissions and beat our adversaries who wield energy as a weapon.

To unleash clean American energy technologies, the U.S. and our trading partners will need to rapidly develop economies of scale and advance R&D to reduce costs and remain competitive with the rest of the world. This will also require greater international alignment on what constitutes zero- and low-carbon energy sources, such as blue hydrogen, to help facilitate trade. Technological innovation, the American entrepreneurial spirit, and targeted free market incentives have made the United States one of the most carbon efficient economies in the world. We should prioritize policies that encourage the private and public sectors to accelerate down that path.

American clean energy exports

If we are successful at rapidly increasing the total amount of clean energy technologies deployed domestically, driving down their cost, and holding the lead in product quality through R&D, then we will have a significant opportunity to boost our exports of these technologies.

The economic opportunity for the U.S. is remarkable. A recent report from Boston Consulting Group estimated the Serviceable Addressable Market (SAM) for six key clean energy technologies (clean steel, hydrogen, long-duration energy storage, EVs, direct air capture, and advanced nuclear SMRs). These alone have a domestic SAM of $9 to $10 trillion through 2050. Potential U.S. exports across these technologies in 2050 could reach roughly $330 billion annually. Additionally, the adoption of these technologies alone could reasonably enable 20 Gt/yr in global emissions abatement if adopted at scale by 2050.

Additionally, we should fast-track decisions on things like American natural gas and hydrogen export facility permits to get our clean, and cleaner, fuels to global markets faster, rather than watch as global allies get their energy from hostile nations, or even get cut off.

While energy prices here at home remain elevated, Europe has seen even more dramatic price spikes given its tenuous energy supply chain. As part of Europe’s drastic rethinking of its energy mix, U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) has become a critical lifeline to the European Union as it continues to wean itself from Russian gas.

In fact, the U.S. is now the leading producer of oil and natural gas in the world, exporting our LNG to 39 countries. But just as importantly, a life cycle analysis conducted by the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Energy Technology Laboratory shows that American LNG exports can be up to 30% cleaner than Russian natural gas. So, the United States is in a prime position to lead global action on LNG, while boosting our exports, creating jobs, reasserting America’s global technology and resources leadership over Russia and China, and driving down global emissions all at the same time.

Focusing for a moment on hydrogen, because of our abundant domestic energy resources, the U.S. can be a dominant exporter in this domain as well, but there is a global race to capture that market. Many countries, like Japan, South Korea, and the EU, are beginning to include hydrogen in their decarbonization efforts but are unable to produce the necessary amounts domestically. It’s estimated that cumulative global demand is roughly 1 – 2 billion metric tons. American clean hydrogen could competitively meet that demand with low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia hydrogen produced from natural gas with a high rate of carbon capture as well as from renewables. Several U.S. regions are poised to benefit from hydrogen exports. These future hydrogen hubs are able to support hydrogen production capacity and delivery infrastructure and can include major industrial centers and geologic storage capacity for carbon dioxide sequestration.

In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it has become clear that civil nuclear exports are vital to our core national interests and other countries are looking at the U.S. to lead. They recognize that partnering with Rosatom is a bad deal that locks them into a 60-100 year relationship with Russia. In particular, Eastern European countries have been inking MOUs and contracts with the U.S. – Poland signed up for several U.S.-designed AP1000 reactors, and Romania plans to build a NuScale small modular reactor. We already know that not all countries play fair, and the U.S. must leverage the numerous financing tools at our disposal to support nuclear energy exports. These tools include utilizing the Export-Import Bank and the U.S. Development Finance Corporation, which lifted their ban on nuclear energy two years ago.

We should also look at new authorities that may be required to support nuclear energy exports. A significant piece of legislation, the International Nuclear Energy Act (INEA), passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just last week by voice vote. The companion bill in the House was introduced by your colleagues Reps. James Clyburn (D-SC) and Byron Donalds (R-FL) in October. INEA creates a national strategic plan for nuclear energy exports and will be essential to competing against China and Russia. Future enactment of this bill will result in sustained industry, high-paying jobs, abundant clean energy for developing nations, and strong international partnerships.

There is more to be done for international nuclear energy. As I mentioned previously, Russia and China dominate nuclear energy development today and offer significantly stronger incentives to partnering countries. The U.S. needs stronger coordination between agencies and a fast-track nuclear energy export process for allied countries. Additionally, we must fully end our reliance on Russia for nuclear fuel and establish a domestic fuel industry that can support both the U.S. and its allies. None of these tasks are easy, but they are worth doing.

Necessary Next Steps

Trade policy is critical to creating a global economic landscape that supports innovation and deployment of clean energy technology. For years, the United States led negotiations on a high-standards Environmental Goods Agreement, and although the negotiations were not completed, significant progress was made.

We appreciate the efforts that Reps. Kevin Brady (R-TX), Adrian Smith (R-NE), Suzan DelBene (D-WA), and other members of this subcommittee have devoted themselves to raising the importance of an Environmental Goods Agreement with the Administration.

We need to get back to the lead position at the negotiating table.

For many of the clean energy products under consideration for an Environmental Goods Agreement in the past, U.S. tariffs are already very low compared to tariffs imposed on American-made products by countries with whom we would want to negotiate. Accordingly, an Environmental Goods Agreement would help open international markets to U.S. clean energy technologies – like the ones I’ve discussed – with little disruption to our domestic market.

An ambitious Environmental Goods Agreement would go a long way to reduce the price of U.S. clean energy technologies abroad, making them more viable across the developed and developing world, thus helping to reduce carbon emissions and supporting American jobs.

We need to be thoughtful and forward-leaning in our opposition to China’s belt-and-road initiative for clean energy infrastructure projects. For many countries looking to continue their economic development, China is often their primary financing partner. The U.S. must use its authorities at Commerce, State, Development Finance Corporation (DFC), U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), and the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) to provide an alternative partner, while also supporting clean energy manufacturing here in the United States. These agencies offer robust financing options for technologies important to the developing world. Due to the size of these energy projects, almost every major project requires financing backstops from the exporting country. Cementing the mission of clean energy exports and development in these agencies by law will go a long way to building new clean energy markets globally for American products. This will further ensure that future energy projects in developing countries emit less and eliminate forced labor, particularly as it relates to current human rights violations throughout the existing supply chain in China.

To address a massive global challenge like climate change, every tool must be available. No country will use a single clean power technology – every country will need to find the right mix given its national circumstances, resource endowments, and pre-existing industry.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. ClearPath is eager to assist the Committee in developing innovative policy solutions to ensure US leadership in international clean energy trade. We applaud the Committee for taking on this important task to help ensure the appropriate action, including trade policies that will help advance innovative technologies to provide clean, reliable, and necessary energy to our nation and the world.

Conservatives Are Cutting A Clear Path To Solving Climate Change. Here’s How (Daily Caller)

This op-ed was originally published by The Daily Caller on December 9, 2022. Click here to read the entire piece.

Congressional leadership transitions bring forth new committee assignments, new priorities and a new energy policy vision. While some suggest a new Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives will work to undo recent efforts on addressing climate change, we disagree with that premise.

Look, economic inflation, high gas and electricity prices, unrest in Eastern Europe, increasing global carbon dioxide emissions and global supply chain chaos are all realities. Combined, there is an ongoing global energy crisis.

But how to solve this crisis has created false choices in Washington. Debates on renewables versus fossils, economy versus environment, or 100% global emissions reduction versus inaction in the U.S. are clouding the path forward on the global challenge.

The truth is, no nation, government or business will achieve climate goals and see economic success unless we eliminate those false choices and leverage all energy resources on the table.

We need to focus on policies that make new and emerging clean energy technologies more affordable, not policies that make existing energy more expensive and harder to produce.

Democrats have historically proposed top-down climate policies like mandates, heavy regulations, or new taxes. Yet global emissions, the only real measure of success or failure in solving climate change, continue to increase…

Click here to read the full article

Where American Gas Goes, Other Clean Energy Can Follow

The United States’ role as a global energy leader has taken on heightened importance since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While energy prices here at home have soared, Europe has seen even more dramatic price spikes given the tenuous energy supply chain. As part of Europe’s drastic rethinking of their energy mix, U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) has become a critical lifeline to the European Union as it prepares to wean itself from Russian gas over the next six months.

Recent data published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) makes clear the importance of American LNG. Since signs of the Russian buildup along the Ukrainian border and subsequent invasion in “the first four months of 2022, the United States exported 74% of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe, compared with an annual average of 34% last year.” In fact, the U.S. is now the leading producer of oil and natural gas in the world, exporting our LNG to 39 countries around the globe.

Monthly Liquified Natural Gas Exports by Destination Region (Jan 2020 – April 2021)

Source: EIA

The United States is in a unique position to lead global action on LNG and a number of clean energy sources, while creating jobs in new industries, reasserting America’s global technology and resources leadership over Russia and China, and driving down global emissions. Technological innovation, the American entrepreneurial spirit, and targeted free market incentives have made the United States one of the most carbon efficient economies in the world.

There are countless examples across the energy and industrial sectors, none larger in terms of scale than LNG. A recent life cycle analysis conducted by the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Energy Technology Laboratory on U.S. LNG exports show that American LNG can be up to 30% cleaner than Russian natural gas.

While the process of liquifying natural gas has been going on for more than 100 years in the U.S., the first export shipment of LNG was sent from Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass Liquefaction Project in 2016. The strong growth of US LNG exports we are witnessing today is a testament to private sector innovators as well as the public-private partnerships led by the Department of Energy in the 1980s, making significant investments in the hydraulic fracturing infrastructure that has made today’s natural gas exports possible. Even with a short term disruption related to the Freeport LNG facility, U.S. LNG exports are more critical than ever.

A similar story exists for just about all major advances in new energy technology, from oil to nuclear energy to renewables — each had serious government investment in its early stages. Bridging the funding gap from early stage research to commercialization is the largest challenge to bringing new technologies to the global market.

The success of LNG now has the opportunity to manifest again in the form of clean hydrogen, carbon capture, and advanced nuclear technologies. Critical investments like these at the Department of Energy, including those funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, can further strengthen American energy security.

Russia is not only using their oil and natural gas for geopolitical power. Their state-owned nuclear company Rosatom is in the middle of the nuclear energy supply chain, particularly for countries like Finland, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Ukraine who have Russian made nuclear reactors.

Today there are 52 nuclear reactors under construction across the globe, but only two are in the U.S. Russia accounts for about two-thirds of reactor sales worldwide. China has 14 reactors currently under construction and has announced plans to build 150 new reactors over the next 15 years.

This comes as more nations are recognizing the value of nuclear energy, seeking to avoid making the same mistakes as other countries, namely Germany, that decided to arbitrarily shutter domestic energy resources. This is one of the major reasons why an all-of-the-above portfolio, paired with historic investments in research, development, and demonstration projects is the best and most viable path to reducing global emissions. Now, as Europe rethinks the tools it will use to meet its own clean energy targets and keep their lights on, U.S. innovation and exports can lead the way with a number of clean energy technologies.

Multiple announcements were made around the COP26 in Glasgow in November including the U.S.-Romanian bilateral agreement to purchase new U.S. reactors, the United Kingdom commitment to nuclear as a core part of their net-zero plans, the French recommitment to not only maintain but potentially enhance their nuclear fleet, and the Japanese announcement about restarting their fleet to meet their decarbonization goals. There are other deals already in place, such as Poland’s agreement with NuScale Power to deploy its small modular reactor (SMR) technology.

A U.S.-Romanian Bilateral Agreement to Purchase U.S. Reactors

Beyond nuclear, hydrogen also provides an enviable opportunity to build a domestic energy infrastructure capable of shielding Americans and our allies from the fragility of geopolitics, ensuring every household can keep the lights on and providing critical heating and fuel for transportation. Further, thanks to the development of U.S. liquified natural gas export facilities, we can leverage this infrastructure to export hydrogen to our allies in Europe and elsewhere in the future.

Demand from Europe for U.S. LNG and other clean energy technologies shows no signs of abating as the conflict wages on. Thanks to LNG, America has a growing number of energy trading partners, offering the United States an opportunity to export a broad suite of technologies and firmly cement its position as a global leader in both energy security and emissions reduction. Ultimately, the world is safer and cleaner when America flexes its energy muscle.

A Natural Gas Innovation Success Story from Public-Private Partnerships

Investing in clean energy innovation pays off. All major advances in new energy technology, from oil to nuclear energy to renewables, had serious government support in their early stages – even the hydraulic fracturing revolution that caused the natural gas boom. All of these have led to American energy independence. Early-stage government support launched a $100 billion annual market. Not a bad return.

There are many parts of our energy and industrial system where we don’t yet have a cheaper clean alternative — which is why we need to continue the innovation we’re already doing — but much more is needed.

Now or Never: The Urgent Need for Ambitious Climate Action

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

Below is my testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, entitled “Now or Never: The Urgent Need for Ambitious Climate Action” on April 28, 2022.

Watch Jeremy’s Opening Remarks

Good morning Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and Members of the Committee. My name is Jeremy Harrell, and I am the Chief Strategy Officer of ClearPath.

ClearPath is a 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to develop and advance policies that accelerate breakthrough innovations that reduce emissions in the energy and industrial sectors. We develop cutting-edge policy solutions on clean energy and industrial innovation, and we collaborate with public and private sector stakeholders on innovations in nuclear energy, carbon capture, hydropower, natural gas, geothermal, energy storage, carbon dioxide removal, and heavy industry to enable private-sector deployment of critical technologies. An important note: we are supported by philanthropy, not industry.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for holding this important hearing. Climate change is an urgent challenge that merits significant action at every level of government and the private sector. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports demonstrate the ramifications of insufficient action and the opportunity before us if the public and private sector partner to expeditiously deploy low-emissions technologies. Working Groups One and Two showed that climate change is occurring, is driven largely by global industrial activity, and that reaching net-zero emissions will be needed to avoid the impacts of climate change.

The most recent installment of Working Group Three considers the most effective ways to reduce and potentially reverse emissions going forward. The IPCC makes several key findings stressing that the world is not deploying existing clean energy technologies fast enough, and the world is not investing enough into the technologies needed to go all the way to net-zero.

The United States is in a unique position to lead global action while creating jobs in new industries, reasserting America’s global technology and resources leadership over Russia and China, and driving down global emissions. Technological innovation, the American entrepreneurial spirit, and targeted free market incentives have made the United States one of the most carbon efficient economies in the world.

There are countless examples across the energy and industrial sectors. A recent life cycle analysis conducted by the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Energy Technology Laboratory on U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports shows that American LNG can be up to 30% cleaner than Russian natural gas. While Chinese steel is the third dirtiest in the world, American steel is among the cleanest in the world, with the second lowest CO₂-intensity of any country. Emissions from mining support services in China, including many minerals required for deploying clean energy at scale, are over 5 times higher than if those activities were conducted in the United States.

The ongoing aggression by Russia underscores the need for the United States to both be energy secure and provide our allies access to technologies and resources they need to reduce their reliance on adversarial nations while reducing emissions. For example, nearly 50 countries have markets for advanced nuclear power, a potential ~$360 billion per year market opportunity, but Russia currently accounts for about two-thirds of reactor exports worldwide. It is essential that the array of innovative new American nuclear technologies nearing commercialization accelerate towards the global market. The United States can also be a highly competitive exporter of clean hydrogen to meet supply gaps in both the European Union and Japan. The U.S. has both a cost and energy security advantage relative to our Russian, Middle Eastern, and Australian competitors when exporting hydrogen produced from natural gas with a high rate of carbon capture. This is due to abundant U.S. gas supplies and current policy, like the 45Q carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) tax credit, which has no international equivalent.

The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee is uniquely positioned to drive new clean energy technology forward through investments in American ingenuity and research. I would like to highlight past strategies that have worked and the immediate steps that must be taken to both innovate and deploy at scale.

Most recently, your landmark bipartisan Energy Act of 2020 laid the blueprint for essential demonstration programs in a number of the areas highlighted by the International Energy Agency (IEA), the IPCC, and most other global energy and climate experts. This Committee continues to be critically important in developing policies that support new clean energy technologies to reduce emissions and grow the economy.

With this in mind, I will discuss four key priorities this Committee should keep in mind as it continues to lead on clean energy innovation:

The continued importance of innovation to reduce emissions: The IPCC analysis conducted a decade ago found that extremely high levels of temperature rise could be possible by 2100. That is no longer the likely future, thanks to innovation in cleaner technologies. A focus on innovation-based policy makes clean energy more affordable and abundant. This increases economic growth, enhances American competitiveness, and is the best way for the United States to impact global emissions.
The significance of implementing the bipartisan Energy Act of 2020 to commercialize key technologies: At the end of 2020, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee collaborated with the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to produce an end-of-Congress bipartisan package, including the Energy Act of 2020, that was the single largest clean energy and emissions reduction bill in over a decade. The legislation modernized energy research and development programs for the first time in 13 years and authorized numerous demonstration programs. Implementing those moonshot technology demonstrations is a critical task for further advancing energy innovation.
The desperate need to modernize permitting: Unnecessary regulatory hurdles that slow down the deployment of innovative technology and necessary infrastructure, including the critical mineral supply chain, threaten the United States’ ability to significantly reduce our emissions and provide low-cost options to the rest of the world on an ambitious timescale. Right now, we can only build new clean energy and reduce CO₂ emissions as fast as we can permit new projects. The mission ought to be “build cleaner faster,” not “duplicate and litigate.”
Difficult-to-decarbonize sectors, especially in the industrial sector, merit increased attention: Several areas highlighted by the IPCC for further investment are not fully covered by the existing Energy Act demonstration programs. Areas that likely need additional authorization support include steel, cement, and chemicals; carbon dioxide removal technologies; and clean drop-in fuels such as hydrogen. This Committee wisely has taken bipartisan action on steel via the bipartisan Steel Upgrading Partnerships and Emissions Reduction (SUPER) Act. The steel sector is an area where the U.S. is particularly well-positioned given that American steel is among the world’s cleanest. Similar effort in other key industrial areas is also important.

The Role of Innovation in Reducing Emissions

Past investments in innovation, often led by this Committee, have paid off. Solar, wind, natural gas, and battery costs have fallen precipitously over the last decade. These technologies each contribute to reducing emissions, and none of them would be as cost-effective today if it were not for investments made by the United States over the last 50 years.

Take solar for example. In 2011, the U.S. The Department of Energy (DOE) launched the SunShot Initiative in partnership with industry and think tanks with the goal of reducing the costs of solar energy by 75 percent, allowing solar to compete at large scale with other forms of energy. The program was funded to support the development, commercialization, and manufacturing of advanced solar energy technologies. It was a smashing success: the cost of utility-scale solar was down from $0.28 per kilowatt-hour in 2010 to $0.06 per kilowatt-hour in 2017, achieving the 2020 SunShot goal three years ahead of schedule. Global solar demand has skyrocketed in part due to efforts like SunShot that reduced the cost of wide deployment.

And with the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, it goes without saying how important clean American natural gas is today, both domestically and to our allies around the world. There is no better example of how the public and private sectors can work together on clean energy innovation than the shale gas boom in America.

In the 1980s, Texas entrepreneur George Mitchell figured out how to break up shale rocks to release the natural gas stuck inside. This process, called hydraulic fracturing, initially got off the ground with support from DOE, which cost-shared R&D and demonstrations in the 1970s and 1990s, as well as tax credits from the 1980s to early 2000s.
These DOE projects included demos of hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, 3-D seismic imaging, diamond headed drill-bits, and, ultimately, combined-cycle natural gas turbines. These now produce 24/7 reliable power that was more affordable than anything else on the U.S. grid over the past decade. Both this early stage investment, and the production tax credit, together more than $10B, expired as the technology matured.

Now we have a $100 billion annual shale gas market in America — not a bad return on investment. Continued investment in innovative technologies like carbon capture will further reduce the emissions profile of American-produced natural gas. Several companies are aggressively pursuing these technologies and 45Q will play an important role in meeting the innovation needs. Given the projected increase in global demand for natural gas, American-produced natural gas will be important to both facilitating lower emissions and improving global energy security.

Natural gas, solar, wind, and energy efficiency technologies have led to a 40 percent reduction in power sector emissions in the U.S. in the last 15 years, while GDP has grown more than 60 percent. This demonstrates the value of innovation for both the environment and the economy. But, more innovation is needed. While the costs of mitigation have come down in the previously mentioned areas, many of the technological solutions we need by 2050 are still too expensive to be commercially cost-effective in the near term. This is a clear place where government investment is warranted, and U.S. firms are well-positioned to lead.

The good news is that we know where to focus our efforts going forward. The report highlights several technology gaps for further innovation support that the United States is uniquely positioned to help solve. These gaps include methods for reducing emissions from heavy industry, carbon capture and carbon dioxide removal technologies, and clean hydrogen applications.

New frontiers in energy innovation are quickly emerging. One crucial technology area is clean hydrogen. Under the right circumstances, clean hydrogen produced from renewables, nuclear, or fossil energy with CCS can play a key role in reducing emissions in the industrial, transportation, and power sectors. The IPCC agrees, with the primary low carbon scenarios all including a significant energy-sector role for H2. Between the $8 billion in funding for clean hydrogen hubs provided to the DOE in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the 45Q tax credit, and the need for balancing excess renewable power, a number of new clean hydrogen production facilities are being established. Investments today will present immense domestic and international opportunities.

And the actions we take over the next decade are essential to quickly deploying those technologies in a cost-effective way. Every scenario that successfully reaches net-zero on a timeline sufficient to avoid significant impacts requires accelerated clean energy deployment through 2070. It is crucial to simultaneously deploy cost-effective solutions today while supporting R&D for the technologies needed tomorrow. Additionally, obstacles must be removed to allow clean energy projects to be permitted faster.

Accelerating these technologies will require robust public-private financing efforts. The last year has been an exciting time for clean energy startups and technological innovation — at least here in the U.S. BloombergNEF estimates that venture capital and private equity invested more than $53 billion in climate-related technologies. Corporate net-zero commitments were followed by more than $23 billion in corporate venture funds invested in businesses in the climate-technology sector. Deals were cut, MOUs were signed, and project partnerships were solidified that lay the foundation for an array of first-of-kind technology deployments eyeing mid-2020 operations. That’s all positive development, but it still is too low for the scale required to achieve deep emissions reductions by mid-century.

The question is how to drive down the cost of lower-emissions technology in a way that can help stimulate institutional and private capital in industrialized and nonindustrialized countries and to build those technologies at the pace required to meet the challenge. If these new technologies are developed, produced and commercialized here in the United States, our workforce will greatly benefit and American-made technology will help decarbonize those developing nations.

Implementing the Energy Act of 2020

As you know, one of the biggest advancements in clean energy and climate policy in over a decade is the monumental Energy Act of 2020. Thanks to the leadership of Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Ranking Member Frank Lucas (R-OK), and other advocates on this Committee, the United States has a wholly bipartisan, clean energy innovation roadmap that helps accelerate technology breakthroughs needed to meet emissions reduction goals.

The Energy Act modernized and refocused DOE’s research and development programs on the most pressing technology challenges — scaling up clean energy technologies like advanced nuclear, long-duration energy storage, carbon capture, and enhanced geothermal. Crucially, across all these technologies, DOE is now empowered to launch the most aggressive commercial scale technology demonstration program in U.S. history. The bill sets up a moonshot of more than 20 full commercial scale demos by the mid-2020s.

While you all know this bill well, I wanted to highlight five big successes from the Energy Act of 2020 that were led by Science Space & Technology Committee members.

First, the Energy Act repurposed the DOE Office of Fossil Energy to focus on carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies, and it authorized a comprehensive carbon capture R&D program, including six, large, first-of-a-kind demonstrations for natural gas, coal, and industrial facilities. In addition, it starts serious research and demonstration on carbon removal technologies via creative X-prizes on removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Specifically, it included the following two bills:

The Launching Energy Advancement and Development through Innovations in Natural Gas (LEADING) Act) directing DOE to conduct critical carbon capture research and development for natural gas power plant applications; and the
The part of the Fossil Energy Research and Development Act provides DOE with new resources and tools to develop clean technologies, including reducing emissions from both coal and natural gas power plants, industrial processes, and direct air capture.

These policies, combined with the recent enhancements to the 45Q carbon capture utilization and storage credit, have furthered United States global leadership in the development of CCUS and driven dramatic project growth. 2021 was the largest single-year increase in the global pipeline, and the United States led the way with nearly half of the more than 70 new project announcements.

Second, it aims to reinvigorate advanced nuclear energy by formally authorizing the moonshot Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) and part of the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (NELA). Moreover, advanced nuclear reactors cannot run without advanced fuel – which is why the Energy Act also creates a temporary program to develop a domestic supply chain to produce High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU), which is required by most advanced reactors under development today but is only commercially available from Russia, an option which is no longer tenable.

These policies were particularly important given that there are several new American nuclear energy technologies approaching commercialization that are smaller, pair flexibly with renewable energy, and are walk-away safe. Nearly 10 new advanced reactor licenses, from American entrepreneurs like Oklo, X-energy, TerraPower, Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, General Electric Hitachi, Kairos Power, and NuScale could come before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by 2025. All these companies are looking at building their reactors domestically over the next decade. Accelerating U.S. fuel security and driving down the cost of key components bolsters their ability to contribute to near-term reduction efforts.

Third, the Energy Act of 2020 establishes a comprehensive grid-scale storage demonstration program, effectively authorizing the Energy Storage Grand Challenge that former Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette launched at DOE and that now Secretary Jennifer Granholm has continued – along with a joint initiative with the Department of Defense (DOD) to develop long-duration storage technologies and a program to provide technical assistance to rural and municipal electric utilities. The bill also authorized the Better Energy Storage Technology (BEST) Act to reorient the federal grid-scale storage research, development, and demonstration program around ambitious technology goals necessary to facilitate important breakthroughs for the grid of the future. Related private sector growth has followed. In 2021, the U.S. built more than 3.5 GW of energy storage, which was more than double the amount installed in 2020. Notably, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory broke ground on the Grid Storage Launchpad test facility on April 21 in Washington, a state of the art user facility to catalyze new grid-scale storage solutions.

Fourth, it includes significant provisions like the Advanced Geothermal Innovation Leadership (AGILE) Act for advanced always-on renewables like geothermal energy, including programs to demonstrate technologies to enable geothermal anywhere. There are exciting opportunities to transfer technologies from the oil and gas industry and demonstrate the co-production of critical minerals with geothermal energy. Since late 2019, 12 new geothermal power purchase agreements (PPAs) have been signed and companies have nearly 60 active developing projects and prospects across nine U.S. states. Meanwhile, California’s recent order for 1,000MW of geothermal power to enhance grid reliability by 2026 could dramatically increase the scale of geothermal development.14It represents a huge opportunity, and we were excited to see the Department launch the new cutting-edge technology demonstration program authorized by this Committee’s good work just last week.

Fifth, the bill includes The Clean Industrial Technologies Act (CITA), which starts a comprehensive crosscutting clean industrial technologies R&D program to lower the cost of cleaner materials and manufacturing processes, especially for energy-intensive industrial sub-sectors such as steel, cement, and chemicals. As industrial emissions represent a growing share of global emissions, it is increasingly important to develop cost-effective technologies to reduce emissions in heavy industrial sectors. Fortunately, U.S. industries tend to be among the cleanest in the world, which is a competitive advantage we should leverage in the trade-exposed manufacturing sector.

In addition, the Energy Act of 2020 contains significant reauthorizations for solar and wind, critical minerals, grid modernization, the DOE’s Office of Technology Transitions, ARPA-E, and much more.

All of those policies and technological advancements are only as useful as implementation. The passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) infused over $20 billion into the deployment of this road map. A few examples of what the IIJA included:

$12 billion into CCUS programs, with nearly $2.54 billion specifically allocated for a demonstration program originally authorized by the Energy Act of 2020;
$1 billion for a Clean Hydrogen Electrolysis Program, $500 million for a Clean Hydrogen Manufacturing program, $8 billion for Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs, and reauthorization of DOE’s hydrogen activities;
$3.5 billion for four regional direct air capture (DAC) hubs, each with the capacity to capture 1 million metric tons (MMt) of CO₂ annually; and
$500 million for industrial emission demonstration projects.

Importantly, if implemented correctly, these investments will be used to develop significant projects across the nation. It is important this Committee exercise its oversight authority over the next 18 months to ensure the Department is adhering to the deadlines directed by Congress while constructing programs that catalyze breakthroughs in these key clean technology focus areas.

Building Cleaner Faster

As we reimagine our energy and industrial systems using exciting new technologies, permitting modernizations must keep pace. The transition will require tens of thousands of miles of new pipelines carrying hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide from power plants and industrial facilities, new transmission infrastructure to carry electricity around an increasingly electrified country, and new nuclear reactors and power plants sited everywhere. This will be the largest continental construction project in history.

But there is a huge obstacle. Every single one of these clean infrastructure projects will need permits — often dozens of them — at the federal, state and local levels. A report issued by CEQ in June 2020 showed that the average environmental impact statement (EIS) took 4.5 years to complete, with one quarter taking upwards of 6 years. This timeline poses a significant risk to being able to reach the decarbonization goals recommended by the IPCC.

Given our shared goals, the federal government should be working with project developers at every level on permitting projects, not against them. Yet, the policies being put in place right now are restricting development. Just last week, the Council on Environmental Quality finalized its Phase 1 process on the National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions. This rulemaking restored regulatory provisions from the pre-2020 NEPA regulations, which will open the door to more litigation, create interagency conflict, and cause undue delays and costs to critical clean energy projects. Not to mention the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Draft Policy Statement released earlier this year that proposes sweeping changes to the evaluation of climate impacts from natural gas infrastructure. If we can’t build natural gas pipelines, how will we ever build CO₂ and hydrogen pipelines?

We should set a big, bold goal to modernize regulations, improve the bureaucratic process, and build projects in less than two years. There are some common-sense measures that could be taken that would drive towards that goal.

Future reforms should prioritize projects that significantly reduce emissions, encourage siting of projects in areas that will minimize environmental impact and maximize economic benefit, such as brownfield sites, and accelerate legal dispute resolution. This can all be done without compromising environmental stewardship or the public’s opportunity to be involved.

Making the permitting process more efficient and eliminating unnecessary regulatory hurdles can both ensure stewardship of taxpayer resources and scale clean energy rapidly.

Expanding the Roadmap from Clean Energy to Further Innovation

There are two areas that the IPCC report, the International Energy Agency’s NetZero by 2050 report, and countless other analyses have clearly concluded are essential, and that this Committee could tackle: one, innovations for heavy industrial processes like steel, cement, concrete and chemicals; and two, greatly expanding technologies for carbon dioxide removal.

Industrial Sector

In 2020, emissions from industrial facilities were roughly as high as those from power plants, or 24% of all U.S. emissions. For the very first time, industrial emissions were neck and neck with the power sector, and it is likely that industrial emissions will remain higher than power sector emissions going forward. By 2030, industrial facilities are expected to be the top source of U.S. emissions, exceeding those from power plants and vehicles.

ClearPath’s guiding focus in the power sector is that achieving meaningful emissions reductions emissions will require cleaner and more affordable technologies. The same goes for the industrial sector. Let me explain.

First, we need more RD&D. There are already some policies we could build from, like the Clean Industrial Technology Act, which was included in the Energy Act of 2020. In addition, there is legislation that Congress should pass. Committee Members Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH) and Conor Lamb (D-PA) authored The Steel Upgrading Partnerships and Emissions Reduction (SUPER) Act, which is moving forward as part of the U.S. House’s America COMPETES Act of 2022. The SUPER Act strengthens the competitiveness of American manufacturing by developing technologies to reduce emissions of conventional steelmaking. Similar legislation could be adopted for cement and concrete.

We also need to create conditions for U.S. manufacturers to thrive. Some industries operate on very low margins and face immense international competition. We cannot disadvantage American industry by saddling them with extra compliance costs or more expensive technologies that drive manufacturing overseas. And more importantly, we should focus on returning manufacturing to the U.S., where production is more efficient and environmental performance is far superior to places like China or Russia. For example, two-thirds of U.S. steel is already produced using recycled steel and an all-electric process – and new processes are being demonstrated that make high-grade steel. American steel has the second lowest CO₂-intensity of any country, and investors are clear they want clean and affordable steel. America can lead the steel industry to meet that demand.

However, many industries need heat at high-temperatures and intensities and largely cannot be electrified with renewable energy. It is also important to note that many American producers have recently built manufacturing plants that will remain in operation for decades, meaning it’s unrealistic to expect the industrial sector to fully decarbonize by mid-century. Similar to how the U.S. scaled up natural gas and solar power or how it is working to commercialize energy storage and advanced nuclear with the Grid Storage Launchpad and Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, we can apply our talents for creating market-driven goals to commercialize innovative technologies that will reduce industrial sector emissions.

Carbon Dioxide Removal

Even with all of the exciting innovations, nearly all projections rely on some degree of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to accelerate emissions reductions and offset residual emissions, like in difficult-to-decarbonize sectors like heavy industry. Long term, there will likely need to be removal of prior emissions to bring total emissions to be net-negative. According to analysis conducted by the National Academy of Sciences and the IPCC, the United States will likely need to remove about 2 gigatons of carbon dioxide every year by mid-century to reach net-zero — that’s about 30% of U.S. 2017 greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, carbon removal could be more than 10 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year by 2050 with an additional removal capacity up to 20 GtCO₂ per year by 2100.

Robust policy support is required, but policymakers are not starting from scratch here either. The bipartisan infrastructure bill included $3.5 billion to build direct air capture “hubs,” as well as over $100 million in funding for the Energy Act’s direct air capture prize competition.

There’s more that can be done to expand on the great carbon removal efforts in the Energy Act. One critical area is research and development into hybrid carbon removal technologies that combine the best attributes of natural and technological solutions.

There are policy ideas to build off of the Energy Act of 2020 by authorizing the first comprehensive federal carbon removal research and development program, and the IIJA, which invested $3.6 billion in direct air capture.

If the scope of DOE’s carbon removal and storage technology program was expanded, creating a path for DOE to research and evaluate the feasibility of a diverse portfolio of CDR and storage pathways, we would be able to quantify the net impact of various solutions rather than relying on the success of one specific technology. Carbon removal innovation, beyond traditional tree planting, is currently in its infancy; therefore, if investments are constrained to only a handful of recognized opportunities, then the most competitive and cost-effective CDR technologies may never be realized. One method would be to establish a pilot reverse auction purchasing program to accelerate carbon removal market commercialization.

We are seeing exciting private sector investments from the technology sector and the oil and gas sector. In recent years, companies with carbon reduction goals have invested more than $3 billion into carbon removal technologies. For example, Oxy Low Carbon Ventures has a planned direct air capture plant in Texas that could pull 500,000 tons of carbon dioxide out of the air annually. And just this month, a major investment spearheaded by finance company Stripe will put $925 million toward carbon dioxide (CDR) removal efforts. Stripe’s Frontier fund, backed by tech companies including Alphabet, Meta, and Shopify, will support the scaling up of CDR startups and reduce the cost of CO₂ offsets.

Conclusion

This Committee has been at the forefront of Congressional efforts on clean energy innovation for many years. Importantly, you have an incredible record of bipartisanship marked by the enactment of the Energy of 2020.

ClearPath greatly appreciates what this Committee has accomplished, and we look forward to supporting your efforts in the months ahead.

Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to the discussion.