U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

52–159 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–366 

CLIMATE SCIENCE: EMPOWERING OUR 

RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 12, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Chief of Staff 

JAMES REID, Deputy Chief of Staff 

BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

PAUL NAGLE, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 12, 2009 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Rockefeller ........................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Hutchison ............................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................... 5 

Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 35 

Statement of Senator Kerry .................................................................................... 37 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 40 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 44 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 46 

Statement of Senator Warner ................................................................................. 47 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 49 

WITNESSES

Dr. Tim Killeen, Assistant Director, Geosciences Division, National Science 

Foundation ............................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Katharine Jacobs, Executive Director, Arizona Water Institute ......................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Sean Dilweg, Commissioner of Insurance, State of Wisconsin on Behalf of 

the National Association of Insurance Commissioners ..................................... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Frank Alix, CEO, Powerspan Corp. ....................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Tim Killeen by: 

Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison ............................................................................. 59 

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 61 

Response to written questions submitted to Katharine Jacobs by: 

Hon. Maria Cantwell ........................................................................................ 63 

Response to written questions submitted to Frank Alix by: 

Hon. Mark Warner ........................................................................................... 64 

(1) 

CLIMATE SCIENCE: EMPOWERING OUR 

RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE 

THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John D. Rockefeller 

IV, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

I thank our witnesses for joining us today. You’ve come from various places. From across the country, am I right? We’re here to discuss climate change, which is a very big part of the work of the 

Commerce Committee, which a lot of people don’t know, but they’re 

going to. 

There are some in this room who believe that climate change is 

for real and that I think it’s for real. I come from a coal state. Not 

everybody likes to hear what I have to say about it, but I love my 

grandchildren. One of the questions I’m going to ask some of you 

is, When do you think the irreversibility factor becomes impossible 

to overcome? 

There are also some that are a little less convinced of that. Not 

necessarily in this room, but certainly across the country and in 

some energy circles. For me, I believe the science is overwhelming. 

I think science determines everything—like Sir Isaac Newton said, 

‘‘Follow the truth wherever it takes you,’’ and you never move your 

nose from that direction. The danger of getting this wrong is very 

great, and therefore, we’ve got to act. 

This Committee has a terrific jurisdiction on climate change, and 

I want people to be very clear about that, everything from ocean 

policy to science and technology policy, estuaries, transportation, 

and consumer affairs, just an enormous number of things. Each of 

the hearings we’re going to have on climate change are sort of 

going to build upon the previous one. So, this is the base. 

Today’s hearing will be dominated by an area under the Committee’s jurisdiction which people don’t pay enough attention to, and 

that is something called, ‘‘science.’’ The quality of our Nation’s research in science is the single most important factor in meeting the 

challenges of climate change, it’s the single most important factor 

in acting intelligently. If we’re going to have a strong climate 

change policy, it requires strong climate science and our reaction 

2 

to that science. For science to be effective, it must be moved outside 

the laboratory so that the stakeholders can make use of it, so it’s 

not just the knowledge itself, it’s, How do you use the knowledge? 

Is it ready to be used? 

The purpose of the hearing today is first, to provide an overview 

of the current state of climate change science, and second, to examine how science informs our response to climate change and what 

we do about its adaption and mitigation strategies, and third, highlight challenges and knowledge gaps. What don’t we know? What 

do we need to know? What do we know about parts of science, but 

not how to make it adaptable to the stakeholders, to the American 

people? 

So, again, I think the time for arguing whether carbon emissions 

is a factor which affects the health of the Earth or whether our sea 

level is rising from global warming is, and must be, over. And until 

it is over, there will be a small drag on our momentum, but I think 

our momentum in the Congress is very strong on this. 

We must address solutions now. We have to tackle the challenges 

very directly and intelligently. Those are two very different matters. 

Today’s hearing is about taking science out of the laboratory and 

into our communities in order to help people see how climate variability and climate change are impacting their lives every single 

day, whether they know it or not. From clean air and water to actually impacting our economy. 

Climate affects every aspect of our economy. Over one-third of 

our Nation’s gross domestic product is sensitive to weather and climate. Weather is a large part of what we do. And that fits very 

much into the science of prediction and all the rest of it. Where you 

build levees and where you do not, where will the sands increase, 

crops cease to grow? Science determines the types of crops that we 

grow, where we grow them; it affects where we live, where we build 

our roads, where we build our homes and our schools; and it determines the amount of energy that we need. And it affects our 

health. 

Make no mistake, climate change is affecting our world in ways 

we are only beginning to understand. We have to let go of the ‘‘it 

isn’t happening, because I can’t see it.’’ Well, actually you can see 

it. You just have to look up into the skies. But, we have to let go 

of that and understand that it’s for real, before we can really move 

ahead effectively. 

Climate change is affecting our world in ways that are dangerous. Warmer temperatures bring longer growing seasons, in 

some regions increasing agriculture production. We’ve seen severe 

storms that threaten coastal ecosystems. People think severe 

storms are acts of God or, you know, happenstance, or something 

that’ll happen this 5 years, but not the next 5 years. Wrong. It’s 

all a part of climate change. 

Public health crises are very much involved in all of this, rapidly 

evolving through increased infectious and respiratory illnesses and 

weather-related mortality. The list goes on. 

The economic consequences of climate change are equally grave. 

These issues are particularly important because of the serious challenges facing our economy. I know many Americans believe that 

3 

addressing climate change may have a negative impact on jobs, so 

let’s consider that for a moment. However, the cost of inaction will 

be much, much worse than the economic impact of action. More importantly, action on climate change will produce new jobs and 

make our economy stronger. 

In this crucial time in our Nation’s history, dangerous time, the 

decisions we make now can and will set the course for many generations to come. We have the ability to improve our economy and 

the climate at the same time. 

Through the decisions we make today, we can resolve to transition to a low-carbon economy, and increase sound climate science. 

That will drive effective decisionmaking, enhance stakeholder-driven climate science that directly addresses public needs and concerns and improve our ability to mitigate response and adapt to 

change. Anyway, the time to act is now. 

Our Ranking Member, Kay Bailey—Senator Kay Bailey 

Hutchison, will arrive shortly, and when she does, I will ask her 

to speak, obviously. But, in the meantime, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. They’re going to talk about how we can improve climate science programs within the Federal Government to 

make them more stakeholder-driven and more responsive to the 

needs of society. I want to say a word about them. 

Dr. Tim Killeen, with the National Science Foundation, will provide us with an update of the current state of climate change 

science, including research and data needs, gaps, what we don’t 

know, and challenges to addressing those gaps and needs. 

Dr. Kathy Jacobs, Executive Director of the Arizona Water Institute, works to connect science and decisionmaking—makes you a 

star—and engage stockholders to use climate change and climate 

variability information for water management, which is her work. 

She’s also Chair of the National Academy of Sciences Panel on 

Adapting to Impacts of Climate Change. 

Commissioner Sean Dilweg is the Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance and former head of the National Association of Insurance 

Commissioners Climate Change Task Force. This is an industry 

beset with a lot to worry about. The insurance industry is one of 

the greatest financial sectors in the United States, and climate 

change will impact nearly every single segment of what they do, including health and life insurance, property damage, and on and on. 

Dr. Jacobs and Commissioner Dilweg will help us understand the 

tangible link between science and its use. Reducing and stabilizing 

the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will require 

a broad portfolio of solutions. A lot of people think that can’t happen. Well, one of our witnesses, Mr. Alix, disagrees with that, and 

can prove it. 

Mitigation strategies, such as carbon capture and storage, or sequestration, is important in decoupling climate-change-altering 

emissions from continued coal use. Now, this isn’t a coal job, 

Frank. I don’t want you to worry. But, you know, we’re 70 percent 

now, and the question is, How do we get down to as low as we can? 

And you’re going to have some very interesting things to tell us. 

And there’s the whole question of, How do you close the gap? If 

it’s a big pie, and you’ve got renewables, right now at about 7 percent; you want to use atomic energy, that’s another 20 percent, if 

4 

you want to do that; you’ve got weatherization, you’ve got all kinds 

of things. But, basically, you can’t escape coal. It’s the source for 

51 percent of our electricity. And, in fact, in New Hampshire several years ago, it was literally 51 percent. West Virginia Coal was 

51 percent of their electricity energy. 

So, mitigation strategies such as carbon capture and storage are 

important in decoupling all of this with respect to coal use, creating 

a bridge to a low-carbon economy. Is that possible? Well, our fourth 

witness, Frank Alix, CEO of Powerspan Corp., will discuss how carbon capture and storage can help us bridge that in a very dramatic 

way. 

So, I will now call upon our first witness, Dr. Killeen. 

And here she is. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS 

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Chairman, I do apologize. I had an unusually large constituent coffee this morning, and so, I am late, and 

I will not take any more of your time, because I know I’m late, but 

just to say that this is a very important issue to me. I think we 

need to do more in this area, and that’s why I’m very appreciative 

that the Chairman has called this hearing so that we can move forward on really addressing the weather issues more clearly, and the 

scientific base for that. We need to know more. And I appreciate 

your calling this hearing, and I will certainly ask questions, but I 

don’t want to take any more time right now. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hutchison follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

Thank you, Senator Rockefeller. I am pleased to join you in conducting this hearing on climate science. This Committee has a long history of advancing and promoting laws that are based on sound science. Our Nation spends nearly $5 billion per year on climate change activities. Given 

the current fiscal challenges to our country, it is important to ensure that these 

funds are allocated wisely. While conducting this research is important, it is equally 

important that this research is presented in a form that is useful to stakeholders 

and decisionmakers. 

Accurate climate and weather science can have substantial benefits for both the 

private sector and local communities. It can help local communities plan future development and protect against natural disasters. As my home state of Texas continues to rebuild after Hurricane Ike, climate science can help us to make better 

decisions to prepare against future hurricanes. 

Climate and weather science can also help us to develop new renewable energy 

technologies. Last Congress I introduced the Creating Renewable Energy through 

Science and Technology Act in order to promote renewable energy research and development in the areas of wind, wave, solar, geothermal, and biofuels production. 

Not only is a strong science program essential to developing these technologies the 

private sector needs a strong understanding of the environment to deploy these 

technologies efficiently. Understanding weather patterns is crucial when deploying 

wind and solar energy technology. Understanding ocean currents is necessary for 

making decisions of where to site wave and tidal energy technologies. We must use 

sound science to encourage innovation, and cost effective clean energy technologies 

that can help America reduce greenhouse gases and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

We must also increase our efforts in weather modification research. In 2003, the 

National Research Council recommended the establishment of a coordinated Federal 

program of atmospheric research on cloud dynamics, cloud modeling, and cloud 

seeding, which would focus on fundamental research questions that currently impede progress and understanding of intentional and inadvertent weather modificaVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:49 Apr 21, 2010 Jkt 052159 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52159.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
5 

tion. In order to establish a coordinated Federal weather modification program I introduced legislation in both the 109th and 110th Congresses. This Congress I plan 

to introduce the Weather Mitigation Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2009, which I hope will lead to expanded weather modification research 

at both the Federal and local level. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation 

as it comes before this Committee. 

The National Science Foundation currently spend about $7 million per year on 

weather modification research but this pales in comparison to the economic costs of 

severe weather events. While we will not be able to stop Mother Nature entirely, 

we may be able alter her course, changing the weather in small, yet significant 

ways. Weather modification programs in Texas and other states are trying to use 

the latest technology to reduce the impacts of droughts by extracting more precipitation out of clouds. Many political subdivisions, like water conservation districts and 

county commissions, have embraced the technology of rain enhancement as one element of long-term, water management strategy. Research in weather modification 

will not only help us to mitigate severe weather events but will also help us to understand how weather impacts our Nation. 

So as we look to research what the weather impacts of climate change will be in 

the future, we cannot sit idly by and wait. We must also conduct research into what 

and how we may be able to modify the weather of that time. I know as well as anyone that weather modification is a long-term investment, but given what’s at stake, 

we have no other choice but to make the investment. 

Our Nation needs to invest more in basic scientific research, math and education. 

Many of our greatest challenges, such as understanding climate change, weather 

patterns, and developing additional sources of domestic energy, will require significant additional funding and effort to answer some of the unresolved questions that 

have plagued policymakers. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSERY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would make a request. 

And I so much appreciate the fact that you are holding this hearing 

concerning the critical question that faces us. And I wonder whether it’s possible for those of us who have been here now—it’s 10:20— 

to make a short statement, not more than 5 minutes, before the 

witnesses start. I’m very interested in what they have to say. These 

are an excellent group of witnesses. But, I think, in fairness, we 

might be able to get our statements out and come back to them, 

at the appropriate time, to be able to ask the questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Lautenberg, at the beginning of our organizing, I made it very clear, as did the Ranking Member, that 

if we had a lot of people here, it would get very difficult and timeconsuming to hear full statements, and people want to hear what 

the witnesses have to say. You can work your statement into your 

questions, but we agreed that the two of us would speak and then 

we would go directly to the witnesses, and then we would go directly to questions. 

So, Dr. Killeen, I call on you. 

STATEMENT OF DR. TIM KILLEEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

GEOSCIENCES DIVISION, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Dr. KILLEEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Is this working? Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Hutchison and 

Members of the Committee, I’m honored to speak to you—with you 

today on the state of climate change science. And I want to particularly thank you for your opening remarks on the part of the sciVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:49 Apr 21, 2010 Jkt 052159 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52159.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
6 

entific community, and the leadership that you’re demonstrating 

here and by the mechanism of this Committee. 

My name is Tim Killeen. I’m the National Science Foundation’s 

Assistant Director for the Geosciences. I’m also the former Director 

of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the past 

President of the American Geophysical Union, which is the world’s 

largest organization of geoscientists. My academic background includes teaching and research in atmospheric, space, and earth-system sciences. 

Today’s topic is of tremendous importance to the understanding 

of our planet and to our stewardship of it. And I’d like to make 

three simple, but fundamental, points in my testimony: 

First, the science of climate change has advanced to where we 

now understand, quantitatively, the basic drivers of both the observed natural and manmade changes, which is a supreme accomplishment of modern science and the scientific method. 

Number two, we are now poised to take that knowledge and expand it in order to develop the tools, precisely those that you were 

alluding to, Mr. Chairman, that policymakers require for future effective decisionmaking, predications of future change at the temporal and spatial scales of relevance to people’s lives. 

Third point is that the U.S. scientific and engineering community 

can and must retain world leadership, both intellectual and technological, and continue to push scientific frontiers that will allow us 

to predict climate and weather on scales relevant to human activities and endeavors. 

So, I’d like to begin with some of the things that we do know, 

representing the fruits of research by the hundreds of climate scientists, many of whom are from the U.S., many of whom were involved in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

or the IPCC, the fourth assessment, as authors and reviewers. 

Their famous phrase from the most recent assessment summarizes 

it well, ‘‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now 

evident from observations in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.’’ 

So, we know many things. We know that the Earth is warming— 

it’s warmed, over our whole lives, everybody in this room; the 

strength and pace of this warming is unprecedented—this warming 

is linked to human activities, especially the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but also deforestation; that significant continued warming is unavoidable, and we will be adapting to 

that; and that changing climates have already significantly impacted people, infrastructure, and ecosystems across the globe; and 

that these impacts will increase in extent and severity. 

The surplus heat energy in the oceans means that atmospheric 

warming will continue into the future. The rate of warming and 

the possibility for stabilization of the climate system will depend on 

human choices over the next years and decades. 

The investigation of global warming is a story of scientific accomplishment. We’re proud of that. It was forecast well, back in the 

previous century. Current models capture the evolution and global 

patterns of recent climate change remarkably well over the last 

century. And projections for the long-term centennial climate are 

7 

credible. Our observing systems, though incomplete, monitor 

changes in the global environment with unprecedented accuracy 

and precision. 

These research efforts are interdisciplinary, intergovernmental, 

and international. Scientific understanding of global climate 

change is growing rapidly. The knowledge from the fourth assessment from the IPCC is invaluable, but it’s based on research that 

was conducted more than 5 years ago. The IPCC’s estimates of the 

pace and severity of global change were probably conservative. 

Global emissions of greenhouse gases and their consequences are 

increasing faster than had been predicted or projected at that time. 

And we recognize now that natural systems have thresholds that 

could result in rapid changes, that identifying and understanding 

those thresholds remains a scientific challenge. 

Today, we know that the Earth functions as a system, affecting 

ice, carbon, rainfall, nitrogen cycles, ecosystem responses, and the 

likelihood of extreme weather events. But, we still lack the full detailed predictive understanding of that system and its many rich 

interactions. The science of climate change is not over, it’s just getting to a new threshold. 

In my written testimony, I’ve provided various examples of specific current research challenges, because you asked for gaps in our 

knowledge, and I won’t reiterate them in my oral remarks, but we 

recognize that being able to provide decisionmakers with useful 

predictions means that public policy, economic development, and 

human behavior must be taken into account, as well as the biological and physical sciences. We have entered a new, exciting, but 

very challenging, scientific world, where traditional national 

science—natural science, social science, and policy sciences must 

intersect. 

Society must find a way to deal with the impacts of continued 

warming, but a rational basis for mitigation and adaptation choices 

in assessing their potential consequences must be established and 

must be informed by the very best science and engineering we can 

muster. And this knowledge must continue to be improved over 

time. And, Mr. Chairman, you made that very point in your opening remarks. 

We’ve reached a point where the required detailed predictions 

are within reach because of the scientific advances over the past 

few years, but scientists must also find new ways to convey to nonspecialists the uncertainties of their predictions and to develop 

tools that allow decisionmakers to incorporate relevant information 

into the decision process. 

The predictive knowledge base to inform sound and effective policy—and this is my personal opinion—is perhaps the most important gift science will ever yield to humanity. 

The U.S. leads the world in research in the natural and social 

sciences and engineering disciplines today. The significance of the 

climate problem demands that the U.S. take a lead in its solution. 

And the U.S. scientific community is poised to take up that challenge. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the 

Committee and speak with you on this important topic. And I 

8 

would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have, to 

the best of my ability. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Killeen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. TIM KILLEEN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

GEOSCIENCES DIVISION, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and Members of the Committee, I am honored to speak with you today on the state of climate change science. 

My name is Tim Killeen, and I am the National Science Foundation’s Assistant 

Director for Geosciences. I am also the former Director of the National Center for 

Atmospheric Research, and the Past President of the American Geophysical Union 

(AGU). My academic background includes a professorship at the University of 

Michigan, where I taught and conducted research programs in atmospheric, space, 

and Earth system sciences for many years. 

The topic of this hearing is of tremendous importance to our understanding of the 

planet on which we live and to the stewardship of our world. I wish to make three 

simple but fundamental points: (1) the science of Earth’s climate and climate change 

has advanced to the point where we now understand the basic drivers of the natural 

and man-made changes in the Earth’s climate system—this is a supreme accomplishment of modern science and the scientific method; (2) we stand poised to expand that understanding and to begin to develop the detailed knowledge policymakers require for effective decisions that will surely shape our world for generations to come; and (3) the U.S. scientific and engineering, community can and must 

retain world leadership through our intellectual and technological capabilities to 

continuously improve predictions of climate changes on the temporal and spatial 

scales relevant to human endeavors. 

What We Know 

The many hundreds of climate scientists involved in the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC) summarized the situation in their famous phrase: ‘‘Global warming is unequivocal’’ (IPCC AR4). We know that: 

• the Earth is warming (more than 1 degree Celsius since 1860). 

• the strength and pace of this warming is unprecedented in at least the past 

1,000 years. 

• this warming is linked to human activities, especially the release of carbon dioxide and other ‘‘greenhouse gases.’’ 

• significant continued warming is unavoidable. 

• changing climates have already significantly impacted people, infrastructure, 

and ecosystems throughout the globe, and these impacts will increase in extent 

and severity as climate changes continue. 

While global warming represents a profound challenge to Earth’s people, its investigation is a story of scientific accomplishment. Global warming was forecast by simple theories and models well back into the previous century. Our current models 

capture the evolution and global patterns of climate change over the past century 

remarkably well, and they make credible and reproducible projections for the longterm climate outcomes of greenhouse warming. At the same time our observing systems, although incomplete, monitor changes in the global environment with unprecedented accuracy and precision. 

Our knowledge is expanding. Driven by intense research efforts that are interdisciplinary, inter-governmental, and international, scientific understanding of global climate change is growing rapidly. Recent advances build on the understanding 

contained in the IPCC 4th Assessment (AR4, 2007), which is based on research conducted more than 5 years ago. We now know more about how the Earth functions 

as a system—the role of ice, carbon, rainfall and nitrogen cycles; ecosystem responses; the likelihood of extreme event occurrence (e.g., wildfires and heat waves) 

and more. A body of recent research compiled in the U.S. Climate Change Science 

Program’s Synthesis and Assessment Products (SAP) has been very helpful in expanding our regional knowledge in these areas. 

Because of the accumulation of surplus heat energy in the ocean, atmospheric 

warming will continue long into the future, but the rate of this warming and any 

possibility for ultimate stabilization of this system will be dependent on how humans adjust concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases over the next years 

and decades. 

9 

What We Need to Know 

As the pace of global change has accelerated, so has the demand from the public, 

business leaders, resource managers, and decisionmakers for climate predictions, 

not just a century ahead but over the next five, ten, or fifteen years, and not just 

globally, but regionally and locally. Led by U.S. researchers, the scientific enterprise 

can meet this demand, but must first fill fundamental gaps in our understanding 

of the Earth system and build new technologies for Earth-system prediction. Traditional research in fields like meteorology, oceanography, geology, glaciology, biology, 

and the social sciences must be linked to construct an understanding of the Earthsystem including the impact of, and on, its human inhabitants. Underpinning all of 

this is the need for a comprehensive, high accuracy, high-spatial and high temporal 

resolution, stable, continuous, sustained global climate observing system that includes physical, biological, and social observations not only to monitor climate 

change but for use in research and modeling. 

Results of interdisciplinary research efforts must then be used in developing computational models with verifiable predictive skill. These next-generation predictive 

models will need to be run on our most powerful computers that can store, display, 

and analyze, and similarly handle the ever-growing volumes of observational data 

used to further refine the models. New computational methods are needed to make 

the best possible use of our computing power. Finally, new knowledge and techniques in mathematics, statistics, information sciences and cyber-infrastructure are 

crucial in converting model results to quantifiable statements about the various impacts and risks posed by climate change. 

What Are Some of the Leading Scientific Challenges? 

Regional Climate Change 

While our understanding of average global climate change and the large-scale factors driving it are fairly well understood, we have yet to develop the capability to 

predict accurately how climate will change on a regional basis. Some parts of the 

globe, such as the Antarctic Peninsula, are warming much faster than others and 

the factors driving these local variations are not well understood. A key challenge 

to the research community is to identify and understand these smaller scale factors 

and to incorporate them into models that will predict reliably how communities and 

specific parts of the globe will be impacted by climate change. 

Ice Sheet Changes and Rising Sea Levels 

Rising sea levels are a major consequence of global warming. As the oceans warm, 

their waters expand. This effect is comparatively well understood and predictable. 

What is less understood and less predictable is the behavior of ice sheets and the 

possibility of great and rapid rises in sea level due to melting ice caps. The ice 

sheets of Greenland and Antarctica hold vast volumes of water. Because of uncertainties surrounding the behavior of ice sheets, their impact on sea level rise was 

not adequately addressed in the last IPCC assessment. Recent observations including increasing areas of summer melt on the surface of the Greenland icecap and 

space-based observations of decreasing ice-sheet mass suggest the potential for a 

0.6–1.9 feet rise in sea level this century (SAP 3.4). Low lying regions, vital coastal 

wetlands and, in the developing world, densely populated agricultural regions could 

be inundated as a result of rapid sea level rise. 

In the U.S. alone, protecting coastal infrastructure against such a rise could require continuing investments of billions of dollars. At present, however, we cannot 

make reliable statements on the likelihood of a disastrous rise in sea level because 

of our limited knowledge of how ice sheets work. Recent research suggests that 

some previously unknown or neglected processes, such as the lubrication of ice flow 

by surface meltwater which reaches the base of the ice sheet through crevasses, are 

important, but we are not yet at the point of incorporating these effects into predictive models (SAP 3.4). Other recent results suggest the importance of increasing 

ocean temperatures on the retreat of Greenland outlet glaciers and the diminishment of the ice sheet. Finally, the impact of sea level rise on coastal ecosystem may 

be significant and likely will have far reaching consequences to inland-oceanic processes, including freshwater quality and availability. 

Water Scarcity 

Three decades ago, climate modeling pioneer, Sukyuro Manabe, predicted that 

global warming would lead to reductions in rainfall in some of the Earth’s most productive agricultural regions. The increased frequency of drought in places such as 

the southwest U.S. suggests that this trend may be underway (SAP 3.4). While models generally agree that the planet’s subtropical dry zones are expanding, there is 

great disagreement among them in regard to the pace and severity. Within the tropVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:49 Apr 21, 2010 Jkt 052159 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52159.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
10 

ics, the uncertainty is greater. For example, there is nearly perfect disagreement 

among models as to whether the Sahel region of Africa will become wetter or drier 

in this century. In the monsoon regions of South Asia a layer of haze, air pollution 

from industry and household fires, causes more sunlight to be absorbed within the 

atmosphere and less at Earth’s surface. Some models predict that this change could 

result in a weakening of the Asian monsoon and more frequent failures of monsoon 

rains, but once again, the pace and strength of this effect is highly uncertain. 

While our current models can address the global scale, they have not yet been 

fully adapted to regional and local scales. The water used by people, however, comes 

from local sources (e.g., wells, lakes and rivers recharged by rain and snow). At this 

stage, our models provide little information on these scales, which are small when 

viewed globally but critically important to a farmer or a water manager. Models 

that can provide information on the scales that users need are coming, but they are 

still in their infancy. 

Ocean Acidification 

Roughly one third of the carbon dioxide humankind has released from burning 

fossil fuels has gone into Earth’s oceans (IPCC AR4). While ocean uptake has slowed 

the pace of global warming, it has been harmful to living things in the ocean. When 

carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean, it makes seawater more acidic. Observations 

verify that the ocean has become more acidic, and, as this trend continues, it will 

make the ocean environment less and less hospitable for many key organisms, especially those that build hard shells, such as corals. While the basic chemistry of this 

problem is well understood, there are many questions we cannot yet answer: How 

will ocean ecosystems respond to increased acidity? How does ocean circulation, and 

its potential changes in a changing climate, affect how much carbon dioxide is absorbed and how rapidly the ocean acidifies? What are the implications of ocean 

acidification on marine ecology and the sustainability of fisheries and how might it 

affect the capacity of the ocean to continue to absorb carbon-dioxide? Ocean acidification is but one example of how questions about climate change extend beyond traditional climate science into other parts of the Earth system. In this case, a complete and coupled understanding of marine ecology along with climate physics is 

needed. 

Methane Gas 

Even when we look to the past, we are confronted by questions about the interrelationships between greenhouse gases and other environmental phenomena. For 

example, from ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antarctica, we know that in 

Earth’s recent geologic past (hundreds of thousands of years) the concentrations of 

two greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane, have varied nearly in lockstep 

with Earth’s temperature (IPCC AR4). The changes in greenhouse gases must have 

played a significant role in the temperature changes, while, at the same time, and 

by mechanisms we still do not fully understand, changes in temperature caused 

changes in levels of greenhouse gases. We do not know if the processes that caused 

carbon dioxide and methane to change naturally in the past could still function 

today in a warmer climate. If they do, the implications for global warming are profound, as they would function as a positive feedback loop, increasing the rate of 

global warming. Great quantities of methane are sequestered in Arctic permafrost. 

This methane may be released to the atmosphere as Earth warms and the permafrost melts, but we do not know how much or how fast (SAP 3.4). 

Extreme Events 

Researchers have already observed that an increasing portion of the rainfall 

comes in intense events. Two general implications of this trend are that the risk 

of flooding is increasing and that the fraction of rainfall that runs off may be greater. Recent modeling results suggest that as the Earth warms severe local storms 

and the damages from flash floods and high winds will increase (SAP 3.3). Further, 

the time between rainstorms may increase (SAP 3.3), which could lead to greater 

fire risk and water-stress to crops. Currently, our ability to make quantitative and 

precise statements about these risks that would be useful to emergency planners, 

farmers, and flood-control engineers is limited. Once again, the limitation comes 

from the scales of our models. The present generation of global climate models is 

far from being able to represent a locally severe thunderstorm or the time between 

storms. 

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function 

The Earth’s climate and related life support systems are changing today at highly 

accelerated rates that are markedly different from those experienced by living systems in the recent geological history. The processes associated with climate change, 

11 

as well as the mechanisms available to mitigate it, are largely biological—every part 

of the Earth is affected by the seemingly endless ability of living organisms to transform the world around them. The relationship between the Earth’s ability to function as a set of interconnected ecosystems and the biodiversity within and among 

those interacting systems is an area of incomplete knowledge and critical importance. Research that builds a mechanistic understanding of carbon, nutrient and 

water cycles and the connections with living systems; that connects carbon and nutrient cycles to land use changes; and that identifies likely continental sinks of CO2

is necessary to fill gaps in the climate change picture and directly relevant to 

human well being. Finally, achieving an understanding of the linkages between the 

biological and physical Earth systems and social systems is needed. Maintaining a 

healthy planetary ecosystem depends on both the maintenance of the Earth’s biodiversity and its ability to respond to changing conditions. 

Human Health 

In the summer of 1995 a heat wave in Chicago caused 521 deaths; the European 

heat wave of 2003 killed 35,000 people. Careful statistical and modeling studies indicate that the European heat wave was probably related to global warming (IPCC 

AR4). As the global temperature rises, the risk of severe heat waves is expected to 

increase. Yet we are limited in our ability to predict future heat waves and their 

impacts on people. Our models are not yet able to represent the complex urban environment where heat waves are most severe. Further, the impacts of heat waves depend on the vulnerability of urban populations and how they and community leaders respond when the thermometer spikes. 

Heat waves are but one example of how global climate change can influence 

human health. Others include the spread of disease agents and vectors into new 

areas, such as from tropical to temperate regions and to higher latitudes and altitudes. Other examples include key findings from SAP 4.6 which include: (1) Hurricanes, extreme precipitation resulting in floods, and wildfires also have the potential 

to affect public health through direct and indirect health risks; (2) The impacts of 

higher temperatures in urban areas and likely associated increases in tropospheric 

ozone concentrations can contribute to or exacerbate cardiovascular and pulmonary 

illness if current regulatory standards are not attained; and (3) There will likely be 

an increase in the spread of several food and water-borne pathogens among susceptible populations depending on the pathogens’ survival, persistence, habitat range 

and transmission under changing climate and environmental conditions. 

In all of these cases, a useful estimate of the risk depends on more than predicting changes in the physical climate, even if we can do so at the small scales of 

a city neighborhood. Biology, ecology, and human physiology come into play, and, 

even more importantly, human responses. We must better understand the human 

and social dimensions of climate change if we are to address the wide range of climate change problems, but the scientific study of these human factors is in early 

stages. 

Smart Adaptation and Smart Mitigation 

It is imperative that society adapts to the impacts of continued warming of the 

climate. The extent to which we will need to adapt will depend substantially on future emissions and the success of mitigative efforts. Anticipating the magnitude of 

potential impacts is complicated by other factors such as population growth, urbanization, the availability and implementation of new technologies, the health and resilience of natural systems and human communities, and pollution, which can amplify or exacerbate the impacts due to changing climate. Current climate projections 

are based largely on scenarios that assume no particular climate polices with respect to greenhouse gases (IPCC AR4), however, policy choices will, in fact, affect 

how natural and human systems respond, perhaps in unexpected ways. 

Society will need to pursue a mix of smart adaptation and mitigation strategies. 

Identifying the best sets of options requires tools that allow us to understand how 

the Earth’s physical, biological and human systems will respond to various adaptation and mitigation strategies and the tradeoffs with respect to effectiveness and 

cost. Factors of politics, economic development, and human behavior and health 

must be taken into account. These requirements bring us into a new and very challenging realm where traditional natural science, social science, and policy sciences 

all intersect. 

Potentially Disruptive Climate Change 

Studies of ancient climate change have shown evidence of dramatic changes in the 

Earth’s climate. Much new work focuses on possible ‘‘tipping points’’ or thresholds, 

at which a system undergoes rapid and dramatic change. Such events occur rarely, 

but carry high consequences when they do. For example, during the 1990s, Alaska 

12 

experienced the largest outbreak of spruce bark beetles in the world. This outbreak 

was associated with a threshold response to milder winters and warmer temperatures that allowed more beetles to survive the winter (SAP 4.2) The concept also 

applies to social and economic systems. Identifying potential tipping points in our 

natural and social systems is challenging because many systems are nonlinear, but 

fully informed decisionmaking by policymakers will need to take the possibility of 

tipping points into account. 

Dealing with Uncertainty 

No matter how sophisticated our models and predictive capabilities there will always be uncertainties in the projections and the risks of adopting particular strategies cannot be fully known. Scientists must find new ways to convey to non-specialists the uncertainties of their predictions and develop tools that allow decision-makers to incorporate the information into the decision process. 

The Ultimate Goal 

The goal of climate change science is to make verifiable quantitative predictions. 

We need this predictive capability for two reasons. First, and most importantly, societies need them to respond intelligently to the challenges posed by a changing climate. At the same time, as scientists, we know our understanding can be tested 

only by making predictions and comparing them with what actually happens—this 

is as true today for global climate change as it was for predicting the orbits of the 

planets in the days of Kepler and Newton. Getting to a useful predictive capacity 

requires scientific understanding of the myriad processes and interactions that comprise the Earth system. It requires constructing computational models that incorporate our understanding. It requires access to our best supercomputer hardware 

and the development of computational methods to implement these models. It requires observations of all aspects of the Earth system, including its human dimensions, that can be used as the starting points for model predictions and as data for 

testing the accuracy of models. And it requires the human and cyber infrastructure 

to deliver model results to people in forms and media that they can use. 

As noted previously the scientific community has made remarkable progress in 

gaining an understanding of climate relevant processes and the ability to model 

these processes to give a realistic representation of the current climate system on 

a global scale and how human activities have begun to impact climate. There really 

is no longer a question of humankind’s perturbation of the climate. The question 

now is the timing and the magnitude of climate change that will occur in the future. 

Conclusion 

Society cannot avoid the need to adapt to the impacts of continued warming of 

the climate due to past emissions of greenhouse gases, but policy and decisionmakers need a rational basis for deciding how to proceed and an understanding of 

the potential consequences of their choices. Climate Science has progressed to the 

point where the detailed predictions required are within reach, once a set of definable scientific challenges is overcome. The predictive knowledge base to inform 

sound and effective policy is perhaps the most important gift science will ever yield 

to humanity. 

The U.S. leads the world in research in the natural and social sciences and engineering disciplines and in developing computing hardware and computational tools. 

The significance of the climate problem demands that the U.S. take the lead in its 

solution. The U.S. science community is poised to take on this challenge. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee to 

speak to you on this important topic. I would be pleased to answer any questions 

that you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Jacobs. 

STATEMENT OF KATHARINE JACOBS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ARIZONA WATER INSTITUTE 

Ms. JACOBS. Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, 

Members of the Committee, thank you so much for the opportunity 

to speak with you today as you consider how best to prepare this 

country for the impacts of climate change. 

The current and potential impacts are undeniably of concern. 

Drought and unreliable water supplies, more intense storm events, 

13 

sea-level rise, and large wildfires are already attributed to global 

warming, and are predicted to increase over time. While the focus 

to date has primarily been on reducing carbon emissions, adaptation issues need more attention. 

My name is Katharine Jacobs, and I am the Executive Director 

of the Arizona Water Institute, which is a consortium of Arizona’s 

three State universities focused on water sustainability. 

For 23 years, I was a Water Manager for the Arizona Department of Water Resources, and I’m currently a Professor at the University of Arizona. I’ve worked on drought planning, water conservation, groundwater management, climate change and Colorado 

River issues, and I currently chair a National Academy Panel on 

Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. 

Though we’ve made great strides in understanding climate variability and climate change from a scientific perspective, much of 

that information is lost on the American public and on water managers who need it. I have been in countless meetings where this 

gap between science and society has been lamented, but, with a few 

notable exceptions, very little progress has been made in addressing this problem. 

Our current ability to connect science and decisionmaking is woefully inadequate, and a big part of this problem is communication. 

At a very basic level, the science and management communities 

often fail to understand each other’s vocabulary and their motivation. 

An associated problem is that, to a layperson, the messages that 

come from scientists and science agencies often appear to be in conflict. Climate change information has been highly politicized, leading people to incorrect conclusions about the quality of the information and the degree of certainty that does exist. This means that 

the context for building the proposed National Climate Service is 

especially challenging. 

Possibly the biggest challenge is funding. A minute portion of the 

Federal science budget is spent on translating that science into 

useful decision-support tools and timely, relevant sources of information. There is a lot of focus, especially within NOAA and NASA, 

on buoys, satellites, and massive computing capacity. All of these 

investments have dramatically improved the understanding of 

science; however, to truly translate data into information, and information into knowledge, requires a larger investment in decisionsupport tools, data access, training, and capacity-building. 

The only way that the new National Climate Service will succeed 

is if it empowers a multitude of regional support networks and centers to engage the public and decisionmakers at local scales, where 

decisions affected by climate are made on a regular basis. 

Fortunately, we do have examples of successful bridging organizations, such as the NOAA Regional Integrated Science Assessment 

Program, with which I have been associated for some years. But, 

this network will have to be informed by a well-coordinated Federal 

science team, and the network itself will need to be well supported 

by Federal money. 

Based on recent national and international reports, the water 

supplies of the West are seriously threatened by climate change. 

This is, in part, because higher temperatures alone have dramatic 

14 

impacts on the hydrologic cycle, drying soils, reducing runoff into 

rivers, causing more evaporation from reservoirs, and increasing 

the demand for water for people and for ecosystems. 

Recent climate-model information suggests that the Southwest 

will likely also experience reduced precipitation. The result could 

be relatively dire for the Colorado River, including a potential 20- 

percent decrease in flows by the year 2050. This is not a happy circumstance for the nearly 30 million people who depend on its flows. 

But, most water managers do not even know about the Climate 

Change Science Program. It is clear that coherent messages regarding climate science are not penetrating into arenas where they can 

best be used. Significant restructuring of the program will be required so that regional issues, like water-supply reliability in the 

Colorado River Basin, can be effectively addressed. 

In the written version of my testimony, I have outlined what I 

believe are the key ingredients of a successful Climate Service that 

will connect science and decisionmaking. In the interest of time, I 

will just say that the Climate Service needs to have a broad, inclusive vision; that the engagement, training, capacity-building, and 

coordination functions need to be expanded and adequately funded; 

that it should address both climate variability and climate change 

at multiple time and space scales; and that it will require strong 

leaders who have the authority to either encourage or force the integration of Federal science capacity to support decisions. 

By some accounts, the U.S. Government has spent more than $30 

billion in the last 8 years on climate science, and perhaps $100 billion total. Given the magnitude of this investment, it is clearly time 

to take stock of what we do know, and, though we haven’t answered every question, empower decisionmakers to access and use 

that information with full understanding of its limitations. 

Clearly, we need to keep investing in research on both climate 

variability and on climate change, but it is time to get more value 

out of the investments we’ve already made. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on this extremely important topic. If you have any questions, I would be 

happy to respond. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jacobs follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHARINE JACOBS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ARIZONA WATER INSTITUTE

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today as you consider how best to 

prepare this country for the impacts of climate change. Many in this country still 

do not consider this topic a ‘‘front-burner’’ issue. But the current and potential impacts of climate change are undeniably of concern: drought and unreliable water 

supplies, more intense storm events, sea level rise, large wildfires and devastating 

bark-beetle damage to forests across the west already are attributed to global warming and are predicted to increase over time. 

My name is Katharine Jacobs, and I am the Executive Director of the Arizona 

Water Institute, a consortium of Arizona’s three state universities focused on water 

sustainability. Since 2003, I have been a Professor in the Department of Soil, Water 

and Environmental Science at the University of Arizona in Tucson. For the prior 

23 years I was a Water Manager for the State of Arizona, and for 14 of those years 

I was Director of the Tucson regional office. I also briefly managed Arizona’s 

drought planning program, and have worked extensively on water conservation, 

groundwater management, climate change, western water policy, and the Colorado 

River. In collaboration with a wide range of Federal and university experts, I wrote 

15 

the water sector chapter for the first National Assessment of the impacts of climate 

change, published in 2000. I currently chair a National Academy panel on Adapting 

to the Impacts of Climate Change. 

My comments are directed toward adaptation to climate impacts, rather than on 

limiting carbon emissions. Although these activities need to be considered in tandem 

to avoid unanticipated consequences and to optimize investment, conversations 

about mitigation have been ongoing for some time. Discussions of adaptation are 

long overdue. 

Translating scientific information into useful knowledge for decision-makers is my 

particular interest. I am focused on climate science, because better use of this information would be of enormous benefit to society in general, and water managers in 

particular. Two important observations: (1) although we have made great strides in 

understanding climate variability and climate change from a scientific perspective, 

much of that information is lost on the American public and on the water managers 

who urgently need it to reduce risk and increase economic opportunities, and (2) 

most scientists have a limited understanding of the information needs of decisionmakers. I have been in countless meetings where this gap between science and society has been lamented, but with a few notable exceptions, very little progress has 

been made in addressing this problem. 

I would like to emphasize three key points in my testimony: 

1. Our current ability to bridge the gap between science and decision-making 

is woefully inadequate, and despite billions of dollars spent on the Federal climate program, it has not been as effective as it would have been if it were more 

focused on building adaptive capacity. 

2. Adaptation decisions are made at the state, regional and local levels—and the 

magnitude of the climate change challenge is so great that new mechanisms of 

engagement are required to build local and regional capacity to respond. 

3. The climate service needs to have a broad, inclusive vision; be adequately 

funded; address both climate variability and climate change at multiple time 

and space scales; and have the authority to either encourage or force the integration of Federal science capacity to support decisions 

Connecting Science and Decision-Making 

In 2001–2002 I had the good fortune to take a sabbatical from the Arizona Department of Water Resources to work for what at the time was NOAA’s Office of 

Global Programs (now the Climate Office). While there, I worked on the issue of 

why Federal climate science often does not get used by water managers or decisionmakers more generally. I spent some of that year interviewing both climate scientists and people who studied the use of scientific information, and concluded that 

although all of the scientists and the agencies for which they worked had good intentions, a variety of factors accounted for the failure to connect science and decision-making. I wrote a workbook based on my findings called Connecting Science, 

Policy and Decision-Making: A Handbook for Researchers and Science Agencies. I 

have provided copies to your staff. 

A big part of the bridging problem is communication: failure of scientists to understand how the information they generate can best be used, and failure to understand the political, institutional and economic context of decisions. Meanwhile, resource managers lack trust in ‘‘academic, ivory-tower’’ information or mistrust the 

government in general; and they often are reluctant to innovate and use data and 

tools from new sources. At a very basic level the science and management communities often fail to understand each other’s vocabulary and motivations. 

A second concern is that scientists aren’t always that good at talking with each 

other. They come from different disciplinary backgrounds (hydrologists, atmospheric 

scientists, oceanographers, etc.), and often ‘‘stick with their own kind.’’ Because climate issues are by nature interdisciplinary, this can be a serious problem. 

A third big problem is that to a layperson, the messages that come from scientists 

and science agencies often appear to be in conflict. In the case of climate change, 

information has been highly politicized, leading people to incorrect conclusions about 

the quality of the information and the degree of certainty that does exist. For reasons that are unclear, people are willing to tolerate high degrees of uncertainty in 

most other aspects of their lives, but the bar is set exceedingly high for climate information. This means that the context for building the proposed national climate 

service is especially challenging. 

A fourth challenge, possibly the biggest, is funding: a minute portion of the Federal science budget is spent on translating that science into useful decision support 

tools and timely, relevant sources of information. There is a lot of focus, especially 

within NOAA and NASA, on buoys, satellites and massive computing capacity. All 

16 

of these investments have dramatically improved the understanding of underlying 

processes, atmospheric physics, land surface-atmospheric interactions, etc. However, 

translating data to information, and information to knowledge, requires a larger investment in decision support tools, data access, training and capacity building. 

Like many other scientific topics, climate science is complicated. Climate change 

presents so many scientific and social challenges, across regions and economic sectors, at multiple scales of time and space, that building more capacity to translate 

climate information for specific applications is a daunting task. The only way that 

the new national climate service will succeed is if it empowers a multitude of regional support networks and centers to engage the public and decisionmakers at 

local scales—where decisions affected by climate are made on a regular basis. Fortunately, we do have examples of successful bridging organizations, such as the NOAA 

Regional Integrated Science Assessment program, which are university partnerships 

focused on supporting the use of climate information. As has been shown in multiple 

cases, products that are developed collaboratively between stakeholders and researchers are more likely to be ‘‘owned’’ and used by the stakeholders—so the process of network-building, though time-intensive, brings multiple rewards. But this 

network will have to be informed by a well-coordinated Federal science team—and 

the network itself will need to be well supported by Federal money. 

Building Regional Capacity to Respond: Western Water and Climate 

Change 

During the last week I heard the result of a large-scale assessment of public opinion: less than half of Americans believe that climate change is a serious threat, and 

even in California roughly half connect climate change with water supply problems, 

though water supply impacts may be the most critical aspect of climate change and 

California is in the grip of a large-scale drought. According to the Pew Center for 

People and the Press, only 30 percent of Americans consider global warming to be 

a priority. In a recent meeting in Arizona, water utility staff noted that their elected 

officials show very little interest in climate change, but water supply reliability is 

an issue that ‘‘keeps them awake at night.’’ Connecting the dots between cause and 

effect needs to be part of the ‘‘climate literacy’’ effort as we work to improve adaptive capacity. 

Based on the findings of the International Panel on Climate Change, and the most 

recent reports from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), the water 

supplies of the west are seriously threatened by climate change. This is in part because higher temperatures alone have dramatic impacts on the hydrologic cycle— 

drying soils, reducing runoff into rivers, causing more evaporation from reservoirs, 

significantly increasing the demand for water for ecosystems, landscaping, power 

generation and agriculture. In addition to higher temperatures, recent climate 

model information suggests that the southern portions of the American Southwest 

and northern Mexico will also experience reduced precipitation. The result could be 

dire consequences for the Colorado River (the current best estimate by a team of 

climate scientists from universities all over the west is a 20 percent reduction in 

runoff by 2050). Given rapid growth, increasing demands for water, and the overappropriation of Colorado River water rights, this prediction is not a happy one for 

the nearly 30 million people who depend on the Colorado. 

But most water managers do not even know about the CCSP or the 21 Science 

and Assessment Products that have been developed in the last couple of years. It 

is clear that the 13 Federal science agencies that make up the CCSP do not coordinate with each other particularly well, and coherent messages regarding their work 

are not penetrating into arenas where they can best be used. If we are to have an 

effective and efficient climate science program and climate service, significant restructuring of the program will be required so that regional issues like water supply 

availability in the Colorado River basin can be addressed. 

Ingredients of Successful Climate Services 

• User-centric problem definition: to provide the most effective services, there 

must be an ongoing effort to identify the key decisions where climate information is needed, and to frame at least some portion of the Federal research program around those decisions. This does not mean that we should halt investment in basic understanding of the climate system; it does mean that we need 

to measure our progress in terms of improving our adaptive capacity, limiting 

risk, improving quality of life and building economic advantages by developing 

more problem-focused climate information. 

• Information at the time and space scales that decisions are made: an important 

component of providing services that will actually be used is building a system 

that provides answers at the scale of decisions, for example, focused on reservoir 

17 

operations at the watershed scale. Resource managers across the board are frustrated that climate model projections are at such a large scale that they have 

little utility for actual decision-making. Although ‘‘downscaling’’ efforts are 

being initiated, including within my own research partnership, we are a long 

way from answering their questions. 

• Credibility of information: A lot is riding on the decisions associated with climate predictions, in some cases billions of dollars in infrastructure investments; 

in other cases these decisions may make or break a family or a business. Users 

need to trust the source of this information. Trust comes from long-term relationships between scientists and decision-makers; building these relationships 

requires a long-term commitment of funding that is not tied to the politics of 

individual administrations. 

• Adequate funding and independent budget authority: Because the problem requires building decision support infrastructure (training programs, data access 

systems, monitoring and assessment capacity, etc.), it does not lend itself well 

to an ad-hoc funding source that is based on the good will of individual decisionmakers within the 13 Federal science agencies. There needs to be significant, 

centralized coordination with budget authority to ensure that structural support 

is built and that outcomes are delivered. There will also need to be priority-setting based on risk and vulnerability (among other considerations) and the process of priority setting will need to be de-politicized. Every sector and every region has needs, but we will not be able to meet all of the needs that are identified. 

• Clear leadership and authority focused on management for societal outcomes: 

Because this assignment is so daunting and will involve so many people at various scales, there needs to be central leadership that is empowered to achieve 

outcomes that are valued by decision-makers and can cause agencies to engage 

through incentives and if necessary, through clear articulation of expectations 

at a high level. Leaders of this program will need to have the courage to take 

bold steps, including harvesting science outcomes that may not be viewed by 

some as ‘‘ready for prime time’’ and testing their utility for improving decisions. 

• Buy-in, coordination and engagement of Federal agencies beyond NOAA: Although the roles of the various Federal agencies in the climate service have not 

been identified, NOAA clearly cannot and should not try to create the climate 

service on its own. Whatever coordination and management system is developed 

will need to provide incentives for all of the agencies to work together toward 

common goals. There is no time and no money for turf battles over the components of this system. NOAA will play a key role, but this project will require 

a variety of innovative partnerships with local and regional entities and universities as well as functional partnerships between Federal agencies. The capacity 

to do all of this coordination does not currently exist within NOAA. 

• A central portal for information (clearinghouse function/informatics): Because 

providing decision support that is timely, relevant and credible at a range of 

time and space scales will be very expensive, we must harness information technology to provide the tools that local, regional, state, tribal and sectoral decision-makers need. In many cases, providing better tools over the Internet and 

more useful ways to manipulate and visualize data may move us a long ways 

forward. Major investments are required in the ‘‘cyberinfrastructure’’ of the climate service. Significant progress is being made along these lines in the context 

of the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) and at the National Climate Data Center. 

• Adequate interface with communities, states, sectors, regions, tribes, etc.: The engagement strategy needs to include ways to entrain, leverage and expand existing operational capacity (including the NOAA Regional Integrated Science Assessment Programs; science translation capacity within universities, including 

the Cooperative Extension Programs; natural resources management NGO’s 

and a variety of private sector interests, and local and regional jurisdictions and 

interest groups). This interface needs to be managed on an ongoing basis to ensure we are answering the right questions, that there is two-way communication, and that there is ongoing assessment of progress (in terms of both outcomes and process). 

• Capacity building and training programs: Because there are few people who are 

qualified to do science translation for specific policy applications, a deliberate 

effort to expand the community of people who can tailor science information for 

specific applications is needed. This will involve partnerships with universities 

18 

as well as training programs for scientists, resource managers and elected officials. 

• Enhanced, strategic observation and modeling capability: Despite my strong advocacy for more focus on engagement and decisions, there is a major disconnect 

between adaptation in regions and sectors and the types of monitoring that are 

currently underway. Although we have made great progress in remote sensing, 

and satellites can provide reams of new information at very useful scales, our 

ground-truthing capacity is totally inadequate. One of the biggest travesties is 

the disintegration of the USGS stream gage program at exactly the point in 

time when we need more and better gaging information. We also need more 

snow monitoring sites, more soil moisture measurements, etc. Strategic design 

of the monitoring program to focus on answering important management questions and to detect trends in real time is critical to better adaptive capacity. 

• Avoiding maladaptive decisions: Many past decisions have increased our vulnerability to climate events (e.g., allowing construction in floodplains and in lowlying coastal areas, subsidies for agricultural activities that increase demands 

for water and power without providing commensurate benefits, etc.). In the context of the stimulus bill we are engaging in building significant quantities of 

new infrastructure. A critical feature of adaptation is learning from past mistakes: let’s make sure that this new infrastructure is designed for changing climate conditions, including using new engineering standards that recognize nonstationarity in the climate system and the already-evident increase in extreme 

events such as flooding, coastal erosion and storm surges. 

Conclusions 

By some accounts, the U.S. Government has spent more than $30 billion in the 

last 8 years on climate science, and perhaps $100 billion total. Given the magnitude 

of this investment, it is clearly time to take stock of what we do know, and though 

we haven’t answered every question, empower decisionmakers to access and use 

that information with full understanding of its limitations. Improvements in forecast skill will always be welcome, but lack of skill is not the real reason that climate 

information is under-used. If provided with the tools to assess the quality of the information, and with access to ‘‘science translators,’’ the resource managers of this 

country will make their own judgments about the types of information that could 

be useful to them. They are eager to have more tools at their disposal. Clearly we 

need to keep investing in research on both climate variability and on climate 

change—but it is time to get more value out of the investments that we have made. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on this extremely important 

topic. After having worked on this subject for years, it is gratifying to see that we 

are on the brink of making significant progress in this arena and of joining forces 

with the rest of the world to limit the impacts of climate change through building 

adaptive capacity as well as by limiting this country’s contributions to greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

If you have any questions I would be very happy to respond. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Jacobs. 

Sean Dilweg. 

STATEMENT OF SEAN DILWEG, COMMISSIONER OF 

INSURANCE, STATE OF WISCONSIN ON BEHALF OF THE 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS 

Mr. DILWEG. Thank you, Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member 

Hutchison, and Members of the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation. 

My name is Sean Dilweg. I am the Insurance Commissioner for 

the State of Wisconsin, and I’m here on behalf of all the Insurance 

Commissioners for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. 

Today, I will focus on our position and perspective on the potential insurance-related impacts of climate change. I will also offer 

suggestions for insurance-regulator action to protect consumers and 

address insurance solvency, recognizing that climate-change-related risk continues to grow. 

19 

The insurance sector is uniquely positioned between the causes 

and the impacts of climate change. Last year, I chaired our Climate 

Change Task Force and spent a lot of time with industry and consumer advocates crafting a white paper, that was adopted by all of 

my fellow Commissioners, that is outlined and, I know, presented 

to the Committee, called ‘‘The Potential Impact of Climate Change 

on Insurance Regulation.’’ We have also been pursuing disclosure 

requirements on our insurance companies. This would be the first 

mandatory disclosure survey on any industry in the U.S. 

I want to touch on a few different areas, and I’ll start by speaking to insurance investments. 

It is imperative regulators examine how climate change will impact the investments insurers hold and establish applicable regulatory standards for investment practices of insurers. Direct and indirect investments in real estate represent a portion of all assets 

held by insurers. Many of these properties are located within coastal areas with increasing risk from climate-change-influenced 

weather perils, like hurricanes and flooding. As investors in these 

properties, insurers may be exposed to greater investment risk. Insurance regulators need to recognize the risk of weather-related 

losses on real estate is complex. It can arise, not only from declining asset values, but also the costs of fortification, physical damage 

to structures, and associated business interruption. 

As regulators of one of the largest American industries, it is essential that insurance regulators assess, and, to the extent possible, mitigate, the impacts of climate change while encouraging insurers to incentivize sustainable practices. As such, insurers have 

historically played a role in the mitigation of losses. For example, 

as the result of fire disasters in the late 1800s, insurers led the effort to improve building codes and develop new building and loss 

mitigation techniques to reduce the effect of fire. You could say the 

modern-day city is heavily influenced by insurers. When you think 

about cities back in the late 1800s, you had a lot of wooden buildings, a lot of candles, a lot of gaslight. And finally the insurers just 

started saying, ‘‘Look, you need a fire station every five blocks. You 

need a water system put in place.’’ And that is what occurred, and 

that’s what we have today. Today, insurers can also help mitigate 

the impact of climate change by promoting the adoption of vigorous 

enforcement of uniform building codes throughout the Nation. 

The task force heard from software developers on catastrophic 

modeling as it exists today. We heard from EQECAT and AIR 

Worldwide regarding the insurer’s ability to make the use of sophisticated catastrophe modeling. These models provided insurers 

with the ability to assess risk and price their products with a degree of accuracy. These models, however, only have a short-term 

focus—generally, 5 years or less. Climate change modeling, however, takes a much longer view—50 years or more—and attempts 

to evaluate the risk impact of gradual changes on climate, instead 

of measuring the risk associated with swift and severe events, as 

well as the frequency of those events. Our task force heard from 

the scientists working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, where climate change modeling is evolving. In light of this, 

the task force recognizes that the science behind climate modeling 

20 

as it evolves is appropriate for the approach that regulators take 

with respect to climate change to evolve, as well. 

We also pursued, this year, a forward-looking disclosure approach to provide investors, consumers, and regulators with eight 

reporting questions that will be phased in over the next few years. 

It represents a good first step in showing how the risks of climate 

change occur on our insurers every day. I expect this to be adopted 

by the NAIC next week. 

It is clear to regulators that, whatever the cause, be it manmade 

or natural, climate change is occurring. From intensified hurricanes off the coast of Africa to the dryness or extreme wetness of 

a Midwest summer, climate change has an effect on our insurable 

interests, and thereby the companies and policyholders that each 

state regulates. The NAIC supports State and Federal tools to increase the accuracy of climate science as a basis for product pricing. It also supports increased climate science research funding to 

speed relevant climate change information to market. 

We look forward to working with the Committee and Congress on 

this issue as the science continues to evolve. Thank you for holding 

this hearing and for inviting me here today. I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dilweg follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SEAN DILWEG, COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, STATE OF

WISCONSIN ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE

COMMISSIONERS

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and Members of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. My name is Sean Dilweg. I am the Insurance Commissioner for the 

State of Wisconsin and I am here on behalf of the National Association of Insurance 

Commissioners. In my testimony, I will focus on the NAIC’s position and thinking 

on the potential insurance related impacts of climate change, I will also offer suggestions for insurance regulator action to protect consumers and address insurer solvency, recognizing climate change related risk continues to grow. 

Let me begin first by stating that the most important duty of an Insurance Commissioner is to protect insurance consumers. It is the primary job of any insurance 

regulator to ensure that insurance companies remain solvent so that they can pay 

claims as they become due, and to ensure that insurance customers’ and claimants’ 

rights and interests are protected. 

Investments 

It is imperative regulators examine how climate change will impact the investments insurers hold and establish applicable regulatory standards for the investment practices of insurers. Direct and indirect investments in real estate represent 

a portion of all assets held by insurers. Many of these properties are located within 

coastal areas with increasing risk from climate change influenced weather perils 

like hurricanes and flooding. As investors in these properties, insurers may be exposed to greater investment risk. Insurance regulators need to recognize that the 

risk of weather-related losses on real estate is complex. It can arise not only from 

declining asset values, but also the costs of fortification, physical damage to structures, and associated business interruption. 

Historically, and from a viewpoint of social construct, insurance has helped shape 

towns and cities as an essential financial security tool for individual and community 

economic development, with a corollary that availability and affordability are also 

essential. It is clear that loss mitigation and loss prevention are the most viable solutions to both current marketplace problems and the growing threat of climate 

change and global warming. It is the only way to moderate and reduce the incidence 

and severity of catastrophe events. 

Accordingly, it is vitally important that insurers begin to assess and take into account the effects of climate change on all lines of insurance, from intensified hurricanes off of the coast of Africa to the dryness of a Midwest summer. Changes in 

21 

climate have a direct effect on our insurable interests and the companies and policyholders that each state regulates. 

Mitigation 

Insurance regulators must assess and, to the extent possible, mitigate the impact 

that climate change will have on insurance and encourage insurers to provide incentives for policyholders to engage in practices that will ultimately strive to limit 

losses. As such, insurers have historically played a leading role in loss mitigation 

efforts. For example, as a result of fire disasters, insurers led the effort to improve 

building codes and develop new building and loss mitigation techniques to reduce 

the effects of fire. Insurers in coastal regions are often leading proponents of better 

land use policies and mitigation efforts, such as roof strapping and storm shutters. 

Likewise, insurers can help mitigate the impact of climate change by promoting 

adoption and vigorous enforcement of uniform building codes. They can also promote 

building code upgrades and retrofits of existing structures by offering premium discounts for proven loss mitigation building techniques, and by advocating for lender 

or government sponsored low interest loans for these mitigation activities. 

Some insurers have developed new products that provide coverage for green buildings. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company has introduced Certified Green Building 

Replacement and Green Upgrade coverage, a new coverage specifically for green 

commercial buildings that addresses the unique risks that come along with sustainable building practices. 

CAT Modeling 

The NAIC heard from several catastrophe modeling firms who explained how climate change factors into risk modeling techniques. Catastrophe models provide insurers with the ability to assess risk and price their products with some degree of 

accuracy. However, these models tend to have a short-term focus of generally 5 

years or less, while climate change modeling takes a much longer view—10 years 

or more—and attempts to evaluate the risk impact of gradual changes in climate 

instead of measuring the risk associated with swift and severe events as well as the 

frequency of those events. The NAIC also heard from scientists working at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) who indicated that climate change 

modeling is relatively new and still evolving. In light of this, the NAIC recognizes 

that as the science behind climate modeling evolves, it will provide better tools for 

companies and regulators and could increasingly factor into insurance decision-making. 

NAIC Climate Change Task Force And White Paper 

In 2007, the GAO reported that climate change was an emerging high risk area 

with long-term growth in exposure to private and Federal insurers but that the two 

sectors were responding, assessing and incorporating the potential long-term financial impacts differently. As an initial step in addressing the issue, the NAIC formed 

the Climate Change and Global Warming (EX) Task Force. The Task Force was 

charged with, among other duties, the responsibility of drafting a white paper documenting the potential insurance related impacts of climate change on insurance consumers, insurers and insurance regulators. The Task Force recommended its white 

paper, The Potential Impact of Climate Change on Insurance Regulation, and the 

NAIC adopted it on June 2, 2008. 

In sum, the Task Force white paper discusses investment issues facing insurers 

and notes that some investment opportunities will arise. It encourages insurers to 

evaluate the geographic spread of the risks they are insuring and encourages insurers to develop contingency plans. The White paper also emphasizes the importance 

of greater disclosure. It encourages insurers to become involved in strengthening 

building codes and advocating for sound land-use planning and become more involved in loss prevention and mitigation. It also recognizes the impact of demand 

surge, post-event living expense increases, and issues with business interruption 

coverages and suggests that new solvency regulatory tools are needed. 

The NAIC Task Force also provides a forum to bring together all interested parties for a transparent discussion and development of required information standards, innovative product ideas, and evolving technologies. The Task Force has been 

involved in a number of key efforts: 

• Presentations by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) on Green Building 

Standards and the environmental impact of building green. Topics included the 

impact of commercial and residential building on our environment; the environmental, lifestyle, and business advantages of building green; and information on 

USGBC’s educational offerings. 

22 

• Discussions on innovative ‘‘Green’’ insurance products offered by Fireman’s 

Fund. Representatives from Fireman’s Fund, a subsidiary of Allianz, spoke 

about their variety of ‘‘green’’ insurance products, such as providing insurance 

coverage for certified green buildings and upgrades of traditional buildings following a loss, and a ‘‘green’’ homeowners policy (available to Illinois as of June 

1, 2008 and many other states starting in July 2008). Homeowners products 

have taken a lead from the commercial products, and both have been well received in all regions nationwide. 

• Presentation on CALSTRS Green Investment Strategy by its CEO, Jack Ehnes. 

Subjects included the incorporation of the United Nations’ Principles for Responsible Investments (PRI) that integrates active ownership and environmental, social, and governance issues into ownership policies and practices; the 

readiness, preparedness, responsiveness of the U.S. insurance industry for Climate Change; the current vagueness and lack of voluntary disclosure of climate 

risk; and requiring questions that would allow for better understanding of potential impacts on affordability of insurance and insurers’ financial health. 

• A presentation on the California perspective on Climate Change by Lisbeth 

Landsman-Smith of the California Department of Insurance, and Max Moritz 

of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, from U.C. Berkeley. Topics 

included development of a more comprehensive plan for handling the implications of fire hazards; refinement of Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) mapping 

and a more risk-based approach; and an increase of equitability and reduction 

of uncertainties, in addition to assessing fees and research funding. 

• The Climate Risk Disclosure Working Group met in Boulder, Colorado at the 

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) on September 11, 2008. During the meeting, the Working Group: 

» Heard from three scientists regarding current climate change research and 

modeling. 

» Heard a presentation from Risk Management Solutions (RMS) examining current hurricane model capabilities and reliability; 

» Discussed the August 15, 2008 draft Climate Risk Disclosure Proposal, including verbal comments from interested parties. 

• Presentations from EQECAT and AIR regarding how climate is considered in 

hurricane catastrophe models. During the presentations the regulators: 

» Discovered that there are issues related to merging atmospheric data with 

historical hurricane data, particularly with projections in the 1–10 year 

range. To compensate, modelers are beginning to use multiple models with 

varying assumption methods (both historical and a blend of historical and 

predictive). However, the modelers agree that there will be relatively more intense hurricanes with more rainfall, with intensity increasing dramatically by 

approximately 2020. 

» Learned that modelers are less certain regarding projections about the number of hurricanes that will make landfall in the U.S. due to the conflicting 

hurricane scenarios between the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts. 

• Presentation from Henry Fox (Fox Consulting) providing an update on the development of climate trend data. He discussed his research on historical weather trends in separate weather zones throughout the U.S. over a 50-year period 

in an effort to forecast future weather trends. His patented forecasting methods 

are unique in that they place a heavier weighting on more recent years. His 

findings suggest that some zones show increases in average temperature or 

rainfall while other zones show decreases. He did not believe his findings support the overall global warming theories. He suggested that his work could be 

used by the insurance industry and American businesses to better understand 

long-term weather-related risks in the weather zones examined. 

• A presentation from 3C, a company that provides carbon neutral services, regarding how the European Union and U.S. carbon trading markets function. 3C 

also provided information to the Task Force about a joint venture product involving 3C and Allianz called, ‘‘Ecomotion.’’ 

• Discussions on pay as you drive insurance. 

Additionally, looking forward at 2009, we anticipate that the Task Force will look 

at hosing a possible climate change summit, and consider development of a guidance 

document aiding insurers in how they should respond to the Insurer Climate Risk 

Disclosure Survey, referenced below. 

23 

Disclosure 

It is challenging for regulators to determine how well-prepared the industry is for 

the challenges of climate change. U.S. Insurers lag in SEC disclosure that relate to 

climate change. Only 15 percent of U.S. insurers surveyed discussed climate change 

in 10K filings, compared to 100 percent of electric utilities and 78 percent of oil companies. There was also a poor response to the Carbon Disclosure Project where only 

30 percent of U.S. insurers responded, compared to 70 percent in Europe and 62 

percent in the rest of the world. 

The NAIC has taken a forward looking approach to developing assessment tools 

that identify the potential impact climate change has on insurers and how insurers 

are assessing those risks. The Insurer Climate Disclosure Survey is the first of its 

kind in any industry and could serve as a model for financial institutions to gain 

insight into the impact of climate change on their industries. 

The Insurer Climate Risk Disclosure Survey is a mandatory public survey document that will be phased in over the next few years. It represents a good first approach to climate change so that regulators, consumers and companies can begin to 

understand how climate change is affecting the risks that are underwritten everyday. The Disclosure Survey is meant to be a starting point and the Task Force recognizes that as the science behind climate modeling evolves, so must the approach 

of regulators. 

The Disclosure Survey standardizes climate risk disclosure information to make 

it easy for companies to provide that information. Given the infancy of this issue, 

the Disclosure Survey has been kept to eight general reporting questions for insurers that meet certain premium thresholds. However, it still provides some measure 

of transparency so that investors and regulators can better identify risks. 

The questions seek general information from insurers about things they have 

done to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in their operations, whether they 

have a climate change statement of policy, whether they consider climate change as 

they choose investments and what they have done to encourage policyholders to reduce losses caused by climate influenced events. Further questions delve deeper into 

insurer use of climate computer simulation modeling, analysis of climate change’s 

impact on an insurer’s investment portfolio and how the insurers are engaging their 

constituencies on the topic of climate change. 

Insurance regulators believe this is the first step of many in assessing insurance 

industry efforts to measure the impact of climate change on insurer operations and 

policyholders. 

Regulators also have a role to play in ensuring that environmental benefits 

claimed by insurers are authentic and reasonably quantified to lend validity to these 

efforts. 

The NAIC supports efforts to increase the exactness of climate science as a basis 

for more accurate product pricing and in more climate science research funding to 

speed the delivery of relevant climate change information to market. 

We look forward to working with the Committee and Congress on this issue as 

the science continues to evolve. Thank you for holding this hearing, for inviting me 

here today, and for your continued interest and leadership. I am happy to answer 

any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Alix. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK ALIX, CEO, POWERSPAN CORP. 

Mr. ALIX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share 

my perspective on how science informs climate mitigation strategies. 

My testimony today will focus on the importance of carbon capture and sequestration as a climate change mitigation strategy, the 

prospects for commercial deployment of carbon capture technologies 

on coal-fired power plants, and the actions the government can 

take to accelerate CCS deployment. 

We all know that coal is abundant and cheap. It supplies 50 percent of the electricity in the U.S. and 80 percent in China. The 

economies of the Midwest, South, Southwest, and Plains States deVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:49 Apr 21, 2010 Jkt 052159 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52159.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
24 

pend heavily on low-cost electricity from coal. Therefore, CCS is the 

most important climate change mitigation strategy we can pursue. 

According to the EIA, 36 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions in 2006 

came from coal consumption. Broadly deploying CCS with 90-percent capture efficiency could reduce those emissions to 4 to 5 percent. 

Since the transportation sector accounts for another 34 percent 

of U.S. CO2 emissions, transforming this sector with electric vehicles powered by low-carbon electricity could reduce our CO2 emissions by another 20 to 30 percent. Therefore, CCS could potentially 

provide over half of the emission reductions required to meet our 

climate change mitigation goals. 

Powerspan has been developing and commercializing advanced 

clean coal technology since 1994. Our approach to CO2 capture is 

a post-combustion process designed to capture 90 percent of CO2

emissions. The technology is suitable for retrofit to the existing 

coal-fired generating fleet and for new coal plants. 

Pilot-scale testing of our ECO2 technology began in December 

2008 at FirstEnergy’s Burger Plant in Southeastern Ohio, right 

across from Moundsville, West Virginia. The ECO2 plant was designed to treat a 1 megawatt flue-gas stream and capture 20 tons 

of CO2 per day. Initial testing has demonstrated 80-percent capture 

efficiency, which is a promising start. We recently completed two 

minor design modifications that we expect will increase the CO2- capture rate to 90 percent. 

The pilot plant was built using the same type of equipment that 

we plan to use in commercial systems. Therefore, successful operation of the pilot unit will confirm our design assumptions and cost 

estimates for large-scale CCS projects. Although commercial-scale 

CCS projects still have some risk, that risk is manageable, because 

the major equipment used in the ECO2 process has been used in 

other commercial applications at the scale required for CCS. 

Our experience in the emerging market for commercial-scale CCS 

projects supports our optimism. In 2007, Basin Electric Power Cooperative conducted a competitive solicitation for a post-combustion 

CO2-capture technology to retrofit their Antelope Valley Station, 

which is a coal-fired power plant located in Beulah, North Dakota. 

The Antelope Valley Project will install CO2-capture equipment on 

a 120-megawatt flue-gas slipstream taken from a 450-megawatt 

unit. Basin Electric has targeted 90-percent capture efficiency to 

provide 1 million tons of CO2 annually for enhanced oil recovery. 

Six of the leading vendors of CO2-capture technology responded to 

the solicitation. And after a detailed evaluation, Basin Electric selected Powerspan. This commercial CCS project is scheduled to 

start up in 2012. 

Since being selected for the project, a feasibility study has confirmed that there are no technical limitations to deploying ECO2 at 

the plant. The study estimated costs of less than $40-per-ton for 90 

percent CO2 capture and compression. A similar study of ECO2 recently conducted for a 760-megawatt supercritical coal plant estimates CO2-capture costs of under $30 per ton. A third engineering 

study focused on ECO2 scaling risk determined that our pilot plant 

will provide sufficient design information to confidently build commercial-scale systems up to 760 megawatts. 

25 

Despite the promise indicated by the Basin Electric project, 

strong government action is needed to ensure timely deployment of 

CCS technology to support our climate change mitigation goals. 

Government action should focus on three areas: (1) a strong market-based cap on greenhouse gas emissions; (2) a CO2 emission performance standard for new coal-fired power plants, and (3) early 

deployment incentives for commercial-scale CCS systems. 

Incentives are needed to ensure early deployment of CCS, because CO2-capture technology is not yet commercially proven and 

early CO2 prices will not be sufficient to offset CCS costs. To be 

most effective, these incentives must provide long-term CO2 price 

certainty to facilitate project financing and must be awarded competitively, preferably by a reverse auction, in order to minimize the 

costs while providing a market signal on the real cost for early CCS 

installations. 

Early deployment of CCS technology will also create jobs and 

promote economic growth. These projects require 3 to 4 years to 

implement and create significant economic activity over their duration. 

In addition, by incenting early deployment of CCS, the U.S. can 

assume a leading position in this critical technology sector and create a thriving high-tech export business, and the quality jobs that 

come with it. 

In summary, CO2-capture technology is commercially available 

from several qualified vendors with standard commercial guarantees. Independent studies show that early commercial installations 

of CO2-capture technology are likely to be successful. The most important reason to promote early deployment of CCS is that postcombustion CO2-capture technologies will preserve the huge investment in existing coal-fired power plants and allow us to use effectively the abundant low-cost coal reserves in the U.S. and in developing nations, even in a climate-constrained world. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alix follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANK ALIX, CEO, POWERSPAN CORP. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to share my perspective on how science informs climate change mitigation strategies. My name is Frank Alix and I am CEO of Powerspan Corp., which 

is a clean energy technology company headquartered in New Hampshire. 

My testimony today will focus on the importance of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as a climate change mitigation strategy, the prospects for commercial deployment of carbon-capture technologies on coal-fired power plants, and the actions 

the government can take to accelerate CCS deployment. 

We all know that coal is abundant and cheap. It supplies 50 percent of electricity 

generated in the U.S. and 80 percent in China. The economies of the Midwest, 

South, Southwest, and Plains States depend heavily on low-cost electricity from 

coal. Therefore, CCS is the most important climate change mitigation strategy we 

can pursue. 

According to the EIA, 36 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions in 2006 came from coal 

consumption. Broadly deploying CCS with 90 percent capture efficiency could reduce 

those emissions to 4–5 percent. EIA predicts that CCS will have to provide at least 

30 percent of CO2 emission reductions needed worldwide to stabilize GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. Since the transportation sector accounts for another 

34 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions, transforming this sector with electric vehicles 

powered by low-carbon electricity sources could reduce our CO2 emissions by another 20–30 percent. Therefore, CCS could potentially provide over half of the emission reductions required to meet our climate change mitigation goals. 

26 

Powerspan has been developing and commercializing advanced clean coal technology since its inception in 1994. Our approach to CO2 capture, called ECO2

, is 

a post-combustion process for conventional power plants designed to capture 90 percent of CO2 emissions. The technology is suitable for retrofit to the existing coalfired generating fleet and for new coal-fired plants. ECO2 is a regenerative process 

that uses an ammonia-based solution to capture CO2 in the flue gas. Once the CO2

is captured, the solution is regenerated to release CO2 in a form that is ready for 

compression and pipeline transport for geological storage. 

Pilot scale testing of our ECO2 technology began in December 2008 at 

FirstEnergy’s Burger Plant in Southeastern Ohio. The ECO2 pilot was designed to 

treat a 1-megawatt (MW) flue gas stream and produce 20 tons of CO2 per day. Initial testing has demonstrated 80 percent CO2-capture efficiency, which is a promising start. We recently completed two minor design modifications that we expect 

will increase the CO2-capture rate to 90 percent. 

The ECO2 pilot plant was built using the same type of equipment that we plan 

to use in commercial systems. Therefore, successful operation of the pilot unit will 

confirm our design assumptions and cost estimates for large-scale carbon capture 

and sequestration (CCS) projects. Although commercial scale CCS projects still have 

some risk, that risk is manageable because the major equipment used in the ECO2

process—large absorbers, pumps, heat exchangers, and compressors—have all been 

used in other commercial applications at the scale required for CCS. The advanced 

technology in ECO2 is innovative process chemistry. Commercial application of this 

unique technology holds no special challenges and therefore has a high probability 

of commercial success. 

Our experience in the emerging market for commercial-scale CCS projects supports our optimism. In 2007, Basin Electric Power Cooperative conducted a competitive solicitation for a post-combustion CO2-capture technology to retrofit their Antelope Valley Station, which is a coal-fired power plant located adjacent to their Great 

Plains Synfuels Plant in Beulah, North Dakota. Their synfuels plant currently hosts 

the largest CCS project in the world, with three million tons of CO2 captured annually and sold for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the Weyburn fields of Saskatchewan. The Antelope Valley project will install CO2-capture equipment on a 120–MW 

flue gas slipstream taken from a 450–MW unit. Basin Electric has targeted 90 percent CO2-capture efficiency to provide an additional 1 million tons of CO2 annually 

for EOR. Six of the leading vendors of CO2-capture technology responded to the Antelope Valley solicitation and after a detailed evaluation, Basin Electric selected 

Powerspan. This commercial CCS project is scheduled to start up in 2012. 

Since being selected for the Antelope Valley project, a feasibility study has confirmed that there are no technical limitations to deploying ECO2 at the plant. The 

study estimated ECO2 costs of less than $40 per ton for 90 percent CO2 capture and 

compression (in current dollars, with +/¥ 30 percent accuracy). A similar study of 

ECO2 recently conducted for a new 760–MW supercritical pulverized coal plant estimates CO2-capture costs of under $30 per ton, including compression. A third engineering study focused on ECO2 scaling risk determined that the ECO2 pilot plant 

will provide sufficient design information to confidently build commercial scale systems up to 760–MW, supporting that ECO2 technology scaling risk is manageable. 

Independent engineering firms led the feasibility, cost, and scaling studies for our 

prospective customers. As a sign of our confidence in commercial deployment of 

ECO2 systems, we will back our installations with industry standard performance 

guarantees. 

Despite the promise indicated by the Basin Electric project, strong government action is needed to ensure timely deployment of CCS technology to support climate 

change mitigation goals. Government actions should focus on three areas: (1) a 

strong, market-based cap on GHG emissions, (2) a CO2 emission performance standard for new coal-based power plants, and (3) early deployment incentives for commercial scale CCS systems. Due to limited time, I will only elaborate on my third 

point, the need for CCS incentives. 

Incentives are needed to ensure early deployment of CCS because CO2-capture 

technology is not yet commercially proven and early CO2 prices will not be sufficient 

to offset CCS costs. To be most effective, CCS incentives must provide long-term 

CO2 price certainty to facilitate project financing, and must be awarded competitively, preferably by reverse auction, in order to minimize cost while also providing 

a market signal on the real costs for early CCS installations. Knowing actual CCS 

costs is extremely important to plant owners, investors, technology developers, and 

regulators in evaluating future investment and regulatory decisions. Competitively 

awarding CCS incentives is also consistent with how renewable portfolio standards 

are normally administered. 

27 

Early deployment of CCS technology will also create jobs and promote economic 

growth. CCS projects require 3 to 4 years to implement and create significant economic activity over their duration. For example, a single CCS project would cost between $250–750 million in capital expense and create up to 500 jobs at its peak, 

with the majority of materials and labor sourced in the U.S. However the government’s cost of the CCS incentive program would not be incurred until CO2 sequestration begins upon project completion. In addition, by incenting early deployment 

of CCS, the U.S. can assume a leading position in this critical sector and create a 

thriving, high-tech export business, and the quality jobs that come with it. 

In summary, CO2-capture technology is commercially available from several qualified vendors with standard commercial guarantees. Independent studies show that 

early commercial installations of CO2-capture technology are likely to be successful. 

The cost of widespread deployment of technologies such as ECO2 appears manageable, particularly when compared to the cost of other low-carbon electricity solutions. And once we gain commercial CCS experience, future costs will no doubt decrease substantially. 

The most important reason to promote early deployment of CCS is that post-combustion CO2-capture technologies will preserve the huge investment in existing coalfired power plants and allow us to effectively use abundant, low cost, coal reserves 

in the U.S. and developing nations, even in a climate constrained world. If we are 

not successful in commercializing CCS technology in the near-term, it will be difficult for the world to meet its long-term goals for climate change mitigation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

APPENDIX A 

ECO2

 Technology for CO2 Capture 

from Existing and New Coal-Fired Power Plants 

Summary 

Powerspan Corp.’s CO2-capture process, called ECO2

, can be applied to both existing and new coal-fired electric power plants to capture 90 percent CO2 from the 

flue gas. The process is designed as an add-on system that could be deployed when 

needed and is particularly advantageous for sites where ammonia-based scrubbing 

of power plant emissions, such as our ECO  multi-pollutant control technology, is 

employed. The technology is currently being piloted on a 1-megawatt (MW) slipstream at a power plant in Ohio. The ECO2 pilot unit employs the same type of 

equipment that will be used in commercial systems. Because the innovation of ECO2

is in its process chemistry, not in new industrial equipment, the risk in scaling from 

the pilot scale to commercial scale carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects 

is manageable. Commercial scale ECO2 demonstrations (120–MW; one million tons 

of CO2 capture annually) are planned to be online in 2012, with the captured CO2

to be used for enhanced oil recovery operations. 

Technology Description 

ECO2 is a scrubbing process that uses an ammonia-based (not amine) solution to 

capture 90 percent CO2 from the flue gas. The CO2 capture takes place after the 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), mercury and fine particulate matter is 

captured using ECO technology or other air pollution control system. Once CO2 is 

captured, the resulting solution is regenerated to release CO2 and ammonia. The 

ammonia is recovered and returned to the scrubbing process, and the CO2 is processed into a form that is sequestration ready. Ammonia is not consumed in the 

scrubbing process, and no separate by-product is created. 

28 

Incorporation of Powerspan’s ECO2

 carbon capture process with the commercially available 

multi-pollutant control ECO  process. 

Technology Development 

Powerspan has been developing the CO2-capture process since 2004 in conjunction 

with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory 

under a cooperative research and development agreement. In December 2007, 

Powerspan announced it exclusively licensed a patent for the process from the DOE. 

The patent granted to the DOE represents the only patent issued in the U.S. to date 

covering a regenerative process for CO2 capture with an ammonia-based solution. 

Powerspan has conducted extensive bench-scale testing to establish the effectiveness 

of the process for CO2 capture, and has made improvements to the subject patent. 

The testing has also established the design parameters for the ECO2 pilot unit in 

operation at FirstEnergy’s R.E. Burger Plant in Shadyside, Ohio. 

ECO2 Pilot Project 

Commissioning was completed and ECO2 pilot testing began at FirstEnergy’s 

Burger Plant in December 2008. The ECO2 pilot processes a 1–MW slipstream 

drawn from the outlet of the 50–MW Burger Plant ECO unit. It is designed to 

produce approximately 20 tons of sequestration-ready CO2 per day while achieving 

a 90 percent capture rate. The pilot system is expected to run through 2009. 

The ECO2 pilot will demonstrate CO2 capture through integration with the ECO 

multi-pollutant control process. Operation of the pilot will confirm process performance and energy requirements. The pilot program will also provide the basis for cost 

estimates while preparing the technology for the commercial scale CCS demonstrations planned to be online in 2012. 

Scalability of ECO2 to Commercial Scale Projects 

Although the ECO2 process is new and proprietary, the innovation is in its process 

chemistry. The equipment required for operation of commercial ECO2 systems (e.g., 

large absorber, regenerator, heat exchangers, pumps, gas dryer, etc.) are commercially available at the required scale. Therefore, once the pilot scale demonstration 

of the ECO2 process is completed, the scale up risk to commercial size systems is 

manageable. An independent engineering study focused on ECO2 scaling risk determined that the ECO2 pilot plant will provide sufficient design information to confidently build commercial scale systems up to 760–MW, supporting that ECO2 technology scaling risk is manageable. 

ECO2 Commercial Demonstration Projects 

Basin Electric Antelope Valley Station—In March 2008, Basin Electric Power Cooperative and Powerspan announced the selection of the ECO2 process for a 120- 

MW commercial demonstration at Basin Electric’s Antelope Valley Station located 

near Beulah, North Dakota. The selection of the ECO2 process is the result of the 

first competitive solicitation process for a CO2-capture demonstration at a coal-fired 

power plant in the U.S. The Antelope Valley project is designed to capture approximately one million tons of CO2 annually which will be fed into an existing CO2 compression and pipeline system owned by Basin Electric’s wholly-owned subsidiary, 

Dakota Gasification Company. Dakota Gasification Company is the only company in 


312ALIX1.eps
29 

the U.S. that captures CO2 from coal and delivers it for enhanced oil recovery operations. Since 2000, Dakota Gasification has been delivering CO2 from its coal gasification facility, the Great Plains Synfuels Plant, to oil producers in Saskatchewan, 

Canada. 

In June 2008, Powerspan successfully completed a feasibility study, which confirmed that there are no technical limitations in deploying the ECO2 process at the plant. In January 2009, the project was approved for up to a $300 million loan from 

a USDA Rural Utilities Service program for early CCS demonstration. Based on successful completion of detailed engineering studies and obtaining of necessary permits, the Antelope Valley project is expected online in 2012. 

NRG Energy WA Parish Plant—In November 2007, NRG Energy, Inc. and 

Powerspan announced their memorandum of understanding to commercially demonstrate the ECO2 process at NRG’s WA Parish plant near Sugar Land, Texas. The 

125–MW equivalent CCS demonstration will be designed to capture and sequester 

about one million tons of CO2 annually. The ECO2 demonstration facility will be designed to capture 90 percent of incoming CO2 and the captured CO2 is expected to 

be used in enhanced oil recovery in the Houston area. The Parish plant is expected 

to be online in 2012. 

About Powerspan and ECO Multi-Pollutant Control Technology 

Powerspan Corp., based in New Hampshire, has been developing and commercializing advanced clean coal technology since its inception in 1994. Powerspan’s 

most significant technology success to date has been the development and commercialization of its patented Electro-Catalytic Oxidation (ECO) technology, which is an 

advanced multi-pollutant control technology to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), mercury (Hg), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in 

a single system. 

For over 5 years, Powerspan has successfully operated a 50–MW scale ECO commercial unit at FirstEnergy’s R.E. Burger Plant in Ohio. This unit has demonstrated that the ECO process is capable of achieving outlet emissions below current Best Available Control Technology standards for coal-fired power plants. The 

ECO process also produces a valuable fertilizer product, avoiding the landfill disposal of flue gas desulfurization waste. Furthermore, the ECO system uses less 

water because it requires no wastewater treatment or disposal. 

In June 2007, American Municipal Power-Ohio (AMP-Ohio) announced its commitment to install our ECO-SO2 multi-pollutant control technology on its proposed 

1,000–MW American Municipal Power Generating Station in southern Meigs County, Ohio. In January 2009, AMP-Ohio announced the selection of Bechtel as its engineering, procurement and construction firm, and granted the firm a limited notice 

to proceed on the project. AMP-Ohio will use our ECO–SO2 technology as an SO2, 

mercury, and fine particulate matter control option for its strong environmental performance and potential to add our ECO2 carbon capture technology. 

APPENDIX B 

Principles for CCS Incentives 

1. Competitive Award: CCS incentives should be awarded competitively based on 

a reverse auction (incentives awarded to the low-cost bidders per ton of CO2 captured and sequestered) for the following reasons: 

• This would preserve the primary objective of a cap and trade program, which 

is to minimize cost of compliance, while also providing a market signal on the 

real costs for early CCS installations. 

• Current climate legislation proposals, which arbitrarily set CCS incentive 

prices, would result in less cost-effective CCS technologies being subsidized, 

while plant owners/developers and regulators gain little or no information on 

what real CCS costs are. 

• Arbitrarily setting CCS incentive prices would distort the market and support 

technologies that may not otherwise survive in a non-subsidized market. It 

would also create a windfall profit opportunity for the lowest cost CCS solutions 

and unnecessarily increase the cost of CCS incentives to the government. 

• Knowing actual CCS costs is extremely important to plant owners, technology 

developers, investors, and regulators in evaluating future investment and regulatory decisions. 

• Competitively awarding CCS incentives is consistent with how renewable portfolio standards are normally administered. Market participants—power supVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:49 Apr 21, 2010 Jkt 052159 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52159.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
30 

pliers, regulated distribution companies, and state regulators—understand this 

process. States set a standard for the amount and type of renewable energy desired, and the potential suppliers respond to competitive solicitations to provide 

the renewable energy. The Federal Government could effectively implement the 

same type of approach for CCS projects/incentive awards. 

2. Long-term Price Certainty, Factoring in CO2 Emission Allowance Value: CCS 

incentives need to provide long-term price certainty and factor in the value of CO2

emissions allowances because: 

• CCS projects will likely be financed over 15 to 30 years. Current climate legislation proposals award CCS incentives over a fixed period of time (i.e., 10 years) 

that is too short to finance most projects. 

• CCS incentives would be most economical for the government if they factor in 

the increasing value of CO2 emission allowances over time. 

» For example, if the CCS project developer needs to assure a price of $40 per 

ton of CO2 over 20 years to finance the project, the government could guarantee that price as an annual subsidy over the required term, after the value 

of avoided CO2 emissions are subtracted. As the value of CO2 emissions allowances rise, the amount of annual CCS subsidy the government is required to 

pay would decrease, while the project developer would still obtain the required price assurance to finance the project. 

• As the value of CO2 emission allowances rises over time, the percentage of allowance auction proceeds received by the government that are needed to support the CCS incentives will decrease. 

• Current climate legislation proposals do not account for the added value of CO2

emission allowances created by the CCS project or the fact that emission allowance values would be increasing over time. This approach creates a potential 

windfall profit opportunity for the early CCS adopters and unnecessarily increases the cost of CCS incentives to the government. 

3. CCS Project Size: The primary objective of CCS incentives is to demonstrate 

CCS technology at commercial scale to accelerate market acceptance and deployment. In order to demonstrate CCS as commercially viable, a minimum project size 

criteria should be established: 

• Experts such as MIT, DOE, and EPRI have established a minimum size of 

1,000,000 tons of CO2 per year for CCS projects to be considered ‘‘commercial 

scale.’’ Once the minimum CCS project size is met, preference should be given 

to larger projects. 

4. CO2 Capture Rate: In order to meet the objective of stabilizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, large stationary CO2 sources will need to capture and sequester a high percentage of their CO2 emissions (i.e., ≥ 90 percent). Therefore, CCS 

incentives should establish a minimum standard for CO2 capture (e.g., 80 percent) 

and should favor projects that capture higher percentages of CO2. 

• Available technology from leading suppliers has shown the ability to capture 90 

percent CO2. Therefore establishing a minimum CO2 capture rate as high as 

80–90 percent is technically feasible and commercially acceptable. 

• CCS projects will normally require 3–4 years to implement. An incentive program that encourages CCS to be demonstrated in sequential steps (e.g., 50 percent then 80 percent) would unnecessarily delay deployment of the high capture 

rate CCS projects needed to combat climate change and increase the cost of 

CCS incentives to the government. 

5. Amount of CCS Incentives; Timing of Auctions; Technology Diversity: The 

amount of CCS incentives in tons of CO2 should be based on the following factors: 

• The need to demonstrate CCS at commercial scale in a number of different configurations for both plant type and geological storage type. All large industrial 

sources of CO2 should be considered equally. However, the government should 

not try to pick technology winners and losers. The primary driver in CCS incentive awards should be lowest cost per ton, with at least three different CO2-capture technologies selected to promote technology diversity. This would facilitate 

the creation of a competitive supplier market of the most cost-effective technologies. 

• The need to avoid early market responses to a CO2 emission cap, such as a rush 

to gas-fired power generation, which may not be sustainable after CCS is comVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:49 Apr 21, 2010 Jkt 052159 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52159.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
31 

mercially proven and CO2 allowance prices rise to where CCS would be deployed without incentives. 

• The need to spread out incentives so that multiple CCS projects are awarded 

each year for at least 5 years as the current pace of technology evolution is 

great and the CCS incentive program should take advantage of and benefit from 

this rapid pace of improvement. 

• The near-term need to stimulate the economy. CCS projects normally require 

3–4 years to implement and create a great deal of economic activity over their 

entire duration. However the cost of the CCS incentive program does not begin 

until CO2 sequestration is started upon project completion. For example, a 

5,000,000-ton per year CCS project could cost $750 million in capital expense 

to implement over the first 4 years. However, with a $20 per ton net CCS incentive, it would only require government support of $100 million beginning in year 

5 and decreasing annually from there. 

6. Qualifying Criteria: Projects that apply for CCS incentives should meet certain 

qualifying criteria. Qualifying projects should: 

• Be new (existing projects that capture and sequester CO2 should not qualify). 

• Certify that they have all required permits or will have within 12 months of 

award. 

• Certify that they have all required financing or will have within 12 months of 

award. 

• Certify that they are scheduled to break ground within 12 months of award and 

have scheduled project completion within 4 years after ground breaking. 

» Projects that receive CCS incentive awards but are not able to complete permitting, financing, and groundbreaking within 12 months of award should 

forfeit the CCS incentive (but may apply again). 

• Not be in any way disadvantaged by having received other types of government 

support such as loan guarantees, grants, and tax incentives. 

7. Sequestration Issues: Existing CO2 pipelines used for enhanced oil recovery 

(EOR) operations can support several new, large-scale CCS projects. The CCS incentives should be structured so as not to disadvantage these opportunities in any manner as they will likely be the lowest-cost and nearest-term projects available to demonstrate commercial scale CCS. However, in order to incentivize broader CCS deployment, the following sequestration issues need to be resolved: 

• Legal and permitting requirements for geological sequestration including standards for measurement, monitoring, and verification (MMV). 

• Long-term liability for sequestered CO2. 

• Incentivizing CO2 pipeline construction at optimum scale. CO2 pipelines benefit 

from economies of scale up to about 24 inches in diameter. This size would provide CO2 capacity for 3–4 large-scale CCS projects (nominally about 15 million 

tons per year; equivalent to ∼2,000 MW capacity at 90 percent CO2 capture). 

Therefore preference should be given to CCS projects that create extra capacity 

by constructing pipelines or other infrastructure that could be used by multiple 

CCS projects. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I’ll start with questioning, for 5 minutes, and we’ll go in order, 

which will be Senator Hutchison, Senator Begich, Senator Kerry, 

Senator Snowe, Senator Klobuchar. 

Dr. Killeen, is climate change reversible? 

Dr. KILLEEN. Climate change over long periods is reversible. The 

Earth has experienced changes, that are natural changes, that 

have been large in the geologic record; however, in terms of the 

human experience, generations, we’re going to be living in an era 

where the sea levels are going to be rising for centuries, and that— 

the global mean temperatures are going to be rising to some level 

that’s going to be determined by our societal actions. So, reversibility on the time scales of societal decisionmaking is probably not 

on the cards. So, that’s why we talk about smart adaption science, 

32 

because we are going to have to adapt to the changing circumstances that are already built into the system. And we talk 

about smart mitigation science, which speaks to the ultimate stabilization or least restrictions are the most severe outcomes that 

could occur over the next few centuries. 

Returning—reversing to the pre-existing climate would require, 

not just reduced emissions, but going back to the concentrations of 

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And that’s why mitigation 

science is actually—mitigation pathways are difficult, because it’s 

not enough to reduce emissions—that slows down the process—you 

have to—— 

The CHAIRMAN. So, I take your answer—— 

Dr. KILLEEN.—deal with concentration. 

The CHAIRMAN.—not to be yes, but to be no. 

Dr. KILLEEN. No, in terms of practical considerations—— 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Now, explain to me a little bit more why. 

Some people say that once you put carbon dioxide in the air, it’s 

up there for 30 years; others suggest that carbon dioxide due to 

human activities stays in the atmosphere for 1,000 years. Now, I 

don’t care which it is; it’s horrendous. 

Dr. KILLEEN. It’s—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Why is it irreversible? 

Dr. KILLEEN. It’s actually both. The estimates are that about 20 

percent of the carbon that’s in the atmosphere due to anthropogenic human-induced emissions will reside sort of the order of magnitude of thousands of years. Other components of the reservoir 

will cycle more rapidly through the ocean and uptake in the land. 

There are some significant scientific questions about the degree to 

which the ocean and the land can continue to absorb as much carbon as they have been absorbing over the last century. That’s one 

of the scientific questions that I allude to in my—— 

So, it’s a—it is a complex, but not over—not impenetrable, set of 

scientific questions. We’re dealing with a relatively simple molecule, three atoms. We’re dealing with an atmosphere. We’re dealing with a relative balance. The thermodynamics is pretty well understood. The residence times are dependent on a lot of factors, including weather factors. But, notably, the uptake of carbon by the 

living biosphere and the oceans—and there are some indications in 

recent papers that that may be plateauing, at least. So, there may 

be some diminution of the ability of the rest of the system to reabsorb carbon from the atmosphere. 

So, when we’re looking at long-term records, it’s very important 

to crack that scientific problem. Where—how fast can carbon be 

taken back out of the atmosphere and stored in other repositories, 

in the ocean and in agricultural processes? And for how long will 

that carbon be sequestered there? There are some open scientific 

questions that need to be addressed. 

The CHAIRMAN. My time’s running out. You say 30 or 1,000, either one could be true. I talked, in my opening statement, about 

gaps in scientific knowledge. I’d like you to address that. We, the 

Commerce Committee, have jurisdiction over the National Weather 

Service; they have a lot to say about whether you’re going to get 

a 20-percent drying-up of rivers in Arizona and other places in the 

33 

Colorado River. But, what is it that we don’t know, scientifically, 

that we need to know? 

Dr. KILLEEN. We need to know the rate at which carbon will be 

taken out of the atmosphere and absorbed in the ocean and in the 

land matter over the future decades. We need to know that number. It’s a critical number for looking at the long-term outcome. 

Right now—what matters is the concentration of greenhouse 

gases in the atmosphere; it’s how many there are, how many molecules there are in the atmosphere. Every molecule plays a role in 

warming the planet. So, it’s a quantity of carbon dioxide. That’s 

controlled by two factors: emissions in and sinks out. And so, it’s 

a balance between the emissions and the sinks. And right now, the 

average rate of accumulation of the quantity of greenhouse gases 

in the atmosphere is about 2 percent per year over the last decade. 

We need to get that number down. And that number is going to 

be a factor of both the emissions in and the sinks/sources out. And 

there are scientific uncertainties that we need to address, in terms 

of the role of the oceans, the Earth’s oceans, which take up onethird, today, of the carbon that’s put into the atmosphere is absorbed in the oceans—a full third of it—and that leads to ocean 

acidification—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Acidification problems. 

Dr. KILLEEN. That’s the acidification problem, yes. 

So, the overall carbon cycle is fairly well known. I would say 

there are no ‘‘gotchas’’ or no surprises that are going to throw our 

whole theory out of the window. But, we need to fine-tune that understanding, particularly on the sink side. The emissions side is a 

function of economic development and the kinds of issues that my 

colleagues are being—are raising. The sink side, how fast you can 

take carbon out of the atmosphere, is a function of our understanding of ecosystem function and of oceanographic function. 

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, thank you very much. 

Kay Bailey Hutchison. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

My question is for Dr. Killeen. If anyone else wants to jump in 

on this. 

My area of interest, and actually, for the last two Congresses, I 

have introduced legislation on weather modification research. I’m 

told that we don’t even have the data, for instance, where there is 

cloud-seeding in Colorado, if there is any difference in rainfall in 

Wyoming or Montana, and that that would be an area where, at 

least if we begin to track, that would be the basis of research. My 

original intention was to put it in NOAA, a weather modification 

research opportunity and tracking of weather, not only where you 

might have modification efforts, in the surrounding areas, in tracking the wind currents and directions, but also, for the future, to see 

what works and what doesn’t. We’re just seeing so much more of 

an intensity in our weather now than we have seen before. 

My question to you is, do you agree that we need to have this 

kind of tracking and research? And where would you best place it? 

Is NOAA the right place? Or the White House Office of Science? 

Where would you say we would have the best traction for this kind 

of research? 

34 

Dr. KILLEEN. Well, let me first fully agree with you that this is 

a topic that’s worthy of a research effort. As the planet warms, 

there are greater rates of evaporation from the world’s ocean, 

there’s more latent heat energy that is produced in the atmosphere, 

and there are greater levels of water vapor. So, the whole 

hydrological cycle is intensified. That means we get more severe 

weather at times. We get more evaporation, so we get more 

drought. It’s paradoxic that we get more drought and you also get 

more severe—episodes of severe rainfall. 

The system is intensified, and it—but, it’s predictable, at some 

level. And I think today we don’t know quite the level of predictability of rainfall and severe weather events in atmospheric phenomena. But, that’s coming. 

There was a big effort 30 years ago, as you know, to look at 

weather modification studies. And in some ways, that was premature, because we didn’t have the observational tools at that 

time, we didn’t have the polarimetric radar to look at the cloud 

condensation nuclei and their shapes, and to determine the physical processes that lead to precipitation out of clouds, the types of 

clouds. We now have those kind of capabilities—aircraft, radars, et 

cetera. So, we’re much better positioned now than we were 30 

years ago to really investigate the physical mechanistic processes 

that drive to severe weather events. And I—so, I think it is a very 

important area. And, of course, it’s connected to climate because of 

this intensification of the hydrologic cycle that I alluded to. 

Where it should be in the government? I think that the Federal 

agencies are interacting very well. There are experts in all of these 

Federal agencies who can appreciate this kind of project. Within 

the National Science Foundation, we have a place to go for research proposals dealing with this, and they will be effectively reviewed and funded when they come in. 

I think what’s needed is a stimulus to the scientific community 

that opens the door to new and pioneering, transformative research 

in this area. 

So, I like the question. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Do you think that the National Science 

Foundation would be the better policeman for where the research 

would go? Or, do you think NOAA should be that agency? How 

would you, if you were advising me on how to structure where it 

goes and if there is some added involvement by one or the other, 

where would you say? 

Dr. KILLEEN. I would think partnerships are the right approaches. NOAA has more operational responsibilities and service 

responsibilities for stakeholders. NSF is the basic research organization, where our investigators can look at the nitty-gritty aspects 

of what certain types of clouds do under certain circumstances, can 

model the paths of the hurricanes, and so forth. So, I think it’s a 

research-to-operations transition, and both agencies have their natural roles in that. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I just have a couple of seconds left. Let me 

just ask you, if we start gathering the data, do you see a time when 

we could also do mitigation? If the science said a hurricane that is 

a level-2 in the Pacific, well, Atlantic, actually, off the coast of Florida, and when tracking, it turns into a 4 when it gets to Florida 

35 

and then on into the Gulf of Mexico, that, by having the research, 

there is a time at which we might be able to mitigate it out in the 

Atlantic Ocean so that it isn’t a 4 when it gets to Florida or Alabama or Louisiana or Texas. Is that something that conceptually, 

that we might look forward to? 

Dr. KILLEEN. That’s beyond our reach today. It’s probably beyond 

our reach in the next 10 years. But, I could—I could conceive of 

such kinds of things in the long term. As we further understand 

the nonlinear development of hurricanes—they develop, after all, 

from very small perturbations off the coast of Africa, often, and 

they—some of them grow, and some of them diminish. And so, I 

could imagine intervention—I could imagine it, intervention strategies, but I wouldn’t want to even—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. I know. 

Dr. KILLEEN.—imply that—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. We don’t—— 

Dr. KILLEEN.—we’re anywhere—— 

Senator HUTCHISON.—have the research yet,—— 

Dr. KILLEEN.—close to that today. Yes. 

Senator HUTCHISON. —but, I would just hope that, if we start 

with research, that eventually we’ll be able to go in that direction. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. 

Senator Begich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for holding this hearing. 

And as the Senator from Alaska, I consider our State ground 

zero when it comes to climate change, as well as Arctic policy. 

There’s a combination of issues in Alaska. And, you know, we see 

it firsthand. If it’s from the north, with the Arctic melting, or in 

interior Alaska, where the permafrost is melting, or when you look 

to western Alaska, where villages have lost literally, several, several feet of land, or you go down to the southeast and you see the 

fishing area, with acidification of water. So, I have several questions, but I’m going to—— 

Dr.—is it Killeen? I have a couple of questions. But, as a good 

doctor, I want you to keep it short, only because we get only a few 

minutes. Because, Dr. Jacobs, I want to ask you some questions, 

because I’m intrigued by your testimony, because we, as policymakers, sometimes get wrapped around the research and the 

science, and, I like to describe myself as ‘‘a mayor’’ which I have 

been, as ‘‘a mayor that just happens to be a Senator,’’ because, as 

a mayor, you have to be practical. And so, your testimony was very 

interesting to me, in a sense of that next step. 

But, quickly, in your written testimony, you had some comments 

on permafrost in Alaska; 80 percent of its ground is permafrost, 

and the potential of, you know, the massive methane gas release, 

give me some commentary on that, if you can, and how you see 

that. I know you had some in your written testimony, but if you 

could verbalize that, I’d appreciate it. 

36 

Dr. KILLEEN. Yes, it’s a very important study that needs to be 

done, intensive study of the permafrost, because there’s a lot of, as 

you know, carbon contained in the permafrost. 

Senator BEGICH. Correct. 

Dr. KILLEEN. There’s deep permafrost, which will reside for many 

eons, I’m sure, and then there’s near-surface ground permafrost, on 

which homes are built, that can degrade quickly, and is degrading 

quickly. 

There are some unknowns there, and there’s scientific research 

that’s needed to fully understand the rate at which permafrost is 

becoming degraded, and the rationale—the reasons for that. 

And if you look back at ancient climate change, there’s evidence 

that, in fact, temperature increases led the production of greenhouse gases, which would be a positive feedback effect. And so, 

there is concern that we need to fully understand the role of permafrost in the energy budget. 

I would say the IPCC models that were used to produce the assessment did not include the effects of methane released in permafrost, so it’s one of these missing gaps that the Chairman—— 

Senator BEGICH. It’s another gap—— 

Dr. KILLEEN. Another gap. 

Senator BEGICH.—in the research and science. 

Dr. KILLEEN. Another gap. And—but, it’s a very significant one 

that needs—and there are many researchers honing in that problem right now. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. And one last question, on research, 

in regards to acidification of the waters. And, you know, Alaska 

produces 62 percent of the natural fish stock for this country, and 

obviously we have about 25–30,000 people employed, directly or indirectly, in this industry. Can you give me any thoughts of where 

research gaps might be in regards to studying the impacts of acidification, not only from the science, but also from the job component? 

Dr. KILLEEN. Yes, I think that’s another very important area 

that needs much more work. The role of increased acidification on 

hard-shelled corals and phytoplankton is fairly well known, but 

what that means for the web of life in the oceans and the degree 

to which individual species will be responding over the decades is 

a big question. We know from our experience that some management strategies have worked for some fish stocks and have not 

worked for other fish stocks. And the scientific reasons for that difference are still to be determined. 

So, I think there’s an important area of oceanographic biology, 

which includes the whole ecosystem response to changed chemistry 

in the ocean, which is an important area of scientific research, as 

well. 

Senator BEGICH. Great. Thank you very much. 

Dr. KILLEEN. Were they short enough, Senator? 

Senator BEGICH. That was very good. 

Dr. KILLEEN. Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you. We get limited time here. 

Dr. Jacobs, your testimony was interesting. And I did notice you 

smiled a little bit when a couple of folks were talking, because, 

probably as you know, I’m trying to hone in, on how we deliver the 

37 

message to the average individual out there, the voter, to understand the economic impacts, is how I’ve always portrayed it. Your 

testimony, written testimony, was very good. Can you if there are 

one or two things that we could do, as policymakers, to better communicate what the issue of climate change means to the average 

person, what would those be, from your perspective? 

But, let me just say one thing, though, because I know most people, when you talk about emissions, they look at you with a blank 

eye, you know, they stare, they don’t have any clue what you’re 

talking about, anybody. So, give me your one or two hits that we 

would do. 

Ms. JACOBS. Well, I guess I could start with an anecdote, which 

is a very brief one. You know, essentially, we were recently talking 

to some of the officials from the City of Phoenix, and they said, 

‘‘Well, our city council really does not care about or understand climate change, but they do care about water-supply reliability, and 

it keeps them up at night.’’ So, clearly the issue is connecting the 

science to the things that people really care about and the things 

that affect their livelihoods and their hearts. And so, clearly the 

landscapes they care about, the people they care about, and their 

source of—you know, their economic interests, are the ways to get 

to people. And, frankly, it’s remarkable how few people have actually picked up on what’s going on, given that it is happening all 

around us and the evidence is there. 

Senator BEGICH. Yes, I’ll leave on this question. It’s one more for 

later, and I’ve run out of time. But, if you have not, or if you have, 

I’d be interested in maybe later letting my office know your response to. I know the U.S. Conference of Mayors has climate green 

page. Mayors have been very aggressive on this and kind of bringing it down to the street level. I’d be interested in what you see 

as good examples of how they have delivered the message. I know, 

as a mayor, what we’ve done, but I’d be very curious in your commentary on that. And not right now, but, you know, at a later time, 

because of time. 

Ms. JACOBS. Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Begich. 

Senator Kerry. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KERRY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for doing this 

hearing. It’s really important. 

Over the last 8 years, the emissions have grown at a rate four 

times faster than they did in the 1990s. And the fact is that every 

single climate change model that predicted what is going to happen, from the IPCC, the U.N. Panel, is now being exceeded. There 

was a recent study by Fletcher, MIT Heinz Center, that shows that 

if we take the best offering of every country in the world that has 

offered to do something, and if we were, in fact, to complete it, we 

would still wind up at about 550 parts per million, 600 parts per 

million, by 2050, which is well above what scientists tell us is permissible. Correct? As well as at a temperature of about 4 degrees— 

that’s by 2050—it will continue up to 6 to 9 degrees by the end of 

38 

the century if we don’t make changes. Is that a fair statement of 

sort of what the latest science is? 

Dr. KILLEEN. Yes, sir, I think it—that’s fair. There’s some debate 

about what level is actually constituted dangerous interference 

with the climate, but there’s a rough consensus about those numbers that you quoted, 500—— 

Senator KERRY. And previously, the science said, ‘‘Well, we can 

tolerate 550 parts per million.’’ Then a few years ago they moved 

to 450 parts per million. And now the science is telling us that’s 

wrong, we have to try to stay at 350 parts per million and hold the 

temperature increase to 2 degrees Centigrade. Is that accurate? 

Dr. KILLEEN. I think most scientists would say lower is better. 

There are some practical issues with regard to where the stabilization point, in terms of parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is. And I think that debate, which you’re discussing, is 

raging. Where—what constitutes dangerous interference is the—— 

Senator KERRY. But, the problem is, if we get it wrong, it’s catastrophic. If they’re wrong and we’ve taken action, the best that 

we’ve done is improved health, responded to the environment, created jobs, improved our security by moving off of dependence on 

fossil fuels, and so forth. I mean, it seems—the balance in judgment of public policy falls on the side of caution and precaution. 

Dr. KILLEEN. I would—if you’re asking me—— 

Senator KERRY. Yes. 

Dr. KILLEEN.—Senator, I would certainly believe, with my colleagues here, that we’re going to be moving to a low-carbon economy, we should do it easily, readily, quickly, as fast as we could, 

to avoid the most severe consequences of these numbers. I should 

also say—— 

Senator KERRY. Let me follow up on something quickly, if I can, 

and I’m sorry to interrupt you, but I wanted to follow up with 

something that Senator Rockefeller said, because I won’t have time 

to ask Mr. Alix a couple of questions. 

Just very quickly, the 30 years to 1,000 years Senator Rockefeller 

was asking about, the 30 years, the variation depends, I assume, 

on the type of greenhouse gas, because what I’m led to understand 

is that the CO2 that’s up there has a half-life of approximately 100 

years, 80 to 100 years or so. Is that correct? 

Dr. KILLEEN. Yes, that order of magnitude. 

Senator KERRY. And that means that whatever we put up there 

today is going to continue to do damage for the next 100 years. 

Dr. KILLEEN. And a small component of it will continue to have 

interactions over the next 1,000 years, and that’s where the 1,000- 

year number comes from. 

Senator KERRY. The interaction—— 

Dr. KILLEEN. About 20 percent. 

Senator KERRY.—is over 1,000 years. 

Dr. KILLEEN. Yes. Yes. 

Senator KERRY. But, the half-life of the gas, of the CO2 itself is 

about 100 years. 

Dr. KILLEEN. Yes. With—it’s a mix of processes. There’s a mix of 

sink processes. Some of them go faster than others, so you can—— 

Senator KERRY. Right. 

39 

Dr. KILLEEN.—you can consider it as not a simple one-answer 

problem—— 

Senator KERRY. I gotcha. 

Dr. KILLEEN.—is what I’m saying. 

Senator KERRY. So it’s a variation based on the interaction of the 

gas, but there’s no question but that it does that damage over the 

continuing period of time? 

Dr. KILLEEN. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have longlived consequences of decades and hundreds of years. 

Senator KERRY. Now coming therefore to your process, Mr. Alix, 

you’re talking exclusively about a sequestration, a capture, that 

would then be made enough only for geologic sequestration? 

Mr. ALIX. Primarily, yes. 

Senator KERRY. There are four companies now doing non-geologic 

processing, taking gas, flue gas out of the flue, capturing 90 percent, as you’ve said, but transforming it into a calcium carbonate 

substance that can be used for construction. Are you familiar with 

that? 

Mr. ALIX. Yes, I am. 

Senator KERRY. Would your capture process lend itself to a similar, could it lend itself to a similar transformational non-geologic 

storage? 

Mr. ALIX. I think once you have the raw pure CO2, there are 

many things that can be done. In general, those processes, however, are limited by the amount of basic product that can be used 

and also locational issues, like proximity to seawater, issues like 

that. So we think those are exciting processes, but, in general, 

when you look at where coal plants are and the magnitude that 

needs to be addressed, sequestration, we believe, is probably 80+ 

percent of the answer. 

Senator KERRY. Mm-hmm. And the sequestration, you’re talking 

about compressing that gas,—— 

Mr. ALIX. Yes. 

Senator KERRY.—correct? 

Mr. ALIX. Yes. 

Senator KERRY. By compressing it, does it stay compressed 

through the transfer process and into the sequestration or does it 

re-expand in the sequestration? 

Mr. ALIX. It stays that pressure once it’s put under ground. 

Senator KERRY. It stays that pressure? 

Mr. ALIX. Yes. 

Senator KERRY. And how complicated is the transfer process into 

the sequestration? 

Mr. ALIX. Well, my understanding is basically you have to characterize wells, you have to have pores, you have to know where it’s 

going, and then there are 3–D monitoring techniques to see it. 

Senator KERRY. How do you propel it? Through a pipe? How do 

you transfer it? 

Mr. ALIX. Yes, absolutely, through a pipe. 

Senator KERRY. What sends it? Pressure? 

Mr. ALIX. Yes, and there are intermittent pipes for long pipelines. There are about 500–600 miles of pipelines going from Colorado to the Permian Basin for enhanced oil recovery. About 40 milVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:49 Apr 21, 2010 Jkt 052159 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52159.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
40 

lion tons a year of CO2 have been used over the last 20 years. So 

there’s a great deal of experience in both. 

Senator KERRY. This is the same process. We use this, I think, 

in the Dakotas, don’t we? In North Dakota,—— 

Mr. ALIX. Yes. 

Senator KERRY.—there’s a process similar? 

Mr. ALIX. Yes. 

Senator KERRY. We’ve been doing the enhanced recovery out of 

that? 

Mr. ALIX. Yes. 

Senator KERRY. So this is built on that? 

Mr. ALIX. Yes. 

Senator KERRY. All right. My time is up. I appreciate it. Thank 

you for the process and thanks for your testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Kerry. Senator Lautenberg 

was on his way back and he was one of the first people here, so 

when he does come back, I will call on him. 

But now I go to Senator Snowe. Senator Klobuchar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much to all of you. You 

know, I come from Minnesota, and we believe in science. We 

brought the world everything from the pacemaker to the post-it 

note and we’re very glad that in our state that science is upfront 

and center now again in the climate change debate. 

I also serve on the Environmental Committee, so we’ve had a 

number of hearings with scientists, and I also was able to visit 

Greenland which many people call the ‘‘canary in the coal mine’’ for 

climate change. In an area that used to be covered in ice, people 

are now planting potatoes. Places that were covered in ice, we’re 

able to land a helicopter on rock. So I saw firsthand the effects of 

climate change in one of our most poignant areas. 

I also was seeing when scientists squelched what happens when 

the Center for Disease Control, the head of that, Julie Gerberding, 

her testimony was redacted in front of our Environmental Committee, and a lot of the things you talked about, the public health 

effects, Ms. Jacobs, were not able to come to light until a whistleblower actually came out and made those things known. 

Again, I see hope in that we finally yesterday, Senator Snowe 

and I had a bill for a carbon registry, so that we can at least begin 

counting greenhouse gas emissions that the EPA actually just did 

with the wave of their wand yesterday that this is now beginning. 

My question actually as we look at recently, we’ve heard, Dr. 

Killeen, about the potential for things, as Senator Kerry brought 

up, about things being worse than we thought and part of this is 

due to this idea of methane and what’s happening with that, and 

I wondered, the methane gas that’s sequestered in the Arctic permafrost and I know you mentioned this in your testimony and this 

is one of the reasons given that things might actually be worse 

than we thought in terms of global warming. 

Could you expound on that a bit? 

Dr. KILLEEN. Well, there are several indications that the pace of 

change is happening stronger than anticipated and sooner than anVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:49 Apr 21, 2010 Jkt 052159 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52159.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
41 

ticipated for reasons that relate to both emission rates which have 

gone up but also to the response of the planet and there are some 

things that are surprising to scientists. 

For example, the Arctic sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has degraded 

much more quickly than the most sophisticated models would have 

predicted and so there’s intense work going on to understand 

what’s happening to the ice regions. 

The permafrost area, I think, is one that really does require intense new work to measure the rates, to look at the pathways, et. 

cetera, and the other thing about potential changes, this is a complex planet, made up of interacting components, and science is 

struggling to work the details of that as a system. 

It has many components: the ice, the air, the ocean, et. cetera, 

and we may have some surprises in store, and so there’s a section 

of the scientific community that’s really focused now on thresholds 

and potentially tipping points, things that might change. 

If you look at the ancient record of climate, there have been 

events in the past, ancient past where rapid, relatively rapid 

change occurred, prehistorical times, and so there’s a lot of interest 

in what might actually tip things out of the balance. 

We’re dealing with a semi-chaotic system, not a fully-chaotic system. It is—but it’s not fully deterministic either in the sense that 

you lay out the equations and you know exactly what’s going to 

happen. So dealing with that kind of a system opens the question 

of how fast and what is the range of responses that might be likely. 

We don’t today know the number which is the climate sensitivity 

of Planet Earth. If you doubled CO2, what that planet would actually do. We know, we’ve got a good handle on the range of options 

and everybody looks at the median and says, well, that’s where it 

is, but there are two tales, there’s a slow tale and a fast tale, and 

we need to do a really good job of understanding how this planet 

is going to respond to these forcing functions. 

So, yes, there’s uncertainty on all of those fronts, but it does appear that the system is changing at rates that exceed what was in 

the IPCC kind of assessments. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly, and that’s what they are saying 

themselves, that we’re not going to have a new report when we go 

to Copenhagen, I don’t think, from IPCC. We just know that it 

seems like it’s worse than it is. 

Dr. KILLEEN. There’s a wonderful set of assessment reports that 

the U.S. Government has just produced. I refer to them in my— 

and I have a copy—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Well, we’ll get that. 

Dr. KILLEEN.—of these reports. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. 

Dr. KILLEEN. They contain the current cutting edge state-of-theart on many of these areas. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Ms. Jacobs, I just wanted to ask one more 

thing and that was that, Dr. Jacobs, you talked about how less people understand, and I guess I look at it a different way. 

When I first started talking about this issue, you know, it was 

only kids with penguin buttons that would come up and talk to me 

and it has really changed as, you know, city councils in little towns, 

like Lanesboro, Minnesota, are changing up their light bulbs, 

42 

snowmobilers worried about it because they’ve seen the effects, 

barge owners worried because the levels in Lake Superior are down 

for the most part at lower levels than they were in the past 80 

years. 

And I appreciated Senator Begich’s question, but I think your 

survey that you cited indicates that only 30 percent of Americans 

considered global warming a priority. When you think about the 

economy and the way it is, I actually do think that’s not that bad 

of a number, and I know it’s frustrating for you, but I tell you there 

has been a transformation and part of it is having a President that 

is putting this out there and talking about it, and the other part 

of it is talking about this in a way where we see the economic opportunity but also the economic safety net in how we do cap-andtrade and other things to make sure that it’s done the right way 

and that it incorporates all of our energy sources, as Mr. Alix was 

talking about. 

So do you at least acknowledge that there has been a transformation in that more people are aware of this and seeing it as 

a problem, even though it’s not quite where you want it? 

Ms. JACOBS. There’s absolutely no question that we are in the 

midst of a transformation in terms of people’s understanding, but 

I’ve been working with water managers on this topic since the late 

1990s and though I think awareness is very much there, the ability 

to actually embrace the science and know what to do about it is 

not there. 

So we have a lot of people very motivated to try to respond but 

many who really don’t know exactly how to. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly. Well, very good. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. As I indicated earlier, Senator Lautenberg was first here and therefore I call on Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Thune, you will be next. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And I’m pleased that this hearing is being 

held. The fact is that this Committee, and I think you said it very 

clearly, has a significant role to play in the climate change and certainly our interest is very valuable and absolutely the right thing 

to do. 

What we’ve seen thus far tells us a lot, so much about the threat 

that is imposed by global warming. I sit on the Environment Committee and also they’re pursuing an interest in what’s happening 

and what we’ve seen is the Antarctica getting warmer. I’ve been 

there. I’ve been to the South Pole, been up to Greenland, and when 

we look at the volume of sea ice that has disappeared, over 40 percent, it is frightening. 

As ice melts, the sea levels could rise as much as 20 to 80 inches 

by the end of this century, and while in other states, Ms. Jacobs, 

obviously you’re seeing the problems with water there, what the 

climate change portends for Arizona and similar states, the crucial 

science of global warming, tracking ocean temperatures, reading atmospheric data, does fit significantly in the hands of this Committee. 

And one—there’s a particular focus that we have here and that 

is that one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions come from the 

transportation sector which this Committee has a significant role 

43 

in and rail travel will be one of those solutions, and we know that 

moving travelers and goods by rail uses substantially less energy 

than moving them by cars or trucks. For example, a ton of freight 

can be moved over 400 miles on a single gallon of gas. Well, what 

does that do for the environment? Enormous things because it reduces some of the truck traffic and certainly automobile traffic if 

we continue to do that. 

So our Committee’s got to keep working to make passenger and 

freight rail part of the solution for our ability to make a difference 

in greenhouse gas emissions. 

Now, Ms. Jacobs, what is the problem, as you see it, on the water 

side in your state and neighboring states, the challenge that’s 

raised there? 

Ms. JACOBS. Well, we have multiple challenges. One of them has 

to do with just temperature increase alone. When you increase the 

temperature that increases the evaporative rate. You lose a lot of 

moisture from the soil. All of the plants take more water, the people take more water. It takes more water for energy to cool houses 

and so forth. So we have both a supply side problem and a demand 

side problem with temperature alone. 

What we’re understanding now for the first time really is that 

there’s an emerging consensus that we’ll actually see reduced precipitation as well as increased temperatures and that combination 

is actually scaring people quite a bit. 

We don’t necessarily expect to see that across the whole country, 

but there is an area in the Southwest and Northern Mexico where 

it looks like most of the climate models are anticipating reduced 

precipitation. So there’s a lot to be concerned about, particularly 

with reliability of service water supplies. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I see the threat of global warming as similar to the plagues that mankind experienced and I call this the 

11th Plague and when I look at my grandchildren and concerned 

about their lives, they’re very young now, it has me saying why 

haven’t we not paid—raised a question about why have we not paid 

more attention to this at an earlier stage, but, nevertheless, we are 

where we are and the question is are the goals that we want to 

attain realistic and typically those who argue the other side of this 

say, well, the cost of jobs is an unacceptable cost, but there is a 

trade-off. 

The fact is that there are jobs to be obtained as a result of the 

transition to a greener society, to the meeting standards that satisfy our need for work as well as our need for a better environment, 

and I ask, Dr. Killeen, at some point to the fact that regions, some 

regions are experiencing cooler weather than they normally have 

and as opposed to elements that were a sign that we are not really 

experiencing global warming. 

What about the science behind this and why cooler temperatures 

in some places prevail? 

Dr. KILLEEN. If I can respond, I think that’s related to the fact 

that 2008 was only the 10th warmest year on record rather than 

the first or second. So 2008 was relatively cool and we’ve been in 

a relatively plateau in terms of the warming trend, but if you look 

at any of these 10-year cycles, you can find periods when you have 

relatively colder temperatures. 

44 

The 2008 period was marked by La Nin ̃ a, the opposite of El 

Nin ̃ o, which tends to cool the—so there’s nothing inconsistent with 

the recent temperature records and the global climate change theories that are couched in the IPCC documents and certainly the 

modern models. So there’s no sense that the—actually, in fact, everything that’s happened in the last 5 years has reinforced the understanding that was assessed in the IPCC. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I assume we’ll keep the 

record open and that we’ll be able to—— 

The CHAIRMAN. We hope to have a second round. Thank you, 

Senator. Senator Thune. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding the hearing. Thank you to our witnesses today for their insightful testimony. This is a complex set of technical and practical 

challenges that we have to face, and I think as policymakers we 

certainly want to be in a position where we’re making decisions 

that are based upon the very best science and the very best data. 

A lot of proposals to cap and/or reduce carbon emissions are 

going to have a significant cost to our economy and going to impact 

individuals’ lives every day and so the stakes are pretty high and 

it’s important that we get as accurate information about climate 

change and its potential impact on our country and around the 

world as we possibly can. 

I’m particularly interested, Mr. Alix, in some of your testimony 

and the technologies that you have developed that deal with carbon 

capture and sequestration and the role that those are going to play 

in our future energy supply, and I would be curious in knowing 

perhaps if you could respond to this question: what are the primary 

regulatory challenges to implementing the carbon capture and sequestration on a wide-scale basis? 

Mr. ALIX. I think we have the classic chicken-and-egg problem 

where technology developers say that it’s commercially available 

technology for CCS which means we’ll sell it with commercial guarantees, but plant owners cannot point to any commercial installations that are operating. 

So there’s risk. It’s a fair statement and so what we would say 

is, as happened previously with things like catalytic converters on 

our automobiles, the acid rain provisions in the Clean Air Act, you 

have to regulate and you have to have some faith in the technology 

providers to bring this forward, commercialize it and then drive 

costs down because no doubt, as we build the larger units and get 

experience, costs will come down. 

The studies by engineering firms all suggest that we should have 

a high degree of success and one of the firms that operates in your 

neighborhood, Basin Electric Power Cooperative, is not only doing 

it successfully at the Great Plains Synfuels Plant, and sending its 

CO2 up to the Weyburn fields but is looking at building the 

NextGen plant in South Dakota and capturing CO2 and using it for 

enhanced oil recovery. 

45 

So there are a number of sophisticated owners who are ready to 

step forward and install this technology not only on existing plants 

but new plants. 

Senator THUNE. We do have an exciting project in Selby, South 

Dakota. Basin Electric has proposed a 700-megawatt pulverized 

coal power plant with post-combustion carbon capture and sequestration and Powerspan’s technology may prove instrumental in 

making that project a reality. 

When it comes to the issues of siting, permitting, and other 

issues, are there things that can be done at this level that would 

help expedite those types of projects, and are there significant differences when it comes to transporting CO2 from natural gas or 

other forms of pipelines, if you’re going to get it to some place 

where you could put it in the ground and store it? What sorts of 

issues does this create? What kind of regulatory certainty is it 

going to take for folks to invest in these technologies? 

Mr. ALIX. Well, clearly, a cap on CO2 emissions, some sort of new 

performance standard on coal plants gives the owners the idea that 

you will be regulated for CO2 emissions at some point. So those, 

I think, are important drivers. 

When you get into actual implementation, pipelines that carry 

CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, what we expect to use, either at a 

gas plant or coal plant, should be the same because the CO2 itself 

is quite pure, quite dry, no matter where it comes from. So it’s a 

carbon steel pipeline. 

There’s an optimum size in general to deploy due to economies 

of scale and generally you’d like to put a big pipeline in the ground 

that would carry CO2 from multiple plants instead of each plant 

having a smaller pipeline. So there are some issues there. 

In general, we look more toward enhanced oil recovery because 

those sites will pay for the CO2 early on. They’re well characterized. The processes and rules are in place. The longer term, I think, 

a set of standards which the EPA has started to develop in their 

water standards for sequestration, some measuring, monitoring, 

verification rules that are broader for not only oil fields but saline 

aquifers, coal seams, et cetera, those rules have to be promulgated 

by the Federal Government. 

They have to include enhanced oil recovery which they don’t currently and while that’s in process, I think the fact that those aren’t 

in place and that there’s no clear long-term liability, I think, determination who will take ownership in the decades and millennium 

to come, I think those are some of the issues that also have to be 

resolved. 

So in the near term, we think enhanced oil recovery is the way 

to go. The rules are there. But long term, there are standards that 

have been developed by some states, like Texas and Illinois, that 

on the Federal level would be helpful. 

Senator THUNE. OK. And to get those on the Federal level, the 

agencies have that authority. Is that something that Congress 

would have to direct them to do? 

Mr. ALIX. I understand today agencies have the authority on requirements to put CO2 in the ground. In terms of liability, I understand that would have to be handled by Congress. 

46 

Senator THUNE. Right. OK. That would be a role that we could 

play, Mr. Chairman, in this process. I see my time has expired. I 

have some other questions but perhaps I’ll submit those for the 

record. 

Thank you all very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Stay around. Thank you. Senator Udall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Rockefeller. Thank you very 

much for holding this hearing. These witnesses have been very, 

very helpful and I look forward to a lively exchange with them. 

When Senator Begich asked the question, you know, how do you 

talk to the average citizen about this issue. I’m from New Mexico. 

You mentioned in your testimony that we’re going to see less precipitation, at least that’s what the models show, and I’ve taken that 

less precipitation, changing our water, those kinds of things and 

tried to talk specifically about that, and one of the ways to do that 

is they have these models of where your particular state would reside in terms of the climate and it’s very simple. 

You can click on your state and for the case of New Mexico, you 

would drag New Mexico, imagine your mouse and clicking on New 

Mexico and drag it 300 miles to the south which would put us way 

down in Chihuahua, Mexico, and if any of you have been to Santa 

Fe, New Mexico, and then Chihuahua, you know there is a huge 

difference in terms of climate and it shows the dramatic change 

that would occur with our snow pack, for example. 

The snow pack for the City of Santa Fe provides 40 percent of 

the water out of reservoirs and the outflow from the mountains. So 

if you change that dramatically where you don’t even—you don’t 

have that outflow or if it’s significantly reduced, you then have to 

find the water some place else. We’re mining our aquifers. We’re 

not doing that on a sustainable basis and so we run into a very, 

very difficult water situation. 

On top of that, you have the forests, which the trees get drier 

when you have less precipitation and you have more forest fires 

and these are the kinds of things that I think resonate with people 

and I wanted to, first of all, ask you the question of how reliable 

are these models and what I’m talking about in terms of mid-term 

because there’s a question I want to follow up with, but just your 

general sense of how reliable are these models of what I’m talking 

about because I’m saying is the middle-term or the mid-area in 

terms of the model, and my understanding is the science is saying 

we’re accelerating, we’re going beyond the middle conservative increase we expect in temperature and we’re going well beyond that. 

So could you all comment on that, any of you that care to? 

Dr. KILLEEN. Yes, Senator. I think the models that we have, the 

state-of-the-art climate models that we have today do not have the 

fidelity and the credibility at the regional or at the decadal level 

to really take those numbers to the bank. 

On the other hand, the global-scale predictions are robust and 

credibility, and I think in my testimony, I was trying to make the 

point that we are poised now to move into this new era where, indeed, we can generate the kinds of models that will be meaningful 

47 

to dam providers, to agricultural, to city planners, et cetera, in exactly the kind of issue you’re talking about with detail and with 

probabilistic distributions that you can actually make decisions on 

the basis of, and I think that’s the exciting new scientific era that’s 

dawning right now and is going to be driven by human capital, by 

interdisciplinary expertise, by computational and by a focus on the 

regional aspects of global climate change which then brings in this 

interface between science and the stakeholder community. 

So we’re on the verge, I think within a decade, of being able to 

do the kinds of things that you’re talking about. 

Senator UDALL. The time-frame you’re talking about is a decade 

for these next generation predictive models to be able to be—— 

Dr. KILLEEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator UDALL.—more reliable in terms of regional effects? 

Dr. KILLEEN. You’re seeing the infant, the first blush capabilities 

that have some capability and are clearly consistent with the global 

perspective, but the next level is going to be more detailed and 

much higher fidelity. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Mr. DILWEG. Senator, if I could follow up, as the insurers look 

at it, they are about 10 years away. I think the issue for them is 

they have these 50-year, 100-year looks and what insurers look for 

is more of a 25-year mortgage, 30-year mortgage to really shrink 

it down and identify it. 

When you look at the wildfire modeling in California, that’s almost there. That’s probably going to translate on where you put 

your brush, where you put plants next to a home, things like that, 

but it is what you’re seeing. 

I mean, the concern is if you get a drought like what China is 

seeing, in your state, I mean that’s catastrophic, and what we see 

in our region, it’s not only the coastal areas, but it’s—you know, in 

Wisconsin and Iowa, we’ve had the most rainfall in over, you know, 

500-year floodplains. So it’s these extreme swings that the insurers 

are trying to get a handle on and record tornadoes last year. 

So I think I would agree on the commercial side that we’re looking at about 10 years from now. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Senator Warner. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK WARNER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I’m still trying 

to master how you’re in three places at one time, and I apologize 

if some of my questions may have been asked, but I’m particularly 

interested in following up with Mr. Alix. 

I have a state like the Chairman’s and I understand Senator 

Thune asked some questions on this subject, as well. I’m very, very 

interested in the possibilities around sequestration technology and, 

Mr. Alix, interested in what you’re doing with Powerspan. 

I would note that, like the Chairman, our states are very similar 

in terms of coal-producing and I would add very quickly that Virginia Tech has some of the most advanced sequestration research 

going on and it might be a place that you might want to visit, as 

well. 

48 

I am interested in your technology. If you have looked and costed 

out how much it would cost to put in your technology and can it 

be put into an existing pulverized coal plant and if you were to put 

in the technology, what type of output reductions would you see? 

I understand we clearly would get cleaner emissions, but what is 

not only the front-end price but what is the ongoing price in terms 

of decreased production? 

Mr. ALIX. Well, as you point out, there’s a difference between a 

new coal plant and a retrofit. We have looked at several retrofits 

and when we’ve looked at retrofits, we’re typically looking at something on the order of baseload 500–600 megawatts, relatively new 

maybe mid-1980s on. So it has useful life remaining to amortize 

the investment, and we see costs of roughly $30 to $35 a ton for 

CO2 capture and compression. 

Typically, one would add another $5 to $10 per ton CO2 for sequestration, unless it was sold for enhanced oil recovery, at which 

point you would have a decrease in that cost. So we think it can 

be installed and retrofitted. We think the costs would add on the 

order of maybe three to four cents a kilowatt hour in a retrofit situation, so it’s not insignificant by any means. 

In terms of the question—I’m sorry. 

Senator WARNER. In terms of the retrofit and in terms of the new 

build, you know, whole in versus electrical production out with the 

technology, what decreased amount of—in fact, productivity, electrical productivity are we—what is the second half of the cost in 

terms of productivity? 

Mr. ALIX. Well, these numbers take into account that cost, of 

course, but for a new plant, we see 15 to 20 percent reduction in 

net output and for a retrofit, it would be more like 20 to 25. Again, 

there would be efficiency-related losses and the cost of adapting it 

to a retrofit would be greater than a new plant. 

Senator WARNER. Which is always less efficient. So it’s quite significant, the reduction in net output for adding CCS, and I understand that Senator Thune asked a couple questions. 

I was looking at it in terms of what can we do to speed development of this technology, Number 1, yours and other competitors, 

and I understand that the answers revolved around EPA standards 

and then dealing with some other liabilities. 

Can you talk a little bit about some of the liability issues? 

Mr. ALIX. Well, you know, I’m not extremely well versed on the 

liability issues because they’re principally involved with putting 

CO2 underground and maintaining it in place and not having any 

leaking or even sometimes earthquake potential if you put it near 

a fault. So there are people who are more well versed in that. 

But in terms of how we get technology moving, soon because I 

think there’s consensus we need to. There have been incentives 

proposed, both in the House and Senate as part of most climate 

packages, things like bonus allowances, that get CCS moving 

ahead of a CO2 price that would pay for it, and we’re a big advocate 

of that because we think that type of regime is needed to get 10 

to 20 commercial scale units deployed in the U.S. and show that 

this is a viable response for mitigation to keep our coal plants running and to keep that low-cost electricity source viable. 

49 

Senator WARNER. The Administration—there has been a lot of 

controversy in the last few days about some of the numbers that 

might have been slightly cooked on the Future Gen project in Illinois and, you know, I’d like you to comment generally about the 

approach we’re taking which seems to be still putting a lot of the 

eggs in that single beta site example rather than trying to support 

a series of beta sites around the country. Any comments anybody 

else on the panel wants to comment on the approach being taken? 

Mr. ALIX. Well, clearly, there need to be a lot of different solutions, but the problem is existing coal plants in the U.S. and China 

which are pulverized coal plants. So I think that is the pressing 

need, both in the short term and the long term, clearly because 

these plants have oftentimes 50- or 60-year lives. 

Beyond that, a new generation of technologies, such as Oxyfuel 

or gasification with CO2 capture, is also promising for the decades 

beyond now and so at least one demonstration or two of each of 

those is critical for us to understand what the real costs are. So 

how one juggles those priorities, you know, I think is up to you all, 

but I would say that type of demonstration is important as is 

Oxyfuel, as is many of the post-combustion technologies of which 

we are only one. 

But the big problem clearly is existing pulverized coal plants, 

both in the U.S., China, India, Europe, and Australia. That’s where 

the emissions are and they’re not going away any time soon. 

Senator WARNER. Well, before I ask the panel if they want to 

comment, I know my time has expired, but I would simply add, 

putting the parochial hat on again, that we’re about to build a 

next-generation plan in Southwest Virginia that has got, in effect, 

the land and the ability to do a sequestration demonstration project 

that I would strongly urge—and I for one think in the area of Appalachia that basically developed coal, that powered our economy 

in the th 20th Century, sure would be great if we had a couple of 

demonstration projects on how we’re to be able to use coal in the 

21st Century actually taking place back in our home region. 

So I would urge you to consider that and again I know my time 

expired, but if anybody else wants to add a comment in terms of 

the approach the Administration is taking on this. 

The CHAIRMAN. It’s more than expired, Senator. 

Senator WARNER. On that note, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Warner. Senator Cantwell. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

this important hearing. 

I’d like to ask Ms. Jacobs and Dr. Killeen about adaptation in 

general. Washington State and Seattle and King County, all three 

entities have done regional climate analysis for adaptation. So I 

think they’re really kind of leaders in the country in doing that, 

and we really don’t have the large-scale models. 

Part of the issue of doing climate adaptation is that the models 

and data for the large-scale are so important to then give to the 

local entities so that they can make regional plans from them. We 

50 

did pass an adaptation bill out of this committee and unlikely to 

reintroduce it again this year because I think it’s important that 

we have the impetus and Federal agencies are doing their part in 

planning, particularly when it comes to incorporating climate models and infrastructure and decisionmaking. 

My question is what models are needed for the local governments 

and regional governments to appropriately plan, and why aren’t we 

doing that right now? What do you think is standing in the way 

of why we’re not—why we haven’t achieved that goal yet on adaptation? 

Ms. JACOBS. I’ll start and then I’ll pass it on. It isn’t only because 

we don’t have the models that local people are relatively frustrated. 

I mean, it’s partly because it’s very difficult to know how much uncertainty there really is and I think that if you explain clearly to 

people that, you know, it’s true, we don’t know exactly how much 

a plant’s going to warm, we don’t know how much sea level is going 

to rise, and we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen in the 

climate system, however, we know it will be warmer, we know that 

sea level will be higher, and we expect longer droughts and more 

extreme events. 

Well, if you say that, then you know you need to, you know, really beef up your infrastructure, you need to be concerned about reservoir capacity, et cetera. There are a number of really distinct and 

sort of obvious responses to the higher temperature, the more extremes, et cetera. So a lot of people are getting wound up about not 

having the down-scaled information available to them and they 

really want it, and I understand that. 

My research group is working on a down-scaling project right 

now, but I also am concerned that people want definitive answers 

and those definitive answers are not going to be available fast 

enough to suit them. 

Senator CANTWELL. But shouldn’t we have Federal agencies require taking into consideration these factors into their decisionmaking? 

Ms. JACOBS. Sure. Absolutely. 

Senator CANTWELL. We’ve added Washington State to 100-year 

floods back to back. So people are saying hmm. They’re not really 

100-year floods if they’re back to back. 

Ms. JACOBS. Yes. There’s—absolutely. We need to be paying far 

more attention to adaptation and I don’t mean by the fact that we 

don’t need to have perfect information that we shouldn’t be making 

decisions and we shouldn’t be concerned. 

We need to be concerned and we need to make decisions and we 

need the Federal agencies to be helping with that, both with producing the science and with doing those adaptation things themselves. 

Senator CANTWELL. And putting that in the statute would help. 

Ms. JACOBS. Yes. 

Dr. KILLEEN. May I add to your question on the model—— 

Senator CANTWELL. Yes. 

Dr. KILLEEN.—state of readiness? The models of the 1970s could 

barely have a stable planet to do any climate analyses. By the 

1980s, you had the atmosphere and the oceans circulating and 

interacting. In the 1990s, you added things like carbon, et cetera. 

51 

The state-of-the-art model today has many of these interacting 

components but as a resolution element, there’s a grid point like 

every 50 kilometers. So what you’re looking for is not resolved in 

the current state-of-the-art models. 

The next generation state-of-the-art model opens that door. You 

suddenly are able to look at one to two kilometer resolution. You 

can resolve large estuaries. You can resolve specifics about regional 

issues and those models will be running on super computers and 

they will have the methane and the ice shelves and all the missing 

ingredients that we’ve been talking about in this hearing and they 

will also have a family of adjacent models that are called, ‘‘integrated assessment models,’’ that will be stakeholder-tuned to exactly do what you’re referring to. 

So we’re on this threshold of really being able to do the kinds of 

integrated assessments and then interact with statutes and policymakers in the next few years. 

Senator CANTWELL. And that information probably would be better than just saying it’s a 100-year flood, correct? I mean, it will 

be based on more science, more data, more information than just 

looking at one piece of the puzzle which is history on climate? 

Dr. KILLEEN. Yes, that information—we won’t just be redoing the 

tables of the 100-year floods but you’ll be getting probabilistic distributions of likely outcomes by parameter, by region, by economic 

sector, and this is going to be of incredible use to the way society 

is managed. 

Senator CANTWELL. I know my time is up, Mr. Chairman, but I’d 

like to submit a question to the panel about what research level we 

need on ocean acidification because that’s another model that we 

need right away. Our shellfish industry is having unbelievable 

problems on feeding this year just because of the climate change. 

They need information. They need an understanding of what’s happening, and I think people—the oceans are just at a much more 

rapid impact on the CO2 than I think people realize. 

I know the Chairman understands this issue. So I thank him for 

his patience and indulgence on it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. I’m going to make 

an effort here to have a second round and I want to pick on you 

three. 

Commissioner Dilweg, you talked about last century and what 

you had to do with wooden houses having fire engines every five 

blocks. That’s what the insurance industry said had to be done and 

it happened. So now you’ve got a new situation and so, in effect, 

I’m just drawn to ask you what kind of new kinds of insurance policies are you seeing or do you foresee being issued, promulgated or 

whatever to deal with our current situation? 

Mr. DILWEG. I think the issue that we run into as regulators is, 

as the companies are innovative in their products, are they pricing 

it correctly? Are they taking into account climate change and then 

are they charging too much or not charging enough? 

We don’t right now have the tools to kind of check the industry 

on that, but I think some of the industry innovations surrounding 

miles traveled in an automobile, getting a discount for miles traveled, getting a discount for a hybrid, giving incentives, you have 

companies that are giving incentives to have leads-built and greenVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:49 Apr 21, 2010 Jkt 052159 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52159.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
52 

built as you rebuild Galveston or Katrina, so those types of things 

are occurring and you’re getting consumers willing to pay a little 

bit more and so the area that I see most recently the interaction 

of the insurance industry in two areas drove how we viewed the 

Y2K problem. 

We started asking questions, and this is really the question, can 

the insurance industry drive the paper company or the coal plant 

to change, and in the Y2K situation it was the insurance industry 

and the SEC, for example, saying, all right, this is going to happen, 

what are you doing? Is your system going to shut down? Am I 

going to have to be paying business interruption insurance? 

You know, Y2K was a very specific example where they chimed 

in, and then you look at safety in automobiles that has been a longterm process of—I mean, when I was a kid in the 1970s you didn’t 

wear a seatbelt. I mean, you know, the windows went up on your 

head. You know, the automobile was a pretty scary place for a kid. 

Now, you’re locked in a five-point harness. You’ve got air bags. 

You’ve got everything running at you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I’ve got to cut you off and let the other two in. 

Dr. Jacobs, can you give me an example of how you take science 

and then make decisions from it? 

Ms. JACOBS. Well, that’s a great question. I’ll give you an example from my own research. 

I’ve been working on the Colorado River and helping the Bureau 

of Reclamation with the decisions they make to operate the dams 

on the river system and helping them to incorporate both current 

ocean temperature information that has predictive capacity and 

think about the future in terms of the very long term what does 

climate change mean to the operations of the Colorado River and 

to the stakeholders that are dependent on it. So that’s one example. 

But the Arizona Water Institute that I have been running for the 

last 3 years exists entirely to connect the university system to the 

people who make decisions. So it’s about mobilizing that information for people to use and so we focus on the stakeholders in the 

State of Arizona, answering water quality questions, salinity, energy and water, those kinds of issues. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Alix, we had this thing called 

Lieberman-Warner, last year. It was a big environmental amendment and it said that by the year 2050, carbon dioxide had to be 

down to 30 percent, and in you walk and start talking about 10 

percent and, I mean, this is stunning because I think if you went 

to 100 percent, it’s totally cost ineffective. That’s the question I’d 

like to ask you but don’t have time to ask you. 

If you could go to 10 percent or 8 percent or whatever it is and 

you suggested actually 9 percent, why aren’t others interested? 

Why are some of the largest energy companies that do this, why 

are they sort of taking off on their own track which is much less 

effective? 

Mr. ALIX. Well, I think, first, my comment was coal-fired power 

plant emissions could be reduced from about 36 percent to four to 

five. 

The CHAIRMAN. Four to five? 

Mr. ALIX. Four to five. 

53 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. That’s good, because that’s what Dr. 

Holdren said. 

Mr. ALIX. That’s great. I’m in good company then. Certainly 

transportation could be reduced, and then you look at homes and 

other uses and industries. 

Overall, you know, the overall goal, I do think, you know, 80 percent reduction that the President has recently proposed is achievable by 2050 from my view. Why others are not quick to grasp it, 

it’s difficult and it’s costly and there’s risk. 

These are very large capital investments, you know, for carbon capture and storage on a baseload power plant, $500 million or 

more. It’s going to increase the cost to ratepayers two-three-four 

cents a kilowatt hour which for industries that depend on low-cost 

electricity in West Virginia and other places is a very significant 

hit. 

The CHAIRMAN. The government could help pay. 

Mr. ALIX. I think if the government subsidizes early units, which 

is part of the bonus allowance structure in Lieberman-Warner and 

Dingell-Boucher, I think it’s a huge, huge reason for the coal industry to embrace it, and I think you’re seeing certain folks in U.S. 

CAP and other places saying, you know, if the trade-off is the government pays for some of these early installations to show the technology’s commercial and not disadvantage our low-cost plants, then 

we can get onboard. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let the world take note of you, and now I’m 

going to infuriate the Governor, former Governor of Virginia if I 

continue, so I have to stop and ask Senator Hutchison. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I just want to ask one question again of Dr. 

Killeen, if you know. 

I have seen hurricane-tracking since, basically 1900s, maybe 

even a little before, but with the levels attached to it. So we have 

seen really an ebb and flow. It hasn’t been just a continuation of 

a build-up through the years, but what I haven’t seen, and I wonder if you have any knowledge of this or if there is tracking, is 

what seems to me to be a relatively new phenomenon which is the 

surges. 

Katrina didn’t hit New Orleans. It was the surge that really did 

the damage to New Orleans and Ike, the surge was something we 

have never seen. How hard but also how far in the coast it came. 

I grew up in Galveston County, so I’m speaking anecdotally, but I 

can’t remember, after the sea wall was built, which is 12 or 13 feet, 

I don’t remember that it was ever breached, but it was as if you 

could go and jump in a swimming pool when I was down there 

right after Ike. It was right there. 

My question is do we have a record of that, and do you see a pattern there on the surge as opposed to the intensity of the wind? 

Dr. KILLEEN. This is a very active and, I would say, not controversial but dynamic scientific discussion on how hurricanes have 

changed over time, and there’s now literature on the relationship 

of the track, the intensity, and the storm surge consequences of 

hurricanes, and there’s a group of scientists who are publishing results that look—that suggest that intensities of hurricanes have increased, not numbers of hurricanes because they’re limited by the 

number of easterly waves that come off Africa. 

54 

So you have kind of a total number that we could never predict 

but the intensities of hurricanes and, of course, that relates directly 

to storm surge. So the pressure in the middle of the hurricane is 

what, when it hits landfall, is going to be the principal driving factor behind the storm surge. Also angles and things like that. But 

that’s an active area of inquiry. 

I would say where we have seen real progress is on hurricane 

track estimation. We’re getting better predictions of where hurricanes are going to go further upstream than before. We’re getting— 

we’re making some inroads on intensity, as well, although that’s a 

much tougher problem because you have to deal with wind shear 

in the atmosphere and other things, but if you fly aircraft in, you 

drop sounds, they’re actually improving, too. 

So we’re getting better, and I would say that there’s—the jury’s 

out on exactly the relationship of hurricane prevalence and climate 

change, although there’s a body of work that suggests that almost 

the intuitive thing is happening which means that you have more 

evaporation, you have greater energy in the system, and the hurricanes are going to be stronger. So there is evidence that has been 

published and there are people who argue against that, also. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I have seen the tracking be so much 

more accurate in the last few years. They have predicted exactly 

where these go and, of course, it helps in saving people’s lives, but 

then the surge was not expected to do the damage that it did and 

did not really give the notice in Katrina and really they were not 

prepared for it in Galveston either and along the Gulf Coast for 

Ike. 

As we are working toward the legislation that I’m hoping to introduce, I really want to make sure that I put everything in that 

we ought to be focusing on and I would look forward to having your 

help. 

Dr. KILLEEN. I would be delighted to. 

Senator HUTCHISON. All right. Well, thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman, for the second round. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll try to be a little 

more observant of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, don’t, because I’ve got a question after you. 

Senator WARNER. I think you raised a very valid point with Mr. 

Alix, which is if we’re on the cusp of an influction point, why don’t 

the traditional incumbent industries get it? And making one analogy from an industry I’m a little more familiar with and that was 

the wireless industry, the cell phone industry, you know, I was in 

that for a long time, co-founder of Nextel and I will always remember back in the mid-1980s, cell phones were just starting to develop, every bit of smart money, all of Wall Street and all of the 

telephone companies all had a common consensus. It would take 30 

to 35 years to build out a wireless network in America and at the 

end of that 30 to 35 years, 3 percent of Americans would have cell 

phones. 

Well, they totally got it wrong because we hit an influction point, 

I think around energy and with the push of climate change, if we 

do it right, we are close to hitting that influction point, and my 

question, probably directly to Mr. Dilweg, but again with the 3:48 

55 

I’ve got, anybody who wants to add on, is are there things, other 

than government incentives, and are there things, for example, 

that the insurance industry could do to accelerate this? 

For example, I believe that until very recently people have become concerned about climate change, the American consumer has 

been basically told two options, you know, turn out the lights or go 

buy a Prius, and not much in between, and in the last year or so, 

we’re starting to see movement with the development and perhaps 

more acceptance of EnergyStar and we’ve seen specific industries 

meet certifications. 

But I tend to believe that we’re still lacking across industry consumer branding Good Housekeeping seal of approval that might be 

EnergyStar on steroids so that consumers in all of their daily purchases have a trusted and more environmentally-sensitive climate 

change-sensitive purchase option versus a traditional which might 

again help us move in how consumers making better choices about 

how they get their power generation. 

I guess I’d just be interested in seeing any comments from any 

of the panel beyond simply what we can do with governmental incentives, what we can do to move consumer choices, and are there 

things the insurance industry can do to help? 

Mr. DILWEG. I think in the insurance industry, the main participants in this have been the reinsurers because when a primary insurer, you know, like a Liberty Mutual, blows through its limits, 

it’s the reinsurer that picks it up. It’s the reinsurers that are more 

adventuresome in Europe. They have to actually cover flood in Europe. Here, flood is covered by the Federal Government. So, you 

know, it’s that—that’s where I’ve seen the most, the embracing of 

climate change because they’re on the hook financially. 

As far as the kind of branding and getting into the products, 

that’s slowly evolving. The ties are there. The consumers are starting to drive it. Some companies are doing it just to get the consumer approval, but it’s not a cross industry type of thing at this 

point. 

Senator WARNER. Dr. Killeen? 

Dr. KILLEEN. Senator Warner, I’m not an expert on consumer 

preferences or anything like that, but I think part of the debate 

about climate science has been because the signal of humankindinduced changes has been masked to some extent by natural variability. That’s now changed. 

The signal for human-induced change has come out of the woodwork, if you like. Ten years from now, it’ll be really out of the 

woodwork and so that’s going to affect people’s perceptions in substantial ways. So my daughter’s generation and my daughter wants 

to occupy one of these seats, incidentally, but is already very passionate about it. The next one after that is going to be even more 

aware and so forth. So there will be the public attention is going 

to be really riveted by this story as it unfolds. 

Senator WARNER. Well, I agree with that, and I think that there 

has been, while well-intentioned things like EnergyStar and lead 

certification, but the thinking has not been broad enough, expansive enough, and in many ways our challenges would be easier if 

we could really engage the American consumers in this debate in 

a bigger way. 

56 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. And in a more creative way. We obviously have 

to be so much more aggressive in putting—— 

Senator WARNER. Aggressive and more creative. We need something to make this user-friendly. Again, my daughters are in the 

same circumstance. They may not want to sit here but they want 

to be part of the solution set and we don’t—every consumer choice 

this decision—this can be built in and there has not been a crossbrand, you know, really professionally-driven non-governmental approach to this and I think it’s a wonderful opportunity. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Warner. Two questions. 

First is, Dr. Killeen, my understanding is that we talked earlier 

about permafrost, Siberia, Alaska, other places, under permafrost, 

and I don’t know how much is there of it, is methane. Methane, 

I’m told, is about 30 to 35 times worse than carbon dioxide. 

So my question to you is, just give me an answer on it, please, 

if you take all the permafrost in this world, how much of it is 

underlain by methane? 

Dr. KILLEEN. If you took all the permafrost in the world, there 

would be so much methane that we would be an unrecognizable 

planet. There is huge quantities of methane in the deep permafrost. 

The CHAIRMAN. Huge. Is any escaping at this point? 

Dr. KILLEEN. There are measurements—I’m talking about the 

new surface permafrost. It’s important to—there’s a deep reservoir 

and there is new surface reservoir. 

The deep reservoir is huge. The new surface reservoir is more 

modest, but it’s clearly dynamically changing. There are—we can 

see in the ocean bubbles of methane coming out of methane hydrate formations in the Arctic Ocean, for example. We can see the 

decomposition of new surface permafrost in places like Alaska 

where, you know, buildings can slip because of the—so there’s evidence that’s some of the new surface permafrost is degrading and 

there are bore hole observations, as well, that show a change in the 

temperature distribution of the new surface permafrost in Alaska 

that have now systematically been done for 10–15 years and that 

show that the thermal balance is changing in that permafrost. 

But this is a joker in the pack of our understanding of climate 

change because the IPCC models didn’t have methane in there. The 

next round of models will have methane in them with some assumptions about sources in flux, et cetera, and—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. KILLEEN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Alix, I was talking with the Chairman of 

Cisco about you and your project and he said that when he plants 

a tree, what he likes to do is put out about six seeds, assuming 

that through the process of development, one will work and the 

others won’t. 

Now, I go right back to why aren’t more people latching on to 

what you’re doing. I mean, this is a closed community. Everybody 

knows everything about what everybody else is doing. But the variety of solutions is just staggering in their effectiveness. You’re talkVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:49 Apr 21, 2010 Jkt 052159 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52159.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
57 

ing 5 percent. That’s right dead center on nuclear, which is considered clean, and I don’t understand. 

I’ve already asked you the question, but I want you to talk more 

about it. Why aren’t people doing more of what you’re doing or are 

there other iterations of what you’re doing that people could be 

doing? Are you restricted or are others restricted because they’re 

not working in the territory that you’re working in? 

Mr. ALIX. Well, I think there is an overall constraint which I 

mentioned earlier which is purely financial, which is it’s a massive 

investment in capital and operating costs. As Mr. Warner mentioned, it’s a 15 to 25 percent reduction in electrical output. So this 

is a bill for an average plant of $20 to $50 million a year per power 

plant. 

The CHAIRMAN. We’re talking huge companies, Mr. Alix, huge 

companies. 

Mr. ALIX. Well, I think you’d have to ask those CEOs. My belief 

is they will not—there’s only one CEO I know in this United States 

that’s prepared with his shareholders and owners to spend money 

in advance of government incentives and a requirement and that’s 

Ron Harper in Basin Electric and I think they’re a shining example 

and the reason they’re doing it is because they get 96 percent of 

their electricity from coal and their average price to their consumers is around five cents a kilowatt hour and they’re worried 

under climate legislation that goes away. So he’s stepping out. He’s 

spending his members’ money, about $250–300 million, to prove 

this technology. 

I have not seen one other CEO in the United States who’s willing 

to make that investment without government backing. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. So then that’s their attitude. So you 

say fine, then we’ll tax carbon. 

Mr. ALIX. I think certainly if you put a limit on CO2 and you put 

a price on it, that’s the beginning of a lot of action and I would support such actions. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you think then the incentives become a little 

less necessary and the action becomes a little more active? 

Mr. ALIX. Yes. I think so. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. I like that. Thank you all extremely much. 

You’ve been a terrific panel. I have to say one official thing here: 

we’re going to keep the th record open for Committee members till 

March 20 of this year, Friday, for any additional questions or statements. I would like to thank each one of you. 

This is such a huge subject and what’s fascinating, and unfortunate in some ways, is that we have at least four committees who 

feel that they can do it and the question is, how we are going to 

meld this together. I think the answer is what’s happening in the 

world, even with gaps in knowledge, is going to drive us to do it 

and with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(59) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON TO

DR. TIM KILLEEN

Question 1. The National Research Council in 2003 recommended the establishment of a coordinated Federal program of weather modification research designed 

to reduce scientific uncertainties. The program should consist of a sustained research effort that uses a balanced approach of modeling, laboratory studies, and 

field measurements. Instead of focusing on near-term operational applications of 

weather modification, the NRC Stated the program should address fundamental research questions. Do you agree with the NRC’s recommendation? Do you believe the 

Federal Government has made any progress on this? 

Answer. The NRC report recommended fundamental studies in areas of cloud and 

precipitation processes, and cloud dynamics. The NSF agrees that these are important areas of research and efforts are supported on these topics including field research, laboratory studies, theoretical and numerical modeling studies. In NSF’s 

view focusing on the fundamental properties of precipitation production and cloud 

dynamics is the correct approach. Scientists have developed credible modification 

hypotheses for some, although not all, weather systems. Before we can fully test 

these hypotheses, we need to better understand the potential evolution paths that 

natural systems could follow to be able to identify when changes to the natural system have been effected. 

It should be noted that field research that directly involves cloud seeding of any 

sort engenders many legal and social issues. Therefore, while much of NSF supported research directly contributes to the knowledge based needed to advance the 

science of weather modification, actual field research involving seeding agents is not 

currently supported by NSF. NSF, however, does consider proposals that involve 

laboratory experiments or numerical simulations of seeding. 

The Federal Agencies have a long history of cooperation across the broad spectrum of climate and weather research and there has been progress in understanding 

precipitation processes, precipitation systems and severe weather. Recent examples 

of multi agency programs include the North American Monsoon Experiment (http:// 

www.eol.ucar.edu/projects/name/), The International Water Vapor Project (http:// 

www.eol.ucar.edu/dirloff/projects/2002/IHOP.html), and the Hurricane Rainband 

and Intensity Experiment (http://orca.rsmas.miami.edu/rainex/). 

Question 2. You identified several inadequacies in your written testimony concerning the U.S. science program’s modeling and observing capabilities. Does the 

Federal Government have a firm plan to address these inadequacies? Would the 

funding provided in the economic stimulus legislation be used to address these concerns? 

Answer. We will address the question about modeling first. The straightforward 

answer is that the Federal agencies, including several interagency groups dealing 

with climate models of different types, have recognized the importance of improving 

current modeling capabilities. Some problems stem from constrained computational 

resources; some from inadequate understanding of fundamental processes and/or the 

capability to couple the relevant components of the earth system into a single model. 

Global climate change models are one component, albeit a very substantial one, of 

a knowledge system of the global integrated Earth system that includes sustained 

high accuracy, well-calibrated global observations with high-spatial- and high-temporal-resolution and process experiments. 

There are many excellent global climate change models in the world, including 

three from the United States. The Community Climate System Model (CCSM), a cooperative effort between NSF and DOE is one. The others were developed at the 

NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). All three global climate change models were incorporated in the IPCC Climate Change 2007 Assessment Report. The NSF/DOE 

model, CCSM, is a ‘‘community model’’, developed collaboratively by the scientific 

60 

community and openly available as a research and development tool while the GISS 

and GFDL models are internally developed and available upon request. 

All global climate models have shown recent tremendous progress in their ability 

to reliably and accurately simulate large-scale features of Earth’s climate system in 

its rich complexity. Two examples are the accurate representation of El Nino cycles 

and the incorporation of the global carbon cycle. 

Current limitations on global climate models are spatial resolution, that is, the 

smallest scale phenomenon they can represent, and complexity, where processes are 

left out for lack of knowledge or for computational expediency. Global climate models are striving to achieve the same level of success at geographical scales equivalent to the size of Illinois as they do for large-scale phenomena like El Nino. An 

example of a resolution constraint is the fact that global models cannot presently 

resolve hurricanes in more than a schematic way. As for complexity, current models 

drastically simplify the behavior of many critical phenomena—ice shelf dynamics, 

land-surface interactions, role of mega-cities, ecosystem dynamics and evolution, social and economics processes. 

Addressing these issues requires a committed and coordinated effort across the 

agencies to: (1) develop a cadre of computational geoscientists, that is, people 

trained in computationally intense modeling as well as the sciences relevant to climate, (2) engage a broader community of interdisciplinary scientists who would use 

and critically evaluate regional climate model results, and (3) prioritize investments 

to ensure adequate infrastructure, including hardware and software system frameworks, software engineers, and the computational resources necessary to run comprehensive models at the resolutions that are relevant to society and to allow for 

multiple (ensemble) model runs in order to assess the uncertainty in model results. 

The importance of having an observational system capable of monitoring climate 

change as well as providing the detailed climate information required to test the 

ability of models to capture critical climate processes cannot be understated. The 

intergovernmental GEO activities serve as a worldwide framework to define the 

kind of international system of observing systems that are required. The complexity 

of the global integrated Earth system is vast and requires international coordination. NASA and NSF play somewhat unique roles relative to many operational agencies in that NASA and NSF are not responsible for climate monitoring per se; rather, NASA and NSF observing systems complement and supplement the operational 

observing systems. They are designed to unearth new insights into key physical 

and/or biological processes and can serve as test beds for state-of-the-art sensors or 

sensor network configurations. Further, all of the Federal agencies recognize the importance of ensuring access to data and the tools for exploiting such data Accelerating successful research-to-operations transitions of new measurement capabilities will help to improve understanding of global and regional climate change and 

to provide critically important information for adaptation to climate change. 

NSF cannot speak for other agencies regarding funding they received under the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. NSF’s Recovery funds will allow us to 

support a number of important climate modeling and observational activities this 

year. Given the high priority that NSF accords such modeling and observational activities, we are committed to ensuring sustained support of these and other new capabilities into the future. 

Question 3. You mentioned in your written testimony that, ‘‘The relationship between the Earth’s ability to function as a set of interconnected ecosystems and the 

biodiversity within and among those interacting systems is an area of incomplete 

knowledge and critical importance.’’ Given that, do you feel we are in a position to 

begin to finalize adaptation plans in response to the impacts of climate change? 

Answer. Adaptation planning requires that managers and policy-makers account 

for the potential and likely outcomes of climate change. In the adaptive management framework, implementation cannot be considered ‘‘final.’’ Decisions will need 

to be made based upon best available data and with knowledge of uncertainty about 

future climate change. Adaptation plans will need to be periodically evaluated and 

adjusted in light of new scientific findings and changing conditions. NSF sees opportunities to begin developing smart adaptation strategies through efforts that will 

combine natural science and social science. The process of developing and evaluating 

adaptation (and mitigation) strategies must be evolutionary, and strategies modified 

as new insights are gained. Ecosystem services and biodiversity are two areas where 

great scientific questions remain. 

Given the significant uncertainties in how the natural, biological systems interact 

with the physical system, one major set of questions concerns how the living world 

adapts to and transforms Earth’s climate. Current models of biotic change in response to climate change indicate that a large fraction of Earth’s biota will need to 

genetically adapt, migrate, or suffer extinction. Estimates of the fraction of species 

61 

so affected vary. For example, Thomas et al. (Nature, 2004) used severak different 

climate change scenarios to estimate a range of 15–37 percent of species committed 

to extinction. One recent study suggested that 50 percent or more of lowland tropical species could decline in abundance or go extinct due to climate change (Colwell 

et al., Science, 2008). We know enough to expect large changes but we do not yet 

know enough to provide managers with specific guidance about alternative management scenarios. 

At the same time, a large fraction of Earth’s biodiversity is still undescribed. Perhaps 10 percent of species on Earth are named (May and Beverton, Philosophical 

Transactions: Biological Sciences, 1990). Classical approaches to biodiversity discovery are too slow to make rapid progress given the impending climate-related biotic responses. Major developments in genomic technology put within reach the possibility of determining the unknown dimensions of biodiversity within a decade. 

Next generation climate models necessary to evaluate critical adaptation strategies will need better information about biological mechanisms involved in carbon, 

water and nutrient cycles and need to more tightly integrate across biophysical and 

social science disciplines. We can anticipate these next generation models will be important tools to policymakers just as current generation models have played such 

a large role in the IPCC. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

DR. TIM KILLEEN

Question 1. NSF is considering as part of its Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) an ocean observing system part of which is a regional 

cabled observatory with immense power and bandwidth. This is a unique capability 

with which to observe biological, fishery changes as well as water movements. As 

climate change shows up in the fisheries altering patterns of fish migration, how 

does NSF intend to ensure that the Ocean Observing Initiative is making good 

measurements of migrating species? What are their plans to ensure the network is 

of significant scale to monitor these changes on the west coast in conjunction with 

Canada which has already installed a smaller cabled network? 

Answer. The mission of fisheries resource management belongs to NOAA, but 

many of the data and research results supported by NSF are useful to NOAA scientists in carrying out that mission. In the case of NSF’s planned Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI), sensors are included that measure the state of, and changes 

in, the ocean’s general conditions and health (for example, temperature, pH, light 

penetration, dissolved oxygen content, turbidity, nutrient levels) as well as sensors 

that examine the base of the food web (for example, chlorophyll-derived productivity 

estimates of phytoplankton). These measurements provide the foundation for understanding impacts on migrating fisheries species. For NSF, using data from the OOI 

and its Canadian counterpart to understand the larval, juvenile and adult lifecycles 

of fishery species, and other marine animals is a high priority for scientists posing 

fundamental research questions. This information will inform our knowledge of the 

dynamics of fish populations and the behavior (e.g., migration) of target species in 

the NE Pacific and the Mid-Atlantic regions, as researchers propose to use the infrastructure of OOI for deploying advanced technology to observe population and behavioral studies of targeted species. 

Question 2. How is NSF working with NOAA to ensure that the regional cabled 

observatory and the coastal moorings off the Washington and Oregon coast can provide information that is useful for storm forecasting, and how is NSF working with 

USGS to ensure that the regional cabled observatory off Washington and Oregon 

are providing seismic information useful for earthquake, tsunami and hazard modeling? 

Answer. NOAA chairs (and NSF serves as Vice-Chair) an Interagency Working 

Group on Ocean Observations, which meets monthly to ensure informed planning 

of ocean observing assets across the agencies. More specifically, program staff from 

NSF and the IOOS Program Office at NOAA are working together to develop data 

management systems for the two systems that converge and will provide universal, 

free, and streamlined data access to all observing data (including surface waves, 

mean currents and turbulent velocities, water column pressure). Within the Geosciences Directorate, the Divisions of Earth Science and Ocean Sciences are working 

together to combine resources from EarthScope, OOI and core programs for studies 

of tectonic and seismic processes off the Pacific Northwest. Long-standing partnerships between the Division of Earth Sciences and the USGS on research and monitoring of global seismic activity will enhance this research. 

62 

Question 3. Ocean acidification is a major concern to me, and I’ve worked with 

Senator Lautenberg to pass legislation to make sure our government conducts research on this important topic. I’m concerned, though, how often major climate reports, assessments and programs ignore or omit the topic of ocean acidification. If 

we create a Federal Climate Service, should that service also be responsible for 

ocean acidification? Shouldn’t ocean acidification be given more attention in the climate conversation and forums like the International Panel on Climate Change and 

the major climate change study being conducted by the National Research Council? 

Answer. The research community is concerned that increasing ocean acidification 

will have a significant impact on ocean ecosystems and food webs, natural ocean 

carbon sequestration and broader ocean chemistry; based on science done within the 

last several years. In fact, beginning in 2007, NSF established dedicated new budget 

lines for ocean acidification research. 

A number of activities are ensuring that ocean acidification will be appropriately 

recognized in other arenas. The Ocean Studies Board has commenced a study on 

the ‘‘Development of an Integrated Science Strategy for Ocean Acidification Monitoring, Research and Impacts Assessment,’’ supported by NOAA, along with NSF 

and other agencies. The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, signed by 

President Obama on March 30, includes legislation on ocean acidification (FORAM). 

The legislation includes authorization levels for research at NSF and other agencies, 

and also for a coordinated inter-agency approach to coordinating research across the 

agencies, integrating research with adaptation and mitigation strategies, and providing information for policymakers. 

Question 4. Particularly in the field of renewable energy, new companies are 

emerging that want to provide climate data services for the private sector. For example, a company in my home state of Washington called 3TIER has set out to provide climate and weather data for wind, solar, and hydropower energy providers. In 

your opinion, where should the line be drawn between the climate services the Federal Government should provide and the services the private sector should be providing? As we move forward with more sophisticated government climate services 

in the future, what steps should we take to make sure we area not unnecessarily 

expanding into areas that are most appropriate for the private sector? 

Answer. There is a long standing and successful public—private partnership for 

weather and climate services. I expect that to continue and serve as a model for 

the future roles of the private and public sectors. The challenge lies in the new emphasis on climate rather than weather products and the fact that climate can no 

longer be treated as stationary. Robust predictions will depend on the results of intense modeling efforts and operational observations, the effort and expense of which 

will most likely continue to be borne by government agencies. 

Within the Nation there is significant demand for information about climate, but 

a lack of appreciation about the uncertainties in today’s climate projections that will 

serve as the basis for developing region-specific products. The public—private enterprise will be in ‘‘new territory’’ in the next decade as we learn to deal with a changing climate, but the basic public-private relationship is unlikely to change much. 

The government recognizes that it can provide information that is more immediately 

useful to users (including the private sector) as well as new decision support tools, 

but it will be the private sector that can best meet specific needs for the majority 

of end-users. 

Traditionally, the private sector has played an important role in providing both 

weather and climate services to the Nation. The private sector is well positioned to 

provide value-added climate products tailored to meet the specific needs of a range 

of customers. The need for ‘‘tailored’’ information comes about because the many different users of climate information have distinct and varying needs depending on 

the sector, the activities involved, the size of the operation, the time-frame for which 

information is relevant to the enterprise, etc. The private sector can serve as the 

‘‘translator’’ of climate information—assessing users’ needs and developing valueadded products that meet those needs—and updating those products as new understanding about the climate system emerges. 

The public sector has traditionally maintained the observing systems and related 

data bases as well as supported the development of the sophisticated, complex, and 

computationally demanding, weather and climate models that serve as the basis for 

weather and climate information. For the most part, these are operational and certainly resource-intensive activities. Further, the government has provided the support for long-term research and observational system investments that will ultimately lead to improved understanding of climate and provide for the basis for new 

and better products, products that are still many years from being commercially viable. 

63 

Question 5. While climate mitigation is essential, I think there needs to be a much 

more serious discussion on our Nation’s plan to adapt to climate change. In your 

opinion, what are some of the most common and likely mistakes our communities 

and government will make in the coming years if we don’t have the climate information and adaptation measures needed to avoid poor long-term decisionmaking? 

Aren’t climate adaptation measures necessary to avoid making poor decisions on 

long-term infrastructure—poor decisions that can be both costly and dangerous? 

Without climate adaptation, don’t we risk building a legacy of poor infrastructure 

decisions? 

Answer. The best way to answer your question might be to point out that climate 

adaptation will be a process rather than a one-time fix. The actual state of the climate will be a moving target that will be the result of the policy choices that are 

made regarding mitigation and the resulting levels of greenhouse gas concentrations 

in the atmosphere over the coming decades. In that sense, adaptation choices are 

not truly independent of our mitigation choices. Depending on greenhouse gas concentrations, the temperature and precipitation patterns likely will change gradually 

with time, with occasional periods of more rapid change being possible. At this 

point, we are fairly confident about the broad outlines of how climate will change, 

but we don’t know the details. There much we need to learn. Various sectors will 

need to respond at quite different timescales, so for example, planning for water resources infrastructure generally is longer than for some decisions that will be made 

in the agricultural and forestry sectors. 

The most likely mistake that could be made by both communities and the government would be to adopt a ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach to climate adaptation. As noted 

above, there are a wide range of needs. Ideally, adaptation choices will have been 

made based on a regional, not just local, basis. Further, the strategies that are 

adopted must consider that the knowledge of climate is imperfect and so a range 

of climate scenarios should be considered. An equally likely and costly mistake 

might be to assume that that there will be no unintended consequences from our 

adaptation actions. Given these considerations, it is imperative that we continue to 

develop both a better understanding of climate processes and a set of tools that can 

comprehensively assess the likelihood of the outcomes for our adaptation (and mitigation) choices. Developing the kind of high resolution, complex climate prediction 

models and decision support tools that would allow us to assess the choices adequately is within the realm of possibility, but not yet in our grasp. That capability 

will require investment in further research. 

With regard to major infrastructure planning, there are many factors that must 

be taken into account. Human success is in part due to our ability to adapt to 

changing circumstances, and as we plan for long-term infrastructure investments, 

making sure our infrastructure is designed not only for today but the future is critical. Infrastructure choices are, in fact, part of adaptation, but the decisions should 

always be informed by the best science possible. As noted in my testimony, we are 

at a point where that science must include both the natural and social sciences. In 

addition, NSF supports research in the science of decision-making under conditions 

of uncertainty. Decision-makers normally must make choices with either imperfect 

or inadequate knowledge. This scientific research area seeks to identify ways to reduce risk in decisionmaking and improve potential outcomes. We see this as a key 

decision support tool. Certainly anything that can be done to better inform infrastructure decisions—both having better estimates of the likely evolution of the climate (and other factors) as well as procedures for reducing risks—will reduce the 

possibility of making poor choices. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARIA CANTWELL TO

KATHARINE JACOBS

Question 1. Particularly in the field of renewable energy, new companies are 

emerging that want to provide climate data services for the private sector. For example, a company in my home state of Washington called 3TIER has set out to provide climate and weather data for wind, solar, and hydro power energy providers. 

In your opinion, where should the line be drawn between the climate services the 

Federal Government should provide and the services that the private sector should 

be providing? As we move forward with more sophisticated government climate 

services in the future, what steps should we take to make sure that we are not unnecessarily expanding into areas that are most appropriate for the private sector? 

Answer. I am familiar with 3TIER, two of my colleagues are in that group, and 

they are very talented. In my opinion, the Federal Government should provide climate information for a broad range of audiences. If particular industries want inforVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:49 Apr 21, 2010 Jkt 052159 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\52159.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
64 

mation that is more tailored to their location or their specific decision processes, 

that is an appropriate place for the private sector to step in. There are many reasons why the government should engage in providing climate services. One is to provide equitable access to information. If all of these services were only available if 

paid for, then those who may need it most, the economically disadvantaged, may 

have the least access to it. A second reason is that provision of climate information 

is directly related to health and welfare. If this information is only available 

through the private sector, then the profit motive controls information that could 

be of critical importance to saving lives and property. In addition, much of the climate observing system was paid for with taxpayer dollars. They have a right to 

some sort of return from that investment. 

I believe that we can use considerations such as equity, national security, health 

and welfare, and return on investment as guidance in determining whether the Federal Government should engage in providing services. 

Question 2. While climate mitigation is essential, I think there needs to be a much 

more serious discussion on our Nation’s plan to adapt to climate change. In your 

opinion, what are some of the most common and likely mistakes our communities 

and government will make in the coming years if we don’t have the climate information and adaptation measures needed to avoid poor long-term decisionmaking? 

Aren’t climate adaptation measures necessary to avoid making poor decisions on 

long-term infrastructure—poor decisions that can be both costly and dangerous? 

Without climate adaptation, don’t we risk building a legacy of poor infrastructure 

decisions? 

Answer. There is much more information needed for good adaptation decisions, 

particularly in designing infrastructure that will be robust in the context of more 

extreme events, both flood and drought. In the short term, it is the capacity to deal 

with extreme events that is lacking, especially in light of the very poor condition 

of all infrastructure in this country—water and wastewater infrastructure, transportation, etc. I would anticipate the greatest danger in the short term comes from poor 

management of floodplains and from coastal storm surges. Climate adaptation does 

require that we re-examine the engineering standards that are used in designing 

infrastructure. Especially in light of the stimulus package, it is important that these 

standards be revised quickly to avoid maladaptive investments. We do risk building 

a legacy of poor infrastructure that may last 50 years or more if we do not take 

changing climate conditions into account. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK WARNER TO

FRANK ALIX

Question 1. Carbon sequestration holds promise and we are gaining certainty, 

through demonstration projects like yours, about how to control the risks involved 

with the process. Can you briefly tell us the genesis of your ECO2 capture process 

and how it will lessen risks when transferring from smaller projects to a commercial 

scale capture and sequestration plant? 

Answer. Our ECO2 capture process was initially developed in conjunction with 

U.S. DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), which had performed 

some of the pioneering research on CO2 capture with ammonia. We jointly developed 

ECO2 with NETL under a cooperative research and development agreement 

(CRADA). 

In order to reduce risks associated with commercial-scale CCS projects, we designed our ECO2 pilot test facility using the same type of equipment we plan to use 

in larger, commercial-scale systems. This eliminates most of the risk associated with 

building commercial scale systems, as all of the equipment needed for these systems 

has been demonstrated on our pilot unit and is already commercially proven at scale 

(the innovation in ECO2 is in its process chemistry). 

Question 2. Many power companies use coal to generate electricity because it is 

less expensive than natural gas. How will the additional cost of carbon sequestration impact the economics of coal as a competitor to natural gas? 

Answer. CCS would add significant costs to coal-fired electricity generation, on 

the order of 3 to 4 cents per kWh. This would make coal-fired generation less competitive with gas. However, assuming the price of CO2 emission allowances rises to 

$30–40 per ton, there would also be a cost impact on gas-fired generation as it emits 

about half as much CO2 as a coal plant (therefore the equivalent cost impact on gasfired generation would be 1.5 to 2 cents per kWh). In this scenario, based on projected future prices for coal and natural gas, coal would remain the low cost electricity source when compared to gas. 

65 

Question 2a. What types of coal have been used in your carbon sequestration process? How do various coal types impact the economics of your process? 

Answer. Our carbon capture process has been tested on a blend of bituminous and 

subituminous coals. However, we do not expect the type of coal to have any impact 

on our CO2 capture performance. ECO2 should perform equally as well for all coal 

types. The two factors that will affect CO2 capture costs are plant efficiency (higher 

efficiency yields less CO2 per kWh, means reduced costs) and new versus retrofit 

(retrofit costs will be higher than new plants). 

Question 3. How clean and energy efficient is your ECO2 process? Would you describe how your process affects the amount and sanitation of the water used, and 

how much energy is saved or spent overall using your technology? 

Answer. Our CO2 capture process does not consume water except as needed for 

cooling, and processes exist which can provide the necessary cooling without water 

use (i.e., air coolers). If cooling water is used, its quality should remain unaffected 

as cooling water would be contained in a closed system and not come in contact with 

process gas or liquids. 

Our ECO2 process is expected to require 15–20 percent of the net power output 

from a new, supercritical coal-fired power plant to capture and compress 90 percent 

of its CO2. For retrofit of an existing coal-fired power plant, the energy cost is expected to be 20–25 percent. 

Æ