U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

34–855 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

THE SHIFTING GEOPOLITICS OF OIL AND GAS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 26, 2018 

Serial No. 115–145 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 95 

WITNESSES

Daniel Yergin, Ph.D., Vice Chairman, IHS Markit .............................................. 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 97 

Dennis V. Arriola, Chief Strategy Officer, Executive Vice President of External Affairs and South America, Sempra Energy ............................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Kevin Kennedy, Ph.D., Deputy Director, U.S. Climate Initiative, World Resources Institute ................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 99 

Harold Hamm, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Continental Resoures . 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

(1) 

THE SHIFTING GEOPOLITICS OF OIL AND 

GAS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:39 p.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Upton, Olson, Barton, Shimkus, Latta, Harper, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, 

Bucshon, Flores, Mullin, Hudson, Walberg, Duncan, Walden (ex 

officio), McNerney, Peters, Green, Welch, Tonko, Kennedy, 

Butterfield, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Mike Bloomquist, Staff Director; Samantha Bopp, 

Staff Assistant; Karen Christian, General Counsel; Kelly Collins, 

Legislative Clerk, Energy/Environment; Wyatt Ellertson, Professional Staff Member, Energy/Environment; Margaret Tucker 

Fogarty, Staff Assistant; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and 

Coalitions; Theresa Gambo, Human Resources and Office Administrator; Jordan Haverly, Policy Coordinator, Environment; Bijan 

Koohmaraie, Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; 

Mary Martin, Chief Counsel, Energy/Environment; Sarah Matthews, Press Secretary; Drew McDowell, Executive Assistant; 

Brandon Mooney, Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Mark Ratner, 

Policy Coordinator; Annelise Rickert, Counsel, Energy; Peter Spencer, Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy; Austin Stonebraker, 

Press Assistant; Madeline Vey, Policy Coordinator, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor, 

External Affairs; Caitlin Haberman, Minority Professional Staff 

Member; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, 

Energy and Environment; John Marshall, Minority Policy Coordinator; Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Tuley Wright, 

Minority Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; and Catherine 

Zander, Minority Environment Fellow. 

Mr. UPTON. Good afternoon. Sorry we are a little delayed in 

starting, but we had three votes on the House floor, and they are 

just finishing up. And so we will get started. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

So, good afternoon, and, certainly, welcome to this Energy Subcommittee hearing on ‘‘The Shifting Geopolitics of Oil and Gas.‘‘ 

2 

So this hearing is especially timely because here in DC, right 

now, energy ministers and CEOs from around the world are gathering for the 27th World Gas Conference to examine important opportunities in energy trends happening across the globe. And while 

it’s an international conference for sure, the U.S.’s role as a world 

leader in energy is sure to be the focus. 

So, before we arrived at this current era of energy abundance, 

some of you may remember that as little as a decade ago America’s 

energy landscape was in a lot different state than it is today. 

In 2005, American domestic oil and gas production was declining 

and the country reached a point of peak reliance on foreign sources 

of energy, and at that time we were importing eight times more energy than we were exporting and we were becoming increasingly 

dependent on OPEC nations for our energy needs. 

It was right around that time that this important technological 

breakthrough pioneered by American companies—namely, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing—dramatically altered our 

energy outlook. 

These technological breakthroughs led to a surge in domestic oil 

and gas production, decreasing U.S. reliance on energy imports. 

As for today, and we will see that this trend has not slowed 

down—in fact, energy—EIA projects that by 2022, the U.S. will become a net energy exporter for the first time in over half a century. 

It should be noted that America’s emergence as a major energy 

supplier to the world is thanks, in part, to Congress’ lifting the 40- 

year-old crude oil export ban in 2015, and I would note, that was 

bipartisan. President Obama signed it into law. 

Removing the ban has enabled our companies to take advantage 

of global energy markets and has resulted in more American jobs 

for sure, a stronger economy for sure, lower emissions, indeed, and 

it’s helping to reduce our trade deficit. 

The national security and energy security benefits provided by 

the shale energy revolution cannot be overstated. Every day, we 

are less dependent on foreign nations and cartels, such as OPEC, 

to meet our domestic energy needs. 

Instead, we are now employing American workers and American 

technologies to harness our own standard and abundant domestic 

resources in a way that is growing the economy, protecting the environment, and improving our energy security. 

So today we are holding this hearing to take a closer look at how 

the U.S.’s growing role as a global energy leader is benefitting consumers and enhancing the Nation’s standing on the geopolitical 

world stage. 

To provide insight on these topics, we have a great panel of four 

witnesses with extensive experience working in and around the 

U.S. oil and gas industry. 

As part of today’s panel we have Dr. Daniel Yergin, a Pulitzer 

Prize-winning author and a world-renowned energy expert who 

many of us say literally wrote the book. 

Dr. Yergin is joined by Harold Hamm, the CEO of Continental 

Resources, which is a highly successful oil exploration and production company that he himself founded, and he had an instrumental 

role in making sure that we lifted that crude oil ban. 

3 

We also have Dennis Arriola, the chief strategy officer for 

Sempra, a Fortune 500 energy services company that serves 40 

million customers—consumers around the world. 

And rounding up the lineup, we have got Dr. Kevin Kennedy, a 

deputy director at the World Resources Institute, a global research 

organization that spans more than 50 countries and focuses on the 

nexus of environment economic opportunity and human wellbeing. 

So I want to thank all of you for joining us, for twiddling your 

thumbs for 30 minutes while we cast some mighty important votes 

on the House floor, and I now yield to the acting ranking member 

of the subcommittee, Mr. McNerney, our friend from California, 

taking Bobby Rush’s place this afternoon, who’s getting married. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Good afternoon, and welcome to this Energy Subcommittee hearing on the shifting 

geopolitics of oil and gas. This hearing is especially timely, because here in Washington DC, energy ministers and CEOs are gathering for the 27th World Gas Conference to examine important opportunities and energy trends happening across the 

world. While it’s an international conference, the United States’ growing role as a 

world leader in energy is sure to be in focus. 

Before we arrived to this current era of energy abundance, some of you may remember that as little as a decade ago, America’s energy landscape was in a much 

different state than it is today. In 2005, American domestic oil and gas production 

was declining and the country reached a point of peak reliance on foreign sources 

of energy. At that time, we were importing eight times more energy than we were 

exporting and we were becoming increasingly dependent on OPEC nations for our 

energy needs. 

It was right around this time that important technological breakthroughs pioneered by American companies, namely horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, 

dramatically altered our energy outlook. These technological breakthroughs led to 

a surge in domestic oil and gas production, decreasing U.S. reliance on energy imports. 

Fast forward to today, and we see that this trend has not slowed down. In fact, 

the Energy Information Administration projects that by 2022 the United States will 

become a net energy exporter for the first time in over half a century. 

It should be noted that America’s emergence as a major energy supplier to the 

world is thanks, in part, to Congress lifting the 40-year-old crude oil export ban in 

2015. Removing this ban has enabled our companies to take advantage of global energy markets and has resulted in more American jobs, a stronger economy, lower 

emissions, and is helping to reduce our trade deficit. 

The national security and energy security benefits provided by the shale energy 

revolution cannot be overstated. Every day we are less dependent on foreign nations 

and cartels, such as OPEC, to meet our domestic energy needs. Instead, we are now 

employing American workers and American technologies to harness our own abundant domestic resources in a way that is growing the economy, protecting the environment, and improving our energy security. 

Today, we are holding this hearing to take a closer look at how the United States 

growing role as a global energy leader is benefiting consumers and enhancing the 

Nation’s standing on the geopolitical world stage. To provide insight on these topics, 

we have a panel of four witnesses with extensive experience working in and around 

the U.S. oil and gas industry. As part of today’s panel we have Dr. Daniel Yergin, 

a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and a world-renowned energy expert. Dr. Yergin, 

is joined by Mr. Harold Hamm, the CEO of Continental Resources, which is a highly 

successful oil exploration and production company that he himself founded. We also 

have Mr. Dennis Arriola, the chief strategy officer for Sempra Energy, a Fortune 

500 energy services company that serves 40 million consumers around the world. 

And rounding out the lineup, we have Dr. Kevin Kennedy, a deputy director at the 

World Resources Institute, a global research organization that spans more than 50 

countries and focuses on the nexus of environment, economic opportunity, and 

human wellbeing.I’d like to thank each of these witnesses for joining us and I look 

forward to their thoughts on what the future holds for the U.S. energy sector. 

4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Getting married Saturday. 

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding to me. I want to 

thank the panelists, and I think you’re all interesting and I am 

looking forward to hearing what you have to say, and I hope we 

get a very diverse set of opinions about the issues here. 

It’s important to have this conversation with industry leaders 

and with policy leaders and with people that understand the business. 

We have world gas conference nearby and this is topical, but the 

topic that’s listed here—the shifting geopolitics of oil and gas—is 

a little too narrow. 

We should be including other topics like renewables, storage, and 

other resources that are impacting our energy markets. LNG and 

crude oil exports have changed in the last decade. 

When I first got elected in 2007, we were worried about our dependence on foreign oil. That’s changed. That’s possibly a good 

thing. But we continue to need a very diverse—we continue to need 

a very diverse energy mix. It won’t help us, I don’t think, to depend—become overly dependent on oil and/or gas. 

We need political compromise to get there. If one side or the 

other dominates, I think we are going to go down a path that’s 

unsustainable. So we need political compromise on this and all the 

other issues including tax reform. 

Renewables—you know, the interesting things is that the energy 

market is really shifting to electricity now. We have electric vehicles growing, especially in California but in other States as well. 

So we are going to see more and more and dependence on electricity as a product. It’s not necessarily a resource a but as a product. So we need to be—we need to have policies that’s going to support that shift. 

We have energy storage, another thing that’s going to be very important in terms of shifting where we get our energy from. 

Concerning the Paris agreement, the United States was a leader 

in this agreement. We are still in the—we are still in terms of cities and States declaring that they are going to continue to abide 

by the terms of the Paris Climate Accord. I think that’s very inspiring to me. 

And I want to say to the witnesses, Dr. Yergin, your scholarship 

has advanced the field of energy. I really appreciate what you’ve 

been able to accomplish in terms of providing the history. 

And one of the things that strikes me about your scholarship is 

that we see a cyclical market. The oil market goes in very big cycles about every 10 or 15 years, and right now we are on a low energy cost part of that cycle. 

But I think that’s probably going to change in a another 5 years, 

based on history—nothing more. 

Mr. Kennedy, World Resources Institute climate initiative is a 

the gold standard for providing advice. So thank you for coming 

today. 

5 

Mr. Arriola, Sempra holds utilities in my home State and has a 

diverse generation of energy assets here and abroad. I hope it stays 

that way. 

And Mr. Hamm, you have been a leader, and I appreciate what 

horizontal drilling has done to the energy markets in this country. 

We need to keep an eye on that to make sure that it doesn’t cause 

problems in our States. 

We know that there is problems with earthquakes. We know that 

there is potential problems with groundwater contamination and so 

on. So it’s important to keep an eye on that. 

At any rate, I am going to yield if any Democrats want to take 

a minute or two, and with that I yield back to the Chair. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes the 

chair of the full committee, Mr. Walden, for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. To our panelists, welcome. Thank you for being here today and sharing with 

us on these issues that are so important. We have an excellent 

lineup of witnesses, Mr. Chairman, and we are going to learn a lot. 

This is, of course, a big week in Washington, DC. It is when 

America hosts the World Gas Conference. They call it the Olympics 

of natural gas, and indeed, it is. 

It brings together hundreds—actually, thousands of participants 

in energy ministers and CEOs from global energy companies to discuss strategic, commercial, and technical issues facing this really 

important American industry. 

It’s been 30 years. Ronald Reagan was president the last time 

America hosted this and the energy picture was quite different 

then than it is today. 

So it’s kind of interesting to reflect back on those times. But 

today, the United States is the world’s number-one producer of petroleum and natural gas. Our markets are more open, transparent, 

and competitive than they’ve ever been. 

Prices for consumers are low and stable. There are always ups 

and downs. But we have cut our imports by about 75 percent since 

they peaked in 2005, and if this trend continues we will be net energy exporters in just a few short years. 

We got there by repealing the Jimmy Carter era supply and price 

controls to encourage a free market for energy commodities. 

We have taken steps to improve our regulatory policies—we 

know we have a lot more to do there—and reform our outdated tax 

code to encourage domestic production. 

Piece by piece, we have removed restrictions on energy trade to 

allow American energy to compete in the global marketplace, and 

Mr. Hamm’s done a lot in that effort globally. 

Most recently, as Members on this committee will remember, we 

repealed the 40-year-old ban on crude oil. Now, just 2 years later, 

we are exporting more than 11⁄2 million barrels per day of crude 

oil to countries around the world. 

This is big. The shale revolution, now 10 years in the making, 

has had an enormously positive impact on the economy. It’s created 

hundreds of thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in investment that 

6 

wouldn’t have happened were it not for our energy abundance in 

the United States. 

The jobs and investments are widespread. They are across all 

sectors of the economy in all 50 States. It’s also had a big impact 

on our power sector and with the shift to abundant and cheap natural gas we have seen a huge reduction in our carbon emissions— 

enormous. 

In fact, the U.S. is leading the world in reducing carbon emissions, and by a large margin. Since peaking in 2005, our carbon 

emissions have declined steadily and this trend looks likely to continue. 

This just goes to how you don’t always a need a Government 

mandate to get it done if you believe in the free market system and 

innovation that comes from it. 

We can do a lot of cleanup of the environment and create great 

American jobs and develop American energy. So we are seeing 

these benefits today, and as we emerge as the world-leading LNG 

exporter, our trading partners will share in this good fortune. 

The outlook for American energy is bright, with plentiful reserves, a highly skilled workforce, pro-growth regulations. 

Our energy production will continue to grow and, with this 

growth, America will see even greater economic, geopolitical, and 

environmental benefits along with additional opportunities to help 

our American allies abroad who are in need of reliable and affordable supplies of energy, not held hostage for their energy by less 

than friendly countries. 

I’d like to thank the witnesses again for participating today and 

we appreciate you sharing your experiences, your knowledge, and 

your ideas with us about how we can continue to grow American 

jobs, develop American energy, and enjoy the economic and environmental benefits that come from that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Good afternoon, and welcome to today’s hearing on the shifting geopolitics of oil 

and gas. We have an excellent lineup of witnesses and a lot to discuss. 

This is a big week in Washington, DC, as we host the World Gas Conference, 

which convenes every 3 years in a different city across the globe. The conference 

brings together hundreds of participants—energy ministers and CEOs from global 

energy companies—to discuss strategic, commercial, and technical issues facing the 

industry. It’s been 30 years since the conference was held in the United States, and 

we’re honored to host it again this year. 

It’s interesting to reflect on the last 30 years, and especially the last decade, to 

truly appreciate how our energy security situation has improved. By almost every 

measure, we’re more energy secure today than ever before. 

Today, the United States is the world’s number one producer of petroleum and 

natural gas. Our markets are more open, transparent, and competitive than ever 

before. Prices for consumers are low and stable. We’ve cut our imports by about 75 

percent since they peaked in 2005, and if this trend continues, we’ll be net energy 

exporters in just a few short years. 

We got here by repealing the Carter-era supply and price controls to encourage 

a free market for energy commodities. We’ve taken steps to improve our regulatory 

policies and reform our outdated tax code to encourage domestic production. And 

piece-by-piece, we’ve removed restrictions on energy trade to allow American energy 

to compete in the global marketplace. Most recently, as Members on this committee 

will remember, we repealed the 40-year ban on crude oil exports. Now, just 2 years 

later, we’re exporting more than one-and-a-half million barrels per day of crude oil 

to countries around the world. 

7 

The shale revolution, now 10 years in the making, has had an enormously positive 

impact on our economy. It’s created hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of 

dollars in investments that wouldn’t have happened were it not for our energy abundance. The jobs and investments are widespread throughout all sectors of the economy and across all 50 States. 

It’s also had a big impact on our power sector, and with the shift to abundant 

and cheap natural gas, we’ve seen a huge reduction in our carbon emissions. 

In fact, the U.S. is leading the world in reducing carbon emissions by a large margin. Since peaking in 2005, our carbon emissions have declined steadily and this 

trend looks likely to continue. This just goes to show that we don’t need Government 

mandates to reduce emissions. We can get much better results when we allow the 

private sector to innovate, develop new technologies, and improve efficiency. 

We’re seeing these benefits today—and as we emerge as a world leading LNG exporter, our trading partners will share in this good fortune. 

The outlook for American energy is bright. With plentiful reserves, a highly 

skilled workforce, and pro-growth regulations, our energy production will continue 

to grow. And with this growth, America will see even greater economic, geopolitical, 

and environmental benefits, along with additional opportunities to help our American allies abroad who are in need of reliable and affordable supplies of energy. 

I’d like to thank the witnesses for appearing before us today to share their experiences and provide suggestions on ways to lock-in future production growth, jobs, and 

economic benefits for years to come. 

Thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. WALDEN. With that, I’ve got a minute and a half left. If anybody on our side wants to use that, I’d be happy to yield. 

Mr. Barton, former chairman of the committee, the vice chair of 

the full committee, I would yield such time as you may use. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, basically, just want to 

welcome the panel. I know three of you personally and the fourth 

one I am sure I’d love to know personally if I did. 

So our committee, in the time I’ve been on it, starting back when 

John Dingell was chairman, has led the Congress in energy legislation, and we have gone from where in the ’70s and early ’80s we 

were trying to restrict the use of things like natural gas and put 

price controls on various things and our natural resources because 

we thought that we were entering an era of scarcity to the point 

where we are now in an—I won’t say an era of surplus, but in an 

era where we are on the verge of being the dominant energy producer in the world and, you know, I think that’s a good thing, and 

you gentlemen have helped lead that effort. 

Of course, Mr. Yergin, he’s probably the premier—I won’t say 

statistician or historian, but he’s certainly one of the leading experts in the world. So we are glad to have you especially, sir. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my 2 seconds. 

Mr. WALDEN. I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. Time is expired. The Chair would recognize the 

ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone from New Jersey, for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After nearly 2 years of 

Republican control of all branches of Government, my Republican 

colleagues have little to show for their efforts, and the little they 

have accomplished is benefitting the wealthy to the detriment of 

the middle class and the vulnerable. 

8 

Just think about it—skyrocketing health care premiums and 

growing numbers of the uninsured, a widely unpopular Trump tax 

scam, trillions of dollars in new and mounting debt, and now a devastating Trump-inflicted policy that stripped thousands of children 

from their parents. 

So faced with the failure of their policies, Republicans have started to retreat to their safe spaces, including proposing draconian 

cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as part of their 

new budget and now, of course, today’s old favorite—cheerleading 

for fossil fuels. 

The latest version of this tired old story has Republicans going 

so far as to trying to legislatively blackmail States like New Jersey 

that have stood up to the administration’s oil-above-all agenda, by 

imposing sizeable fees on any State that refuses to rubber stamp 

President Trump’s offshore drilling expansion policy. 

Early this year, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy listened to 

our coastal communities and blocked offshore oil and gas drilling 

in State waters. 

The Jersey shore where I live is a priceless national treasure 

that is an engine for our tourism industry that generates $38 billion a year and one of the largest recreational fishing industries in 

the Nation. 

That’s all threatened by offshore drilling, which will destroy our 

coastal economy. We simply don’t need to risk the health and vitality of our coastal communities for the sake of putting more fossil 

fuels into our energy mix. 

We have seen this show before. First, rising gasoline costs or 

something else moves us toward reducing our dependence on fossil 

fuels. Then, in response, fossil fuel industry executives come to 

Congress to tell us that the only solution to our problems is to 

ramp up drilling and decrease restrictions on their industry in 

order to increase supply. 

That’s happening today, as reckless Republican policies have led 

to a significant jump in the price of gasoline since March. In fact, 

the price of gas has gone up nearly 25 percent since President 

Trump took office. 

You’d think that would lead to an effort to support cleaner less 

gas-guzzling vehicles. But that logic is lost on President Trump and 

his ethically challenged EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, who have 

gone completely in the opposite direction. 

They have moved aggressively against clean cars and a diverse 

21st century energy policy. Instead, President Trump has worked 

tirelessly to put in place a 1950s approach to energy that only an 

oil company could love and can best be summed up by the words 

dig, drill anytime, anywhere, even if it’s in our coastal recreational 

waters. 

Now, President Trump also made a foolish decision by announcing his intention to withdraw from the Paris Climate agreement. 

That was an agreement we spent years negotiating with the global 

community and was signed by, roughly, 200 countries. 

By abandoning our friend and allies, we have ceded our leadership on climate action and clean technology development and deployment to China, and others. 

9 

We were the global leader, but now we don’t even have a seat 

at the table. What does that mean? That puts America last and is, 

tragically, shortsighted. 

Republican ‘‘oil-above-all’’ policies have always centered on one 

thing—putting the profits of oil tycoons and fossil industry donors 

first, and the current rerun of this cliche ́d show should have been 

canceled long ago. But, obviously, it isn’t. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

After nearly 2 years of Republican control of all branches of Government, my Republican colleagues have little to show for their efforts. And the little they have accomplished is benefiting the wealthy to the detriment of the middle class and the 

vulnerable. Just think about it: skyrocketing health care premiums and growing 

numbers of the uninsured, a wildly unpopular Trump Tax Scam, trillions of dollars 

in new and mounting debt, and now a devastating Trump inflicted policy that 

stripped thousands of children from their parents. 

So, faced with the failure of their policies, Republicans have started to retreat to 

their ‘‘safe spaces,’’ including proposing draconian cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and 

Social Security as part of their new budget and, of course, today’s old favorite: 

cheerleading for fossil fuels. 

The latest version of this tired old story has Republicans going so far as trying 

to legislatively blackmail States that have stood up to the administration’s oilabove-all agenda by imposing sizable fees on any State that refuses to rubber stamp 

President Trump’s offshore drilling expansion plan. Earlier this year New Jersey 

Governor Phil Murphy listened to our coastal communities and blocked offshore oil 

and gas drilling in State waters. The Jersey Shore is a priceless national treasure 

that is an engine for a tourism industry that generates $38 billion a year, and one 

of the largest recreational fishing industries in the Nation. 

That’s all threatened by offshore drilling. We simply don’t need to risk the health 

and vitality of our coastal communities for the sake of putting more fossil fuels into 

our energy mix. 

We have seen this show before. First, rising gasoline costs or something else 

moves us toward reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Then, in response, fossil 

fuel industry executives come to Congress to tell us that the only solution to our 

problems is to ramp up drilling and decrease restrictions on their industry in order 

to increase supply. 

That’s happening today as reckless Republican policies have led to a significant 

jump in the price of gasoline since March. In fact, the price of gasoline has gone 

up nearly 25 percent since President Trump took office. You would think that would 

lead to an effort to support cleaner, less gas guzzling vehicles. But, that logic is lost 

on President Trump and his ethically challenged EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, 

who have gone completely in the opposite direction. They have moved aggressively 

against clean cars and a diverse 21st century energy policy. Instead, President 

Trump has worked tirelessly to put in place a 1950s approach to energy that only 

an oil company could love, and can best be summed up by the words ‘‘dig, drill, anytime, anywhere’’ even if it’s in our coastal recreational waters. President Trump also 

made a foolish decision by announcing his intention to withdraw the United States 

from the Paris Climate Agreement. This was an agreement we spent years negotiating with the global community, and was signed by roughly 200 countries. By 

abandoning our friends and allies, we have ceded our leadership on climate action 

and clean technology development and deployment to China and others. We were 

the global leader, but now we don’t even have a seat at the table. That puts America 

Last, and is tragically shortsighted. 

Republican Oil-Above-All policies have always centered on one thing: putting the 

profits of oil tycoons and fossil industry donors first. The current re-run of this 

cliche ́d show should have been canceled long ago. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PALLONE. I don’t know if anyone else would like my time. If 

not, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. UPTON. I’d like to say the gentleman’s time has expired, but 

I’ll be polite. 

10 

[Laughter.] 

The gentleman yields back. 

So we are ready for the testimony. I appreciate all of you sending 

up your testimony in advance. I was able to read it last night. 

It will be made part of the record in its entirety, and you’ll each 

have 5 minutes to summarize that testimony and expound how you 

might, and we will do questions. 

And Dr. Yergin, you’re first up. 

Thank you. You got to hit that button to make sure that you’re 

on. 

STATEMENTS OF DANIEL YERGIN, PH.D., VICE CHAIRMAN, IHS 

MARKIT; DENNIS V. ARRIOLA, CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER, 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND 

SOUTH AMERICA, SEMPRA ENERGY; KEVIN KENNEDY, PH.D., 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. CLIMATE INITIATIVE, WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE; AND HAROLD HAMM, CHAIRMAN AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CONTINENTAL RESOURCES 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL YERGIN 

Dr. YERGIN. Mr. Chairman, Acting Ranking Member, members of 

the subcommittee, it’s really an honor to be here and to have the 

chance to talk about this just dramatic change that’s happened in 

the United States and what it means for our economy, for geopolitics, and the position of the United States in the world. 

As the chairman pointed out and Mr. Walden pointed out, the 

World Gas Conference is here. It’s 12,000 people from around the 

world who have come to Washington. 

I have just come over from it. The theme of this conferences is 

fueling the future and now it’s a very different future because of 

the shale revolution in the United States, and that has been one 

of the major themes. 

This is, as was noted, the 10th anniversary, at least as we see 

it at IHS Markit, of what we have called the shale gale, which 

was—really changed the United States and the energy picture to 

have profound consequences, although I think the scale of the consequences would have been foreseen. 

What’s changed since 2008? Well, back in 2008, we were going 

to be the largest importer of LNG in the world. Now we are on the 

road to be one of the largest exporters and, indeed, as noted, the 

largest producer of natural gas in the world. 

As many of you know, for four decades energy independence was 

the cry but we always were going in the other direction. The question only seemed to be how high would our imports go. 

But now in a decade, we have gone from importing on a net basis 

60 percent of our oil to 16 percent. Huge change. 

Everyone knows that trade is a very big issue, so it’s noteworthy 

to observe that over this decade the change in the U.S. oil position, 

along with changes in prices, has reduced the Nation’s annual 

trade deficit by $300 billion. 

U.S. oil production has more than doubled in the decade, and 

here’s something striking. Next year, or maybe later this year, the 

United States will become the world’s largest oil producer, ahead 

of Saudi Arabia and Russia. 

11 

It’s been a major stimulus to the U.S. economy, not just in the 

oil and gas sector, but because across the entire economy because 

of long supply chains, and I would say in many States that—where 

shale is not permitted there are jobs that have been created, we 

calculated 50,000 jobs in the State of New York because of the 

shale revolution. 

Industries that were supposed to flee the United States because 

of high energy costs are now here in the United States, spending 

tens of billions of dollars. 

Also, this is having major geopolitical impacts that are constructive for the United States. I can see it as I travel around the world 

how there is a whole new degree of influence that the United 

States has because of this revolution. 

The turnaround in gas is just striking. The 8-year period of 

2000–2007, total U.S. gas production grew by 1 percent. Over the 

subsequent 10-year period it’s grown by 40 percent, and we believe 

that it will grow by another 60 percent over the next 20 years. 

So where would we be without this? Without the shale revolution, the United States would be importing large volumes of oil and 

gas. Our trade balance would be dramatically different. 

Millions of jobs would not exist and the United States would be 

less competitive. The domestic U.S. power markets and the overall 

economy would look significantly different without the shale revolution. 

Similarly, the outlook would be different in terms of the global 

economy and international relations both for countries that produce 

oil and gas and for countries that import them. 

I just came from a meeting of APEC countries and the role of the 

U.S. in terms of LNG is something that is now very important to 

those Asian countries. 

Certainly, without the shale gale we would be in a different position internationally. This has brought a new element of influence 

and independence for the United States. It was so evident this 

morning, and U.S. LNG exports are becoming a significant and 

positive factor in relations with many countries and a key issue in 

discussions about trade. 

So this new outlook for oil and natural gas has created new possibilities for making progress towards national goals of energy efficiency, cost efficiency, environmental protection, global competitiveness, and energy security. 

It is also contributing jobs and revenues to the economy at the 

national, State, and local levels. In short, the shale gale has put 

a powerful new wind at America’s back. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Yergin follows:] 

12 


"The Shifting Geopolitics of Oil and Gas" 

Hearings 

Subcommittee on Energy 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

115'h Congress 

Testimony on the Impact of U.S. Shale Revolution 

Submitted by 

Dr. Daniel Yergin 

Vice Chairman IHS Markit 

June 26,2018 
13 


Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Subcommittee, 

Thank you for the invitation to address this Subcommittee. It is an honor to come before you to 

discuss the dramatic changes in the energy position of the United States resulting from the 

unconventional revolution in oil and natural gas, and the impact these changes are having on the 

U.S. economy, geopolitics, and the position of the United States in the world. 

This hearing is timely, of course, because it occurs during the World Gas Conference, an event 

that happens only once in three years, that moves around the world, but that is being held 

appropriately enough this year just a few blocks from here in Washington D.C. This year's 

location highlights the world class impact of changes in natural gas in the United States and the 

new position of leadership that these changes are providing for the United States. The theme of 

the conference this year is "Fueling the Future", and now it is a very different future because of 

the shale revolution in the United States. 

What also makes these hearings particularly timely is that this is the tenth anniversary of what 

IHS Markit called, some years ago, the "Shale Gale". It was in the period, a decade ago, around 

2008 that it became apparent that something significant was changing in the U.S. energy picture 

and that it would have prof(Jtmd consequences - although the scale of the consequences could 

not be foreseen. 1 

Major Changes 

What has changed since 2008? In terms of natural gas, a county that was thought to be on the 

road to being the largest importer of natural gas is now on the road to being one of the major 

exporters of natural gas and indeed is the largest producer of natural gas in the world. 

As for oil, political leaders had for four decades invoked "energy independence" as a national 

goal, meaning reducing oil imports. But that did not match the reality. The question only seemed 

to be how much higher would oil imports go as a share of total oil consumption. But, in a 

decade, we have gone from importing 60% of our oil down to just 16 %, on a net basis. We all 

recognize that there is major focus on the trade balance at this time. Thus is it noteworthy to 

observe that over the decade, the change in the U.S. oil position (along with changes in price) has 

reduced the nation's annual trade deficit by over $300 billion.2 U.S. oil production has more 

1 This paper draws on the new IHS Markit report, The Shale Gale Turns 10: A Powerful Wind at America's Back -

What's Ahead for the Next Decade?", by Samuel Andrus and Daniel Yergin 

'Monthly Energy Review, May 2018, Table 1.5 

2 
14 


than doubled in a decade, and in the next year the United States will likely become the world's 

largest oil producer, ahead of Saudi Arabia and Russia. 

The shale revolution has been a major stimulus to the U.S. economy - not just in the oil and gas 

sector but across the entire economy because of the long supply chains. Industries that were 

expected to flee the United States because of high cost energy are now spending tens of billions 

to build new plants in the United States because of the availability and moderate cost of energy. 

Consumers have benefitted from the same availability and moderate costs, including in terms of 

electricity. 

This revolution is having major geopolitical impacts that are constructive for the United States. 

It has introduced new positive dimensions in U.S. relations with many countries and provided the 

United States with new kind ofintlucnce. 

Yet it was not obvious that such a revolution would ever take place. The development of the 

technology took decades and in some ways began with professional studies in the early 1980s. It 

was not until the period 1998-2003 that combining two technologies - horizontal drilling and 

hydraulic fracturing enabled unlocking on an economic basis of resources heretofore thought 

permanently trapped in geological formations. While some, including one of your other 

witnesses today, were pursuing these technologies, it was considered rather fringe, something 

limited to some "independents". In the mid 2000s, literally dozens of projects were being 

developed to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) on the premise that the United States was 

entering an era of permanent shortage of gas. At the same time, there was great fear that the 

United States was dangerously vulnerable because of ever-higher oil imports. 

But the signs that this revolution in production might have wider impact emerged in 2008 when 

it was noticed that U.S. natural gas production was going up, not down. A few years later, it 

became clear that U.S. oil production was increasing, not declining- the result of the application 

of these same technologies. 

40% Growth in Natural Gas Output 

The turnaround in natural gas production has been striking. For the eight-year period of2000-07, 

total US natural gas production grew less than 1%. However, over the subsequent 1 0-year period 

of 2007-17, output grew by 40%, while prices went down. And the pace of growth is 

accelerating. For 2018, we expect natural gas production to be up 7 billion cubic feet per day 

(Bcf/d) relative to 2017. Altogether, we anticipate that US production could grow by another 

60% over the next 20 years. 

The Potential Gas Committee has estimated that US recoverable resources have increased by 

70%, from 2,074 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 2008 to 3,141 Tcf in 2016, and those numbers will 

likely increase as hydraulic fracturing technology improves and more associated gas gets added 

to the ledger. Our current view, as of 2018, is that there is approximately 1,250 Tcf of resource 

that is economic below $4/MMBtu. In recognition of the change, as early as 2012, President 

Barack Obama stated: "We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly !00 years." 

He added: "The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that 

3 
15 


are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don't have to choose between our environment and our 

economy."3 

With broad recognition of resource availability, supplies grew, and prices declined. What had 

been expected to become an increasingly scarce and expensive resource was now abundant and 

inexpensive. Between 2007 and 2017, US natural gas production grew from 5!.7 Bcf/d to 72.6 

Bcf/d. Gas's share of total US energy consumption rose from 22% in 2006 to 29% in 2017. 

Impact on Electric Power 

The impact of the Shale Gale on the domestic electric power industry has been particularly 

dramatic. 

Prior to 1990, coal and nuclear dominated the growth in share of US electric power generation 

capacity and energy. Coal was inexpensive and regarded as a secure domestic energy source. The 

start-up of nuclear power plants was the result of investment decisions largely made in the 1970s. 

Owing to the natural gas shortages of the late 1970s, the use of natural gas was banned in new 

electric generation. That ban was lifted in 1987. But coal still dispatched ahead of natural gas and 

limited gas' share of domestic electric generation. 

The shale gas revolution has transformed power generation economics in the United States, 

resulting in a rebalancing in fuel choice for electric generation. In 2007, coal provided 52% of 

US generation and natural gas provided 17%, and more than 10 gigawatts of coal generation was 

under construction. In 2016, natural gas overtook coal for the first time and supplied 33% of total 

electric generation while coal supplied 31%. A rivalry has developed between coal and natural 

gas, with the competitive advantage moving back and forth depending on relative prices. It is 

clear that gas has become, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, a backbone of 

electric generation in the United States. 

The shift from coal to natural gas has, because of falling natural gas prices and confidence in 

long-term gas supply, along with the addition of rencwables, contributed to the reduction in US 

carbon dioxide (C02) emissions from power generation. We estimate that in 2017, C02 

emissions from power generation were down 30% from 2005. More than half of that emission 

decline was from gas replacing coal. 

Geographic Shift- the Marcellus, Utica and Permian 

Prior to 2007, US natural gas production was predominantly from the Southwest and the Gulf of 

Mexico. Canadian imports accounted for about 16% of US consumption. Since producers first 

learned how to frack the shale source rock, there has been a continuous evolution in terms of new 

and prolific discoveries. 

3 State ofthe Union Address, January 24, 2012, 

4 
16 


Appalachia's vast economic resource base comprises the massive and prolific Marcellus and 

Utica plays, each of which is now estimated to be able to supply the United States with two 

decades of natural gas. The Marcellus extends from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio into 

Maryland and New York State, although shale gas development is prohibited in the last two 

states. Much of the Utica lies beneath the Marcellus. Production from these plays, currently at 

24 Bcf/d, is expected to grow to almost 50 Bcf/d by 2050-rivaling the entire US production 

level prior to the Shale Gale. But this monumental growth will require more infrastructure to 

move gas production from supply basins to consuming markets within North America and to 

LNG terminals for export. 

And now there is another new player, the Permian Basin in West Texas, which is the 

predominant source of growing shale oil and "associated gas" (gas that is produced with oil). 

This growing Texas oil production has helped boost the contribution of total associated gas to 

almost 30% of total US production. More than 8 Bcf/d of new pipeline capacity has been 

proposed to move this growing supply of Permian gas to market. However, the first 2 Bcf/d of 

expansion is not expected online until late 2019. It is likely that a significant portion of that gas 

will go to new industrial facilities on the Gulf Coast and to exports (of LNG and by pipeline to 

Mexico). The pace of growth in the Permian Basin, much like the Marcellus before it, is 

outstripping the pace of infrastructure expansion. 

An unprecedented amount of incremental pipeline capacity (exceeding 30 Bcf/d) has been 

developed or proposed to connect supply from Appalachia and West Texas to growth markets 

throughout North America. The timely development of that infrastructure will be very important 

to capturing the full value of this new resource base. This wealth of economic resource has led to 

the price of natural gas falling below $3/MMBtu. One major consequence is that gas at lower 

prices has turned around the prospects for energy-intensive manufacturing in the United Statesand the jobs that go with it. 

Making U.S. Manufacturing Competitive 

For years, energy-intensive manufacturing had been leaving the United States owing to high 

energy costs. But, as the reality of abundant and inexpensive natural gas came to be accepted, the 

direction of investment changed. The advantages in terms of thermal energy, feedstock, and 

electricity costs have driven a surge of new investment in US petrochemical and other industrial 

facilities. IHS Markit estimates that, from 20 I 0 through 2020, more than $120 billion in new 

capital investments will be spent to expand petrochemical manufacturing capacity. Ancillary 

expenditures around the plant projects could easily double the total capital investment. 

The economic benefits have not been limited to capital investments. Lower prices for raw 

materials and energy have increased industrial production. The United States has become 

competitive in energy-intensive products. It has been estimated that, by 2025, as many as four 

million jobs-direct, indirect, and induced--could be supported by unconventional activity. 4 

4 See the IHS Markit study America's New Energy Future: The Unconventional Oil and Gas Revolution and the U.S. 

Economy, Vol.3: A Manufacturing Renaissance, 2014. 

5 
17 


The Big Flip: from Imports to Exports of Natural Gas 

As already noted, the informed assumption prior to 2007-8 was that the United States was going 

to be a major importer of LNG, perhaps the world's largest. On that basis, construction had 

already begun on facilities for importing LNG, regasifying it, and distributing it to US 

consumers. 

But then, as the Shale Gale's intensity grew, it became obvious that higher-cost imported LNG 

would have no market in the United States. Not only were LNG imports not required, but US 

pipeline imports of natural gas from Canada declined from a peak of about 16% of domestic 

supply in 2005 to about 7% currently. Moreover, and contrary to what had seemed settled 

wisdom, it became clear that the growing volumes of gas were exceeding domestic demand and 

that the United States could sell natural gas into international markets while still easily meeting 

its own growing demand. 

By the beginning of 2018, the United States was exporting 4.4 Bcf/d (worth about $5 billion per 

year) via new pipelines to Mexico-about 6% of domestic production but close to half of 

Mexican natural gas needs. For Mexico, this was the most immediate and tangible benefit of its 

own domestic energy reforms, because imported gas from the United States used in electric 

generation helped to bring down the cost of electricity for Mexican consumers, manufacturers, 

and voters. 

In addition to Mexico, there is the growing global market. The dramatic expansion in US natural 

gas production has meant a 180-degree turn, enabling the United States to become an LNG 

exporter, rather than an LNG importer. Plants that were oiginally envisioned as LNG receiving 

terminals have been reconfigured as LNG liquefaction export terminals, at the cost of tens of 

billions of dollars. New greenfield projects have also been initiated. Some energy-intensive 

manufacturing companies expressed concerns about exporting LNG, fearing that this could 

crimp supplies for their own multibillion-dollar investment commitments. However, the 

continued growth in natural gas production allayed those fears. 

One small export terminal in Alaska had, since 1969, exported limited volumes of LNG. But the 

first new major US LNG export terminal dispatched its first cargo in February 2016. Since then, 

up to 3 Bcf/d of US LNG has been delivered to a total of 26 countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, 

Malta, China, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lithuania, 

Mexico, Portugal, South Korea, Spain, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland, Taiwan, Thailand, the 

United Arab Emirates, Britain, Turkey, and Colombia. 

We expect that, over the next five years, the current 3.1 Bcf/d of LNG export capacity will grow 

by another 6.9 Bcf/d. Investment in these plants will total an estimated $56 billion. Instead of 

being a gas-short LNG importer, the United States is now on track to rank among the world's 

major LNG exporters. By 2025, the global LNG market is anticipated to be more than 400 

million metric tons per year, with the top suppliers-Qatar, Australia, and the United Statesexporting 60% of total supply. 

6 
18 


Oil-- U.S. to Become World's Largest Crude Oil Producer 

The Shale Gale may have begun with natural gas, but the shale revolution would be extended to 

oil, with enormous global impact. In the first several years of shale gas development, there had 

been skepticism about the applicability of the technology to oil. But around 2008-2009, that 

applicability came to be understood. Around 2012, U.S. oil production began to demonstrate the 

same kind of surge that had characterized natural gas. Between 2008 and 2018, US crude oil 

output more than doubled going from 5 million barrels a day to almost I I million barrels per 

day. Output has exceeded the previous high set in 1970. It is set to continue rising, and 

sometime over the next year will reach a level that makes the United States the world's largest 

crude oil producer, ahead of Saudi Arabia and Russia. On a net basis, the United States went 

from importing 60% of its liquid fuel at the peak to below 16% in March 2018, which is a level 

last seen in the late 1950s. 

The rise in Texas is particularly striking. In 2008, Texas had produced approximately I million 

barrels per day. By 2018, it is producing close to 4 million barrels per day. The Permian basin in 

Texas and New Mexico is now one of the world's great centers for oil production. In the past 24 

months, production from just this one region has grown far more than any other entire country in 

the world. Permian output in 2008 was 900,000 barrels per day. Last year it was 2.5 million 

barrels per day. IHS Markit projects that it will more than double, reaching 5.4 million barrels 

per day by 2023 -meaning that this one region in the United States will be producing more oil 

than every country in OPEC, except for Saudi Arabia.5 

One other notable consequence of this growth: Owing to the mismatch between the typical 

quality of shale oil and America's existing refining capacity, the United States has become a 

significant exporter of oil (both crude oil and refined products), as well as an importer. 

Overall Economic Benefits 

The overall economic impacts of shale gas and shale oil have been very large. In February 2014, 

shortly after leaving the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke said of the shale 

revolution, "It's clearly been one of the most beneficial-if not the most beneficialdevelopments'' since the 2008 financial crisis and the onset of the Great Recession and "it's 

helping our economy in a number ofways."6 

In 2014, IHS Markit estimated that the full unconventional value chain (from upstream energy 

through energy-related chemicals) associated with unconventional oil and natural gas 

development had supported more than two million jobs (direct, indirect, and induced), had 

generated over $75 billion in federal and state tax revenues, and had contributed more than $283 

billion to US GOP, representing an increase in real GOP for 2012-14 in the range of2-3%. Per 

average household, disposable income was raised by more than $!,000. Notably, the supply 

chains extended across the country, stimulating manufacturing (notably in the Midwest) and 

' See IHS Markit Report, The Permian: $308 Billion, 41,000 wells, and Other Key Ingredients in the IHS Markit 

Outlook to 2023. 

'Comments by Hon. Ben Bernanke at CERA Week Conference, 2014. 

7 
19 


service and technological industries across the United States. The development of the Marcellus 

play provided major economic stimulus in Pennsylvania, including such support industries as 

real estate, lodging, food, vehicle sales, construction, and local commerce. The Shale Gale was 

even creating jobs in New York State, despite that state's ban on shale gas development. At the 

peak, shale was responsible for about 15% of all the capital investment in the fixed equipment 

and structures sector for the United States. 

The oil price collapse that began in late 2014 led to a dramatic cut in investment. However, 

prices have rebounded. US capital investment is once again increasing, and producers have 

increased well productivity and reduced costs. Indeed, the only place in the world where E&P 

investment is significantly rising is in the United States. Such expenditures are stagnant in the 

rest of the world. 

Wide-ranging Impacts 

Without the shale revolution, the United States would be importing large volumes of oil and gas, 

our trade balance would be dramatically different, millions of jobs would not exist, and the 

United States would be less competitive. The domestic US power markets and overall economy 

would look significantly different without the shale revolution. Similarly, the outlook would be 

different in terms of the global economy and international relations-both for countries that 

produce oil and natural gas and for countries that import them. 

Certainly, without the Shale Gale, the United States would be in a very different position 

internationally. The Shale Gale and its consequent impact on oil have brought new clements of 

influence and independence for the United States. US LNG exports are becoming a significant 

and positive factor in the relations with many countries and a key element in discussions about 

trade. 

The new outlook for oil and natural gas has created new possibilities for making progress toward 

national goals of energy efficiency, cost efficiency, environmental protection, global 

competitiveness, and energy security. It is also contributing jobs and revenues to the economy at 

the national, state, and local levels. In short, the Shale Gale has put a powerful new wind at 

America's back. 

8 
20 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Mr. Arriola. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS ARRIOLA 

Mr. ARRIOLA. Mr. Chairman—Chairman Upton, Acting Ranking 

Member McNerney, and members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for this opportunity to testify regarding U.S. natural gas policy and 

how it affects our business. 

My name is Dennis Arriola and I am the chief strategy officer for 

Sempra Energy and I also have responsibility for our external affairs in our South American operations. 

Sempra, as you mentioned, is a Fortune 500 services company 

based in San Diego, California, and we have approximately 20,000 

employees that serve more than 40,000 consumers around the 

world and we are the largest utility holding company with the largest U.S. customer base. 

And our utilities include Southern California Gas Company, 

which is the largest natural gas distribution company in the United 

States, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Encore Electric Delivery 

Company in Texas. 

And our energy infrastructure companies include our investments in Mexico that help import U.S. natural gas and petroleum 

products to that country and we have also have our Sempra LNG 

and Midstream business. 

And as Dr. Yergin mentioned, the timing of this hearing couldn’t 

be better as the World Gas Conference is here in our Nation’s Capital, and with the global triennial next stopping in the Republic of 

Korea and China, the conference this week in DC is the last time 

that the U.S. is going to have the opportunity to really help shape 

the discussion as the host country for years to come. 

And I can tell you that the world truly is watching what’s going 

on in Washington this week. The outlook for domestic and international natural gas markets has never been better because of two 

key developments, and one which Dr. Yergin mentioned—the shale 

energy boom—but also the opportunity to export U.S. liquefied natural gas, or LNG. 

And if we invest wisely and follow smart pro-market policies, 

there’s little doubt that the U.S. will derive increased economic 

benefits, job growth, and even greater energy independence, and 

natural gas now serves as the leading fuel source for the industrial, 

commercial, and residential sectors of the U.S. economy. 

And this increased consumption is providing for significant job 

growth, boosting the economy, and lowering air emissions, and natural gas is also ensuring greater energy security and prosperity 

globally as well. 

Now, we own two and operate two LNG facilities and we are in 

the process of permitting a third. Our Cameron LNG is in Louisiana—is under construction. We currently have 10,000 workers 

on site and when it’s completed and starts operating in 2019, the 

facility is going to create approximately 130 well-paying jobs in an 

area that really will benefit from them. 

We are also pursuing our FERC permit for an LNG export facility located near Port Arthur, Texas, and again, this is going to be 

employing over 3,100 construction and engineering jobs and, on avVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:03 Feb 14, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\115THCONGRESS\115X145GEOPOLITICS\115X145GEOPOLITICSWORKING WAYNE
21 

erage over the 4- to 5-year period of build out it’s going to create 

more than 200 permanent well-paying jobs. 

Both of these projects together could help reduce our overall 

trade deficit by, roughly, $16 billion annually, and these and other 

export facilities are going to promote new pipelines and maintain 

natural gas production for many States that are represented here 

on the subcommittee, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, 

Texas, and Louisiana, and it’s also going to help continue the current cost advantage that benefits U.S. consumers. 

Now, we have the potential to strengthen alliances with developed and developing countries by providing a safe and reliable resource to those countries. 

But we’ve got to be able to build the infrastructure in this country to do that, and the U.S. gas exports can also help our European 

and Asian allies reduce their energy dependence on Russia. 

And if we are to benefit from this opportunity, we’ve got to take 

advantage of it and the time is now, and one of the things that we 

were looking for from this subcommittee is to, along with the administration, figure out how we can expedite in a smart manner 

the permitting processes that are required here in this country to 

have that infrastructure, to help export good clean natural gas 

from the United States. 

These delays jeopardize commercial agreements with our international trading partners and you can be sure that the other major 

LNG-exporting countries are doing everything possible to enhance 

their competitive position, and bureaucratic delays are not one of 

the challenges they have. 

So I think we need to work together as a country to take advantage of this window of opportunity to make sure that when you 

enter into these contracts these are 20- to 30-year contracts. 

If we, as an American business community, can’t get in on time 

with these countries, we are going to get shut out and we are not 

just shut out for a year—we are shut out for decades, and that 

means that the jobs that can be helping certain parts of our country, the economic progress won’t come about. 

And so what we need is to ensure that FERC maintains its typical permit review schedule of no more than 18 to 24 months so 

that we can get this going. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Arriola follows:] 

22 


Opening Remarks 

Dennis V. Arriola 

Chief Strategy Officer 

Executive Vice President of External Affairs & South America 

Sempra Energy 

Committee on Energy & Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy 

June 26, 2018 

Hearing on The Shifting Geopolitics of Oil & Gas 

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you 

for this opportunity to testify regarding U.S. natural gas policy and how it affects our business. 

My name is Dennis Arriola, and I am Chief Strategy Officer and Executive Vice President of 

External Affairs and South America for Sempra Energy. In my testimony, I offer Sempra's 

perspective on the benefits of natural gas to the domestic economy as well as the opportunities 

for U.S. liquified natural gas-- or LNG-- to capture global export markets. I also offer our 

perspective on some of the challenges we face and suggestions on how U.S. policymakers might 

be able to help address those challenges. 

Sempra Energy is a Fortune 500 energy services holding company based in San Diego, 

with revenues of more than $11 billion in 2017. The Sempra Energy companies' approximately 

20,000 employees serve more than 40 million consumers worldwide and we are the utility 

holding company with the largest U.S. customer base. Sempra Energy operates electric and 

natural gas distribution utilities and also develops energy infrastructure. 
23 


Our utilities include Southern California Gas Company (SoCaiGas), the largest natural gas 

distribution company in the U.S., San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) in Southern California, 

Oncor Electric Delivery Company (Oncor) in Texas and two electric utilities in South America. 

Our energy infrastructure businesses include our investments in Mexico that help 

import U.S. natural gas and petroleum products to that country and Sempra LNG & Midstream. 

Sempra LNG & Midstream owns LNG facilities, midstream natural gas infrastructure and natural 

gas storage. We are an experienced LNG developer and operator with facilities in both 

louisiana (Cameron LNG) and Baja California, Mexico. Additionally, we are seeking to develop 

an additional LNG export facility in Port Arthur, Texas (Port Arthur LNG). 

The U.S. Natural Gas Advantage 

This hearing could not be timelier, as the World Gas Conference is being held here in 

Washington, D.C., this week. The U.S. has not hosted the World Gas Conference in three 

decades. It is the first time that the conference will be held in a country that is both the largest 

producer and consumer of natural gas. With next stops in the Republic of Korea and China, the 

this is the last time for years to come that the U.S. has the opportunity to shape the discussion 

as the host country. And the world is watching. 

As a result of two key developments-- the U.S. shale energy boom and the growth in 

U.S. LNG export opportunities-- the outlook for domestic and international natural gas markets 

has never been better. If we invest wisely and follow smart, pro-market policies, there is little 

doubt that the U.S. economy will be the big beneficiary with job growth and even greater 

energy independence. 

2 
24 


Advances in technology for extracting gas have resulted in an abundance of affordable 

energy here in the U.S. The Potential Gas Committee (PGC) recently released its latest biennial 

assessment of the nation's natural gas resources, which indicated that the U.S. possesses a 

total technically recoverable resource base of 2,817 trillion cubic feet (TCF) as of year-end 2016, 

or supplies that will last more than 90 years at current extraction levels. This is the highest 

resource evaluation in PGC's 52-year history, exceeding the previous high assessment (from 

2014) by 302 TCF (increase of 12%). 

As a result of this transformative accomplishment, natural gas now serves as the 

leading fuel source for the industrial, commercial, and residential sectors of the U.S. economy. 

This increased consumption is providing for significant job growth, bringing back industries to 

the Gulf Coast that are dependent on reliable and affordable energy, boosting our local and 

national economies, and lowering air emissions. It is being used increasingly for power 

generation and assisting in the integration of renewable energy into the electric system, 

ensuring reliability and resiliency when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. When 

used as a transportation fuel, natural gas reduces fuel costs and helps clean the air. And though 

transportation-fueling systems require careful planning and investment, these networks have 

already begun to emerge. The abundance and affordability of natural gas as a transportation 

fuel is also helping to drive technological investments in engines for heavy-duty trucks. 

Natural gas is not only helping bring economic and environmental benefits domestically, 

but it also is ensuring greater energy security and prosperity globally. Utilizing natural gas will 

help alleviate energy poverty in developing countries, while helping to reduce emissions by 

replacing traditional low-grade fuels, such as firewood, animal manure and charcoal for 

cooking. 

3 
25 


The LNG Export Opportunity 

This brings me to the possibilities associated with the growth of U.S. LNG exports. As I 

mentioned earlier, Sempra Energy owns and operates two LNG facilities: Cameron LNG, an 

import facility in Hackberry, Louisiana, which Sempra decided in 2011 to expand to add natural 

gas liquefaction and export facilities; and Energfa Costa Azul in Baja California, Mexico. 

The Cameron LNG export project will be comprised of three liquefaction trains, three 

storage tanks, two marine berths for the largest LNG ships, and related infrastructure. 

Construction on the project began in October 2014, with commercial operations expected to 

begin early next year. We currently have over 10,000 workers on site. As reflected in our 2012 

FERC application for the project, the total economic impact in the U.S. from Cameron LNG is 

estimated to be $336 billion over the life of the project. The project is expected to generate an 

average of 53,000 direct and indirect jobs annually during the 20-year operations period, 

resulting in a total impact during the periods of construction and operation of 1.1 million jobyears. 

Sempra is also pursuing FERC certificate authority to site, construct and operate an LNG 

export facility located near Port Arthur, Texas. The Port Arthur LNG project will include 

interstate pipelines connecting the export facility with major natural gas hubs in Texas and 

Louisiana. Our consultant, ICF International, estimates the economic impact in the U.S. from 

this proposed project will be $287 billion, or slightly over $11 billion annually, over 25 years. 

Vice Chairman Olson and Congressmen Barton, Green and Flores, you also may be interested to 

know that this includes a $1.85 billion annual and $46.3 billion cumulative positive impacts on 

the Texas economy. 

4 
26 


Additionally, ICF International anticipates that the Port Arthur LNG Project will help 

facilitate an average of nearly 5, 700 direct and indirect jobs in Texas and 41,000 nationally 

through 2043, resulting in a cumulative impact of over 143,000 job-years for the state of Texas 

and one million job-years for the U.S. economy. 

The growth of U.S. LNG exports has the potential to strengthen U.S. foreign policy and 

improve our balance of trade. While an abundance of U.S. natural gas is leading to a 

manufacturing resurgence in the U.S., it also has the potential to strengthen alliances with 

developed and developing countries by providing a stable, affordable, flexible, and reliable 

source of energy that gives those countries the certainty they need to build their energy 

infrastructure. U.S. natural gas exports also can help our European allies reduce their energy 

dependence on Russia. Finally, U.S. LNG exports can help countries improve air quality and the 

environment by displacing less clean resources. 

Exports from Cameron LNG and Port Arthur LNG will reduce the U.S. trade deficit could 

help reduce our overall trade deficit by roughly $16 billion annually, and generate a combined 

cumulative value of approximately $303 to $402 billion over the life of these projects. These 

and other U.S. export facilities will promote new pipelines and maintain natural gas production 

in the many producing states (e.g., Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Texas and Louisiana); and 

at levels that will continue the current cost advantage that benefits U.S. consumers. 

The Challenges We Face 

But, if we are to benefit from this opportunity, we need to ensure we are working 

together to promote LNG internationally and are not impeding the development of these 

projects domestically. 

5 
27 


Internationally, the federal government should continue to promote and leverage U.S. 

LNG exports as part of its trade policy with Europe, the Middle East and Asia. In addition to 

advancing environmental, job creation and global energy security goals, LNG exports also 

support the Administration's objective of improving the U.S. trade balance, especially with 

countries that are large importers of LNG and have significant trade surpluses with the U.S., 

such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and China. The Administration could further advance this 

objective by removing unjustified tariffs on steel and aluminum, which drive up costs and 

reduce the competitiveness of the energy sector in general and the LNG and pipeline 

businesses in particular. 

Domestically, we are concerned that the length of time it takes to get through the 

federal permitting process is increasing, not decreasing, contrary to goal of this Administration. 

It appears that all infrastructure projects at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

are seeing delays due to what we understand are resource constraints at the agency. These 

delays jeopardize U.S. developers' efforts to consummate large and complicated agreements 

with international trading partners. There is an abundant worldwide supply of natural gas 

chasing a finite demand. You can be sure that other major LNG exporting countries, such as 

Russia, Australia, Qatar and Mozambique, are doing everything possible to enhance their 

competitive position. If these and other nations provide better certainty of regulatory process 

than the U.S. does and enable their native companies to get to the market sooner, then they 

will dominate the market, and the U.S. will lose out. Moreover, the lack of certainty with 

respect to timing undermines the ability of developers to develop and finance these types of 

projects. Once our foreign competitors enter into long-term LNG contracts with customers, the 

window of opportunity for U.S. based projects closes for decades. And that means we would 

6 
28 


lose out on the economic and foreign policy benefits to other countries like Russia. We can't let 

this happen. 

We need to ensure that FERC at least keeps to its typical permit review schedule of no 

more than 18 to 24 months, and that it looks for opportunities to streamline the process even 

further. Anything longer would be outside of the President's infrastructure permitting goals of 

a two-year maximum and would have the current Administration's FERC LNG export permitting 

record trailing that of the Obama Administration. 

In addition, there should be certainty resulting from the robust federal permitting 

process. Specifically, the Department of Energy (DOE) should act on an application by a time 

certain after FERC's initial order. We would strongly support the thirty-day time limit that 

Congressman Johnson (R-OH) has proposed in previous legislation considered by this 

committee. Moreover, we appreciate DOE's recent Policy Statement indicating it does not 

foresee circumstances where it would invoke its authority to revoke its non-free trade 

agreement (non-FTA) permits in the future. 

As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the World Gas Conference is meeting 

here in Washington, D.C. this week, with more than 12,000 participants from more than 100 

countries. Indeed, the eyes of the world are upon us. Failure of the U.S. to seize the current 

LNG opportunity has international implications. As the leading producer of natural gas in the 

world, the U.S. can become one of the world's top LNG exporters by 2022, as forecasted by the 

Energy Information Administration, achieve the Administration's goal of energy dominance, 

and promote greater global energy security, but only if we reduce regulatory roadblocks and 

act with a sense of urgency. 

7 
29 


Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman and committee members, with the abundance of domestic natural gas, 

the U.S. can generate good-paying jobs for American workers, provide economic benefits at the 

local, state and federal levels, work to create a more sustainable and cleaner future, and help 

reduce energy poverty around the world. These are objectives that benefit all Americans and 

we shouldn't settle for less. If policymakers can help developers like Sempra to overcome our 

current challenges, the U.S. is poised to be a global natural gas energy leader for decades to 

come with many geopolitical benefits. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

8 
30 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. Dr. Kennedy. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN KENNEDY 

Dr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Chairman Upton, Mr. McNerney, 

other members of the committee. I am very pleased to be joining 

you here today for this hearing. 

My name is Kevin Kennedy and I am deputy director for the U.S. 

Climate Initiative at the World Resources Institute. WRI is a global 

research organization that turns big ideas into action at the intersection of the environment, economic opportunity, and human 

wellbeing. 

As Mr. McNerney noted, as we look at the energy landscape in 

the United States today, it’s important not just to focus on the oil 

and gas industry but to consider the broader context of changes 

that are happening across the country. 

America has seen significant progress on the development and 

deployment of clean energy such as renewables, resulting in large 

part from the leadership of States, cities, and businesses, often acting with the support and cooperation of the Federal Government. 

When President Trump announced last year his intent to withdraw from the international climate agreement, some feared that 

this progress might slow. 

On the contrary, that announcement catalysed continued and expanded commitment from States, cities, and businesses across the 

country. 

Within days, over 1,200 leaders joined together to say we are still 

in and committed to support climate action, and as of this weekend, that declaration has been supported by over 2,800 leaders. 

I have been a core member of the research team behind the 

America’s Pledge Initiative, which was launched last July by 

former Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Governor Jerry Brown, to 

document the full range of climate and clean energy actions being 

taken across America. 

Our report last November showed that leaders representing almost half the population and more than half of the U.S. economy 

have committed to bringing down their greenhouse gas emissions. 

These leaders recognized that acting to support clean energy and 

address climate change can go hand in hand with economic growth 

and job creation. 

While many of those signing declarations like we are still in are 

doing so for environmental reasons. Others are acting based primarily on the economic opportunities offered by being leaders in 

clean energy. 

They recognize that major countries around the world are investing in renewables and other clean energy sources and the global 

markets are shifting fast, and they want to see their communities 

and the country lead rather than to follow. 

This committee and Congress can be their partners in moving 

ahead on renewables, energy efficiency, and other clean energy 

sources. I want to share just a few of the stories today. 

In 2017, large corporate buyers in the U.S. like Google, Kimberly-Clark, and General Motors, announced contracts for nearly 

2.9 gigawatts of renewable energy—an 80 percent increase from 

the previous year, and this year they’ve already announced deals 

31 

for almost 2.5 gigawatts—almost matching last year’s total just 6 

months in. 

The Republican mayor of Georgetown, Texas, said one of the 

most important benefits of being 100 percent renewable is the potential for economic development. Many companies are looking to 

increase their green sources of power for both office and manufacturing facilities. 

Mayor Ross added that the city’s move to 100 percent renewables 

was chiefly a business decision based on cost and price stability. 

Looking to energy efficiency, the private sector has, again, been 

a leader. Almost 200 U.S. manufacturers have committed to decreasing their energy intensity by 25 percent over 10 years as part 

of the Department of Energy’s Better Plants program. 

These companies have already saved—already reported $3.1 billion in reduced energy costs. We also see meaningful moves in the 

auto industry. Ford plans to nearly double its investment in electric vehicles in the next 5 years and GM is working towards an allelectric zero tailpipe emissions future with 20 new electric vehicle 

models to be available globally in the early 2020s. 

The NEF projects that by 2040, 55 percent of new global car 

sales will be electric. Those States that have put a price on carbon 

have also seen both environmental and economic benefits. 

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, known as RGGI, prices 

carbon dioxide emissions from the electric sector, serving nine 

States from Maryland to Maine. RGGI States have outperformed 

the rest of the country both environmentally and economically. 

During its first 5 years, emissions decreased 35 percent in RGGI 

States but only 12 percent elsewhere. At the same time, RGGI 

State economies grew faster than the rest of the country. 

These are just a few of the good news stories about State, local, 

and private-sector movement towards renewables and other forms 

of clean energy. 

The degree of momentum behind this transformation and the resulting economic benefits to local communities across the country 

would be enhanced by Federal support for development and deployment of clean energy resources like renewables and energy efficiency. 

As other countries invest in clean energy, it’s time for this Congress and the administration to step up support for States, cities, 

and businesses that are looking to seize the economic opportunities 

presented by clean energy transformation. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kennedy follows:] 

32 


TESTIMONY OF KEVIN KENNEDY, Ph.D. 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. CLIMATE INITIATIVE, WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE 

HEARING BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITIEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY: 

"THE SHIFTING GEOPOLITICS OF OIL AND GAS" 

JUNE 26, 2018 
33 


Summary 

The energy landscape in the United States today includes more than developments in the oil and gas 

industry. Many states, cities and businesses across the country see great economic potential in the 

possibility of a true clean energy transformation. A few examples include: 

Texas has been a leader in the move toward renewables, starting with the 2005 approval (by the 

legislature and then-Governor Rick Perry) of a $7 billion investment in Competitive Renewable 

Energy Zones that has helped turn Texas into the national leader in wind energy. 

The economic potential of wind energy has lead Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and South Dakota to 

have more than 30 percent oftheir electricity generated from renewable resources. 

Georgetown, Texas, Mayor Dale Ross has lead his city to 100 percent renewables, noting that 

"[o]ne of the most important benefits of being 100 percent renewable is the potential for 

economic development. Many companies, especially those in the high-tech sector, are looking 

to increase green sources of power for both office and manufacturing facilities." 

Automakers are betting on the emerging electric vehicle (EV) market, with Ford planning double 

its investment in the next five years and General Motors working towards an all-electric, zero 

tail-pipe emissions future with 20 new EV models to be available globally by the early 2020s. 

While states, cites and businesses are stepping up on clean energy, Congress and the administration 

could and should be providing meaningful support for these efforts through increased clean energy 

research and development, incentives for deployment of clean energy technologies, investment in 

infrastructure for clean energy deployment and support for a carbon tax. Doing so would help 

companies and local communities across the country take advantage of the economic development 

opportunities that a clean energy transformation offers. 

2 
34 


Introduction 

My name is Kevin Kennedy, and I am the deputy director of the U.S. Climate Initiative at the World 

Resources Institute (WRI). The World Resources Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan environmental 

think tank that goes beyond research to provide practical solutions to the world's most urgent 

environment and development challenges. We work in partnership with scientists, businesses, 

governments, and non-governmental organizations across the globe to provide information, tools and 

analysis to address problems like climate change, the degradation of ecosystems and their capacity to 

provide for human well-being. 

Stepping up on clean energy and climate action 

The United States has seen significant progress on the development and deployment of clean energy 

and improving the efficiency of our energy use. Much of the progress has resulted from the leadership 

of states, cities and businesses, often with the support and cooperation of the federal government, in 

developing renewable resources, setting and enforcing building and efficiency standards and more. 

When President Trump announced his intent to withdraw from the international Paris Agreement last 

June, some feared that this progress might slow down. The Paris announcement, though, catalyzed a 

groundswell of continued and expanded commitment to climate action from states, cities, businesses, 

universities and individuals, all across the United States. Within days, over 1,200 leaders joined together 

to say, "We Are Still In" and committed to continue to support climate action to meet the Paris 

Agreement, and as of this weekend the declaration has been supported by over 2,800 leaders.' 

WRI, along with the Rocky Mountain Institute and the University of Maryland's Center for Global 

Sustainability, has been leading analysis for the America's Pledge initiative. This initiative, launched in 

1 For more information on We Are Still In, see https;//www"wearestHHn.corn/. The press release from the initial announcement 

in June 2017 can be found at https://www.wearestillin.com/news/leaders-us-economy-say-we-are-still-paris-climateagreement. 

3 
35 


July 2017 by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California Governor Edmund G. (Jerry) 

Brown, aims to document the full range of actions being taken across American society, what more can 

be done, and to assess what these actions mean for our country's greenhouse gas emissions. The 

America's Pledge Phase 1 report, released last November, shows that leaders representing 159 million 

Americans and more than half ofthe U.S. economy have committed to act to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. 2 These leaders recognize that acting to support clean energy and address climate change can 

go hand in hand with economic growth and job creation. 

The 271 cities and counties that said they remain committed, or are "still in," include Chicago, Dallas 

County and Houston, which is the single largest municipal buyer of green power in the country.' 

Governors from 16 states and Puerto Rico, including Maryland, Colorado and North Carolina, have also 

seized this issue as a priority and declared their commitment. Furthermore, it is likely that states 

accounting for 35% of the U.S. economy will have a price on carbon emissions by the end of 2018. 4 

In addition, 345 institutions of higher education, from Kalamazoo College to the University of South 

Carolina, have also joined in. 

Businesses are harnessing this momentum as well. Seventy-five companies with headquarters in the 

United States are among the 422 companies globally that have made commitments to establish a 

science-based greenhouse gas emission target under the Science Based Targets initiative.' Their targets 

are science based if they are in line with the level of decarbonization required to keep global 

temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius. Companies taking on these targets, like Owens-Illinois, a 

Fortune 500 company headquartered in Ohio and Applied Optoelectronics, a Texas-based fiber-optics 

2 https:/lwww. bbhub.io/dotorg/sites/28/2017 /11/ AmericasPtedgePhaseOneReportWeb. pdf 

3 http://www,houstontx,gov/mayor/press/city~expanding~renewable~energy.html 

4 These states are California and the nine states currently in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (Connecticut, Delaware, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont), along with New Jersey and Virginia, 

which are taking steps to join RGG!. 

5 http://scicncebasedtargets.org/ 

4 
36 


manufacturer, are doing so because they are looking to be leaders in the innovation that will build the 

low-carbon economy of the future. Companies ranging from McDonald's to Adobe to NRG Energy have 

not only committed to action, but have already set an official science-based target, putting them on 

track to becoming thriving members of the low-carbon economy. 

Moreover, businesses have shown that they are willing 

to act with their wallets in an emphatic shift to clean 

energy- because it makes sense for them financially. In 

2017 alone, large corporate buyers like Google, KimberlyClark and General Motors announced contracts for nearly 

2.9 gigawatts of renewable energy, marking an 80% 

increase over similar purchases in 2016. 6 This 

momentum has continued in 2018, with almost 2.5 

gigawatts of contracts already announced this year. 

Shifting to clean energy across the economy 

In 2017 alone, large corporate buyers 

like Google, Kimberly-Clark and General 

Motors announced contracts for nearly 

2.9 gigawatts of renewable energy, 

marking an 80% increase over similar 

purchases in 2016. This momentum has 

continued in 2018, with almost 2.5 

gigawatts of announced contracts 

already this year. 

The Paris Agreement withdrawal announcement had a galvanizing effect, but the reality is that market 

forces have been moving in such a direction that many of these states, cities and businesses had already 

realized that pivoting towards efficient use of clean energy resources could work to their benefit. We've 

been seeing this shift across sectors of the economy. In the following paragraphs, I will provide a few 

examples of the continuing progress in decarbonizing the economy, from electric power, energy 

efficiency and the auto market. 

6 http:Ubusinessrenewab!es,org/coroorate-transactlons/ 

5 
37 


Renewables 

Renewable energy offers a tapestry of examples from coast to coast, with some states and cities using 

policy to guide their actions, and others simply tapping the economic potential of developing renewable 

resources as technology costs fall. It's often a blend of the two, and in any case, states have typically 

benefitted from job creation and economic development, as well as happier ratepayers. 

In many places around the country, this has been happening in bipartisan fashion. In 2016, Illinois found 

bipartisan common ground when they updated their Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), which 

mandates a certain percentage of energy be generated by different types of clean energy. After a 

comprehensive stakeholder engagement process, the bill passed the legislature with votes from both 

parties, and was signed into law by a Republican governor7 Now, Illinois ranks 6th in the nation in terms 

of total wind energy generation, with plenty of additional growth slated to occur thanks to that update 

of the RPS that was included in the 2016 Future Energy Jobs Act signed by Governor Bruce Rauner. The 

act aims for 25% renewable energy by 2025, with a carve-out requiring a minimum of 75% oft his be met 

by wind and solar. It also sets aside $750 million for job training programs in the clean energy economy. 

All told it is expected to spur tens of thousands of jobs connected to improvements in energy efficiency 

and renewable energy in Illinois-jobs like solar installers and efficiency auditors. 8 1t's estimated that 

this package will spur an additional $12 to $15 billion in new private investment and lower ratepayers' 

bills, all while reducing co, emissions by more than 33 million metric tons annually by 2030." 

In Michigan, utilities have stepped up, recently announcing a goal of at least 50% clean energy in 

Michigan by 2030 (half through renewables and half through energy efficiency). 10 Meanwhile, the 

7 https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/12fllL138528S6/i!linois-energy-bi!l 

8 https://citizensuti!ityboard.org/future-energy-jobs-act/ 

9 http://blogs.edf. org/ energyexchange/2016/12/07/iHinois-future-energy-jobs-bill-shows-states-are-taking-the-!ead-to-bulldthe-dean-energy-·economy/ 

10 https://www.detroltnews.com/story/news/michigan/2018/0S/18/michlgan-dte-consumers-renewable-goa!/35058065/ 

6 
38 


Renewable Energy Standard in Michigan drove an estimated $3 billion of in-state investments through 

2014-a similar story to the Renewable Portfolio Standard in Ohio, where Governor Kasich vetoed a bill 

to weaken it. Keeping the Renewable Portfolio Standard intact was an easy choice for Kasich, as all he 

had to do is look at the positive economic and jobs impacts. The bill would have "amount[ed] to selfinflicted damage to both our state's near- and long-term economic competitiveness," he concluded.11 

It's not just the Governor that is shifting the way AEP Ohio, one of state's traditionally coalenergy is procured in Ohio. AEP Ohio, one of state's heavy utility companies, has committed to 

traditionally coal-heavy utility companies, has add more than 900 megawatts of wind and 

committed to add more than 900 megawatts of solar as part of their strategy for reducing 

wind and solar as part of their strategy for reducing their carbon footprint. In fact, last October 

their carbon footprint." In fact, last October AEP AEP Ohio put out an RFP for 400 megawatts 

Ohio put out an RFP for 400 megawatts of solar in- of solar in-state, with an expressed 

state, with an expressed preference for projects in preference for projects in Appalachian Ohio 

Appalachian Ohio that would create permanent that would create permanent regional jobs 

regional jobs and include a commitment to hire and include a commitment to hire veterans. 

veterans." 

One state that has successfully brought together a range of approaches to drive change in the power 

sector is New Jersey. Early this year, Governor Phil Murphy signed a legislature-approved package to 

boost the state's Renewable Energy Standard to 50% by 2030, increase the solar requirement and 

double the net metering cap, and announced the largest offshore wind pledge in the U.S. This is already 

paying off, as a Danish company has already opened an office in Atlantic City to oversee their three 

11 https:l/www. vox. com/ energy-and-environment/2016/12/27/14094192/ ohio-john·kasich-clean-energy-standards-veto 12 https://www .aepohio.com/1 nfo/news/v!ewRelease .a sox ?release! D-2583 13 https://www .aepohio.com/b2 b/rfp/2017SolarEnergy/ 

7 
39 


gigawatts offshore wind project, which is expected create 1,000 jobs annually for the construction 

period, with 100 jobs being permanent!4 last month, the state set a strong battery storage goal oftwo 

gigawatts by 2030, one of the most aggressive in the country, which exemplifies a trend we're seeing 

around the nation!' 

Even the technologies that were once thought of as "fringe," such as offshore wind and battery storage, 

are riding the wave of a market shift towards renewables. For offshore wind, a perfect storm of 

technological, policy and market factors have caused the cost of the technology to plummet, and it is 

expected to further drop 17% by 2020 (from a 2018 baseline), and 44% by 2025. 16 Prices for solar power 

are also dropping. Earlier this month, a solar contract in Nevada may have set a new cost record for 

solar at 2.3 cents per KWh!7 Meanwhile, battery prices have dropped 80% between 2010 and 2017, and 

are projected to keep falling." 

We're seeing a sweeping trend of cheaper renewables providing opportunities for states that are not 

looking to act on climate change to benefit from a cleaner power source simply because it makes 

economic sense. 

14 http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/orsted-ce!ebrates-a-c-office-gets~flrst-federal-permitfor/article b0b6c8d3·3039-5543-9a8b-60f55463blbc.html 15 https://www.utilltvdive.com/news/new-iersey-sets-aggressive-target-2-gw-by-2030-for-energy-storage/524422/ 

'' https:/!www.bnef.com/core/insights/18819/ 17 https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nv-energy·-23-cent-solar-contract-could-set~new-price-record/525610/ 

1s https://www.bnef.com/corefjnslghts/18819 

8 
40 


Texas has become a leader in wind energy. State Texas is now far and away the number one 

leaders recognized the abundance of wind energy in wind producer in the country and boasts 

their state just waiting to be harnessed and they saw about 24,000 jobs in the wind energy 

the economic benefits that could result. To take sector .... 

advantage of this resource, they addressed barriers The economic benefits ... have included 

that could limit its development- particularly finding over $50 million in lease payments to landways to ensure that wind energy generated in rural owners (many of whom are farmers and 

Texas could be delivered to its major cities. Texas is ranchers whose bottom-line is vastly 

now far and away the number one wind producer in improved thanks to these payments), an 

the country and boasts about 24,000 jobs in the wind increase in the tax base for rural 

energy sector.19 Texas built the foundation for its communities, and significant reductions in 

wind energy boom with the 2005 approval (by the water consumption needed for the power 

legislature and then-Governor Rick Perry) of the $7 sector in a water-stressed state .... 

billion Competitive Renewable Energy Zone initiative, [S]tates from Texas to the Dakotas have 

a 3,600-mile network oftransmission lines. 20 

recognized the economic opportunity of 

The economic benefits of this policy have included developing their renewable resources. In 

over $50 million in lease payments to land-owners fact, in 2017 Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and 

(many of whom are farmers and ranchers whose South Dakota all had more than 30 percent 

bottom-line is vastly improved thanks to these of their electricity generated from 

payments), an increase in the tax base for rural renewable resources, with North Dakota 

communities, and significant reductions in water not far behind at 27 percent. 

19 https://www .awea.org/MediaCenter /pressrelease.aspx?ltemNum ber=8736 

20 https://e360.yale.edu/features/how conservative texas took the lead in us wind power 

9 
41 


consumption needed for the power sector in a water-stressed state. 21 

The state's generation capacity not only provides 

"One of the most important benefits of 

cheaper clean electricity for the state's retail market 

being 100 percent renewable is the 

and jobs in Texas' wind-rich rural west, but also 

potential for economic development. Many 

supplies growing demand from cities and businesses 

companies, especially those in the highseeking to source their electricity from clean sources. 

tech sector, are looking to increase green 

In fact, Georgetown, Texas, a city of 50,000, is now 

sources of power for both office and 

100% renewable." Georgetown Mayor Dale Ross 

manufacturing facilities." 

noted that the city's move to renewables "is chiefly a 

Georgetown, Texas, Mayor Dale Ross 

business decision based on cost and price stability." 

He also noted that "[o]ne of the most important benefits of being 100 percent renewable is the 

potential for economic development Many companies, especially those in the high-tech sector, are 

looking to increase green sources of power for both office and manufacturing facilities."" 

Overall, the great increase in renewable generation has been led from the middle of the country, as 

states from Texas to the Dakotas have recognized the economic opportunity of developing their 

renewable resources. In fact, in 2017 Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and South Dakota all had more than 30 

percent of their electricity generated from renewable resources, with North Dakota not far behind at 27 

percent. 24 

21 http://blogs. edf.org/energyexchange/fi les/2017 /02/EDF-T exas- Report-to-legislators-2017 -FI NAL.pdf 

22 https:/hi.::!J.w .statesman.com/news/local/georgetown·now-lOO-percent-powered~renewab!eenergy/Mid2fjonnWU1PinZjVKEc0/ 

23 https://www.mystatesman.com/news/opinion/ross-other-cities-should-follow-georgetown-lead-solarenergy/kv07iGg5ugMjkk5HPM3Zul/ 

24 Based on data from the EIA electricity data browser, available at https:ljwww.eia.gov/electridtvLdata/browser/. 

10 
42 


Procuring clean energy isn't the only way that states, cities, and businesses are reducing their 

greenhouse gas emissions. They've made strides in improving their energy efficiency as well. 

A handful of states have been leaders on this front, with 26 having established Energy Efficiency 

Resource Standards (EERS), which require utilities to reduce electricity or natural gas sales by 

implementing customer energy efficiency measures." According to the American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy, these states achieved 25.4 terawatt hours of net incremental savings in 2016 (0.68 

percent of 2016 retail sales, enough to power 2.4 million American homes for one year, on average) 26 

Arkansas, the only state in the Southeast with an EERS, has, through this and other programs, increased 

energy savings by a factor of five over the last decade, saving enough energy to power every home in 

Little Rock for three months." 

Cities and companies have stepped up to boost their Cities and companies have stepped up to 

energy efficiency, with Texas again playing a leading boost their energy efficiency, with Texas 

role. EPA's ENERGY STAR program certifies buildings again playing a leading rote •..• 

that are more efficient than 75 percent of similar Dallas, Houston and Austin all rank within 

buildings elsewhere; it also ranks cities based on the the top 20 ENERGY STAR cities, with Dallas 

number of ENERGY STAR buildings in each city. Dallas, ranking #3. Looking to smaller cities, 

Houston and Austin all rank within the top 20 ENERGY Midland ranks #1, Odessa ranks #2 and San 

STAR cities, with Dallas ranking #3. 28 Looking to Angelo ranks #5 on the ENERGY STAR Top 

smaller cities, Midland ranks #1, Odessa ranks #2 and Small Cities List. 

San Angelo ranks #5 on the ENERGY STAR Top Small 

25 https://aceee.org/topics/energy~efficlency-resource-standard-eers 

6 http://aceee.org/sites/default/fl!es/publications/researchreports/u1710.Ddf 

27 https://arkansasadvancedenergy.com/index.cfm ?objectid=37924DOO·A460·11E7 ·9A910050569A5318 

zs https://www.energystar.gov/bui!dings/topdties 

11 
43 


Cities List. By investing in energy efficiency, the city of Arlington, TX is expecting to save more than 2.5 

million kWh annually while saving $14 million in energy costs over the next 15 years. 29 

In the corporate space, close to 200 U.S. manufacturers and other industries have committed to 

decreasing their energy intensity by 25 percent over 10 years by adopting an array of strategies and 

other innovative approaches. In fact, they have already reported 600 trillion Btu of cumulative energy 

savings and $3.1 billion in reduced energy costs30 Much of this success is thanks to partnerships with 

federal programs, such as the Department of Energy's Better Buildings, Better Plants Program. 

Electric Vehicles 

Many of the same states, cities and businesses that are stepping up on renewables and energy efficiency 

are also finding that investment in electric vehicles (EVs) fits in nicely with their overall shift towards 

cleaner technologies. Even with low gas prices, automakers know that proactive investment in EVs can 

pay off. 

In January, Ford announced its plan to nearly double its investment in electric vehicles in the next five 

years. 31 Meanwhile, General Motors is now working towards an all-electric, zero tail-pipe emissions 

future with plans for 20 new EV models to be available globally by the early 2020s. 32 In Europe, 

Volkswagen announced plans to roll out eighty new EV models, marking a seismic expansion of zeroemissions mobility. 33 In fact, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) projects that by 2040, 55 percent of 

29 https://www.prnewswire.com/news·re!eases/dty~of*arlington~to~save~14mm-through¥1andmark-energy-program*featuringled-streetlights-300049261.html 

30 "Successful Strategies: Driving Innovation & Results," US Department of Energy, 2017, accessed June 22, 2018, 

https://betterbui!dingssolutioncenter. energy. gov/sites/ default/files/attachments/Better Buildings Progress Report 2017. pdf. 

31 https://www. wired.com/story/ford-electric-cars-plan-mach-1-suv I 2 htto://www.gm.com/mollm-2018-mar-0307-barra-speech.html 

B https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/2018/03/Vo!kswagenGroup expand production.html 

12 
44 


new global car sales will be electric. 34 What may be In January, Ford announced its plan to 

surprising, however, is that BNEF also projects that by nearly double its investment in electric 

2030, 84 percent of new global bus purchases will be vehicles in the next five years. Meanwhile, 

electric. 35 

General Motors is now working towards an 

States and cities are paying attention and grabbing all-electric, zero tail-pipe emissions future 

hold of this momentum, and in some cases driving it with 20 new EV models to be available 

even further. 10 states, representing over one third globally by the early 2020s .... BNEF projects 

of the nation's car market, have committed to getting that by 2040, 55 percent of new global car 

more than three million zero-emission vehicles on the sales will be electric. 

road by 2025. 36 And 30 U.S. cities have committed 

$10 billion to begin implementing a plan to purchase 114,000 EVs for their municipal fleets37 -equal to 

60 percent ofthe EVs sold in 2017.'8 

Carbon Pricing 

These examples help demonstrate the extent to which actions that drive economic growth and promote 

the protection of our environment can go hand in hand. Now, I'll turn for a minute to focus on the states 

and businesses that have put a price on carbon pollution and in turn delivered significant economic 

benefits to their region or their stakeholders. 

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, is a carbon pricing system serving nine states from 

Maryland to Maine led by five Republican governors and four Democratic governors. By putting a price 

34 https://www.bnef.com/core/themes/119 

35 https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/23/electric··buses-wi!l,84-of-new-bus-sales-in-2030-bnef-forecast/ 

36 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-applauds-mu!ti-state-coalltlons-releases-new-zero-emission-vehicle-action-plan 

37 Ryan Kilpatrick, "Cities Across the U.S. Will Splurge on Electric Vehicles After Automakers Said There Wasn't Enough 

Demand," Fortune, March 15, 2017, accessed September 29, 2017, http:!/fortune.com/2017/03/15/electric-vehicles-citiesdemand/. 

38 David Gohlke and Van Zhou, "Impacts of Electrification of light-Duty Vehicles in the United States, 2010- 2017/' Argonne 

National Lab. Energy Systems Division, January 2018, http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2018/01/141595.pdf. 

13 
45 


on carbon emissions from their electric power plants, RGGI has helped drive a move towards 

RGGI has helped drive a move towards lower carbon lower carbon and zero carbon resources in 

and zero carbon resources in the region. RGGI has the northeast. RGGI has also generated 

also generated $4.3 billion of net positive economic $4.3 billion of net positive economic 

benefit since the program's inception in 200939•

40•

41 , benefit since the program's inception in 

$1.4 billion of which came between 2015 and 2017. 2009, $1.4 billion of which came between 

In fact, states in RGGI have out-performed the rest of 2015 and 2017 .... Over the period from 

the country both environmentally and economically. 2009 to 2014, the power sector carbon 

Over the period from 2009 to 2014, the power sector pollution covered by RGGI decreased 35 

carbon pollution covered by RGGI decreased 35 percent in RGGI states but only 12 percent 

percent in RGGI states but only 12 percent elsewhere. elsewhere. At the same time, RGGI state 

At the same time, RGGI state economies grew 21.2 economies 21.2 percent, compared to 18.2 

percent, compared to 18.2 percent elsewhere. 42 Now, percent elsewhere. 

newly-elected governors in New Jersey and Virginia 

are pushing to join in and reap the benefits. 

California has put a carbon price on 85 percent of its carbon pollution, and directed significant portions 

of the resulting revenue into disadvantaged communities within the state. In 2017, two studies looked 

at the economic impacts of the program in the San Joaquin Valley and the Inland Empire, two of the 

most economically and environmentally challenged regions in California. These studies found the 

program was a net economic benefit in both regions: the San Joaquin Valley saw net direct economic 

39 http://www.ana!ysisgroup.com/uploadedfi!es/content/insights/publishing/analysis group rggi report april 2018.pdf 

40 https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration pdf/ag15rggi.pdf 41 http://www.ana!ysisgroup.com/uploadcdfiles/content/insights/oublishing/economic impact rggi reportpdf 42 https://www.ceres.org/sltes/default/files/Fact%20Sheets%20or%20misc%20files/RGGI%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf 

14 
46 


benefits of $119 million and 700 jobs were created directly as a result of the program43; and in the 

Inland Empire, the program had net economic impacts of $25.7 million, $900,000 in tax revenue and net 

employment growth of 154 jobs.44 

Companies are also using internal carbon prices as a tool for integrating climate change considerations 

into their business decisions.45 According to CDP46, as of last fall, 96 U.S. businesses used internal carbon 

prices, while 142 U.S. businesses planned to implement internal carbon pricing by 2019.47 A few of those 

companies with internal carbon prices include Exxon, Shell and BP.48 

Congress and the administration should support these efforts 

States, cities and businesses across this country are pushing forward, some loudly and some quietly. This 

shifting tide towards cleaner sources of energy is happening-from Maine to Kansas to Hawaii-and it 

will not be abated. This Congress and administration should be taking measures to bolster the changes 

that are already occurring on the ground. If we're all in this together, we'll all be better off. 

Before closing, I'd like to point to four areas that could use the strong support of congress: 

1. Increased clean energy research and development: More robust investment in research, 

development and deployment of clean energy technologies could yield significant economic and 

43 https://www.law,berkeley.edu/research/clee/research/climate/economic-impacts-of-californias-major-climate-programs-on~ 

the-san-joaquin-valley/ 

44 https://www.dai!ybu!letin.com/2017/07 /12/cap-and-trade-svstem-an-economlc-net-positive-for-inland-empire-guestcommentary/ 

45 https://www.wri.org/blog/2015/11/4-corporate-carbon-pricing-do%E2%80%99s-and-don%E2%80%99ts 

46 COP runs a global disclosure system that enables companies, cities, states and regions to measure and manage their 

environmental impacts, and has the most comprehensive collection of self-reported environ menta! data in the world, 

47 "Putting a price on carbon: Integrating climate risk into business planning," COP, October 2017, accessed October 16,2017, 

https://b8f65cb373blb7b15febc70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcddld.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/738/originai/Putting-a-price-oncarbon-COP-Report-2017 .pdf?150773932~. 

48 http://www.dimatechangenews.com/2013/12/06/exxon-shel!-and-bp-operating-internal-carbon-prices/ 

15 
47 


environmental benefits. Accelerating the development of even cheaper technologies and 

modifications to current technologies is crucial as we approach the second quarter of this 

century. 

2. Incentives for deployment: Clear and strong incentives for emerging technologies like 

renewables, electric vehicles and battery storage can ensure that developers don't take their 

foot off the pedal and continue to facilitate this shift across the country. 

3. Infrastructure for clean energy deployment: An infrastructure overhaul is sorely needed in this 

country and, according to Gallup polling, it was far and away President Trump's most popular 

campaign promise. 49 Texas has seen the dividends that can come from investment in clean 

energy infrastructure, like transmission lines. Additional investments in infrastructure for 

electric vehicle charging, smart grids, bus rapid transit and other clean energy opportunities can 

pay dividends. Let's take this opportunity to move our national infrastructure into the 21" 

century. 

4. Carbon tax: James Baker Ill, George P. Schultz, Janet Yellin, former Senate leader Trent Lott, 

former Senate leader John Breaux, Larry Summers-these are just a few of the political and 

economic luminaries who have come out in support of a carbon tax. Companies including 

Exxon Mobil and Shell are also in favor 5° These leading voices know that our energy mix is 

shifting-that our energy mix must shift-to avoid catastrophic climate change. They also know 

that a carbon price is often the cheapest and most efficient way to reduce emissions. 

49 httos://news.ga!lup.com/poll/202691/lnfrastructure-spendlng-deemed-important~trump .. promise.aspx 

so https://www.dcouncll.org/ 

16 
48 


American leadership for the 21" century 

In the United States, we rightfully pride ourselves on not backing down from any challenge because it's 

too hard. We have the opportunity now to take on the challenge of addressing climate change by 

making America a leader in the global clean energy revolution that is starting to unfold. Throughout the 

country, states, cities and businesses are seeing the economic opportunities presented by tapping our 

clean energy resources and finding ways to use them efficiently. I encourage this Congress and the 

current Administration to step up with Americans from across the country to embrace the challengeand the opportunity- of being a leader on clean energy. 

17 
49 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Hamm, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HAROLD HAMM 

Mr. HAMM. Thank you, Chairman Upton, Acting Ranking Member McNerney, and other members of the committee. 

My name is Harold Hamm. It’s my honor to address you today 

on the miracle of American oil and gas and its global impact. 

As chairman of the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance and 

CEO of the company that co-developed the first oil field ever drilled 

exclusively with horizontal drilling and a company that is the largest leaseholder and most active driller and largest producer both in 

the Bakken play in North Dakota and the SCOOP/STACK and 

Springer plays of Oklahoma, I’ve been able to pioneer and participate in the American energy renaissance firsthand. 

I testified to the House Agricultural Committee on July 8, 2015, 

about the American energy renaissance and in particular was asking for lifting of the ban on exportation of crude oil, and it was 

granted. We got it signed into law. President Obama signed it into 

law and I appreciated that. 

Of course, we have to remember back. It was on the omnibus 

bill—it’s a little bit hard not to sign—and a 2-year extension was 

given to wind and solar at that time and, of course, 2 years times 

10. It was a very costly addition—the cost renewals. 

I said it then and I will say it again—the American energy renaissance is the single-most defining aspect on this planet today 

that will shape the next 50 years ahead of us. 

In the past 10 years, the United States has undergone unprecedented transformation, as Daniel said, and thanks to the ingenuity 

of America’s independent oil and gas natural producers—oil and 

natural gas producers we are transitioning from a consuming short 

supply nation to an energy long supplier dominating the world oil 

market today. 

Our country has rapidly gone from fears of energy scarcity to understand that U.S. energy independence is well within our reach. 

I think that will happen late 2020. We are a little ahead of the IEA 

on that, and during this Trump administration we’ve become not 

only energy dominant but we’ll become energy sufficient and independent in the future. 

And so we have had to rely on other countries to fuel our energy 

needs drastically in the past, primarily from the Middle East. 

The instability of shifting alliances wreaked havoc on American 

foreign policy for decades, and that’s been complicated by Russia 

and their involvement as well in the country’s global affairs. 

But the American energy renaissance is rapidly shaping those 

complicated dynamics to align with the U.S. to produce all the energy that it needs. 

Our energy imports have dropped from over 30 percent of energy 

consumed in 2007 to less than 8 percent currently, and because of 

these production gains, the U.S. no longer has to put American 

lives in the Middle East particularly. 

The ban on exports of crude oil was lifted in 2015—we talked 

about that—and we are now on pace to become a net energy exporter and provide our allies with a reliable affordable supply of 

50 

vital commodities like oil, LNG, and other petroleum products, and 

we can also impact the world with these clean fuels. 

Rising U.S. oil production has proven to be vital in meeting global demand as production capacity — while eliminating dramatic 

price hikes have long been a hallmark of global markets. 

Total petroleum exports are now averaging close to 7 million barrels a day, roughly, 2 million of which is crude oil. 

The commitment of the Trump administration to repealing unnecessary and in many cases archaic and onerous regulations is the 

right move for America. 

There are still a couple around the CAFE standards that was approved back when everybody thought we was running out of oil. 

Certainly, it is wreaking havoc with the—on the highways today 

and claim an additional 10,000 lives per year due to the small size 

imposed by CAFE standards on vehicles. 

Also, the archaic SCC rules need to be changed that limit our 

production and booking just to 5 years. If we are to be energy dominant, we certainly need to recognize that. 

And we’ve done it environmentally sound, no governmental assistance or subsidies. It’s all come from the independent sector. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamm follows:] 

51 


Summary: 

Statement by Harold Hamm 

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 

Continental Resources, Inc. 

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy 

"The Shifting Geopolitics of Oil and Gas" 

June 26, 2018 

• As Chairman of the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance and as CEO of the company that 

co-developed the first oil field ever drilled exclusively with horizontal drilling, I have been 

able to pioneer and participate in the American Energy Renaissance first-hand. The 

American Energy Renaissance is the single-most defining aspect on this planet today that 

will shape the next 50 years. 

• Our country has rapidly gone from fears of energy scarcity to understanding that U.S. energy 

independence is within our reach and during a Trump administration, the United States of 

America will become energy dominant. 

• The U.S. oil industry is poised to continue its production gains, thanks to regulatory rollbacks 

under President Trump that have removed artificial barriers to growth. 

• The commitment of the Trump administration to repealing unnecessary and in many cases, 

archaic and onerous regulations is the right move for America. For too long those regulations 

have had a stranglehold on the American economy. Many regulations were implemented 

with an oil and gas scarcity mentality and have since become inapplicable and obsolete. 

• I applaud the Trump administration and their willingness to roll back regulations that defy 

logic and to implement common sense regulations that allow America to prosper. 

Page 11 
52 


Written Statement: 

Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Rush and Members of the Committee, my name is Harold 

Hamm. I serve as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Continental Resources, an Oklahoma 

City-based independent oil and gas exploration and production company. It's an honor to address 

you today on the miracle of American oil and gas and its global impact. 

As Chairman of the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance and as CEO of the company that codeveloped the first oil field ever drilled exclusively with horizontal drilling, and the company 

that is the largest leaseholder and most active driller and largest producer both in the Bakken 

Play in North Dakota and the SCOOP/STACK and Springer plays of Oklahoma, I have been able 

to pioneer and participate in the American Energy Renaissance first-hand. I testified to the House 

Agriculture Committee on July 8, 2015 about The American Energy Renaissance. I said it then 

and will say it again- The American Energy Renaissance is the single-most defining aspect on 

this planet today that will shape the next 50 years. 

In the past I 0 years, the United States has undergone an unprecedented transformation. Thanks 

to the ingenuity of America's independent oil and natural gas producers, we are transitioning 

from a consuming short-supply nation to an energy-long supplier, dominating the world oil 

market. Our country has rapidly gone from fears of energy scarcity to understanding that U.S. 

energy independence is within our reach and during a Trump administration, the United States of 

America will become energy dominant. 

Page I 2 
53 


For too long, the United States had to rely on other countries to fuel its energy needs, particularly 

crude oil from the Middle East, whose instability and shifting alliances wreaked havoc on 

American foreign policy for decades. Russia's rise as an energy producer complicated our 

country's global atlairs. But the American energy renaissance is rapidly shifting those 

complicated dynamics, allowing the U.S. to produce all of the energy it needs. 

Our energy imports have dropped from over 30 percent of energy consumed in 2007 to less than 

8 percent currently. Because of our production gains, the U.S. no longer has to put American 

lives at risk to protect our energy sources. Nations fronted by dictators or hostile regimes can no 

longer threaten us with reduced oil supplies, giving these rogue states less influence on global 

affairs. U.S. foreign policy has been transformed now that the need for continued oil supplies is 

taken out of the equation when dealing with other countries. 

The ban on exports of crude oil was lifted in 2015 and we are now on pace to become a net 

energy exporter by 2020, allowing the U.S. to provide its allies with a reliable, affordable supply 

of vital commodities like oil, LNG and other petroleum products. 

Rising U.S. oil production has proven to be vital in meeting global demand, as the spare 

production capacity touted by OPEC approaches historically low levels. Our gains have 

prevented a likely world oil shortage, while eliminating dramatic price spikes that have long 

been the hallmark of global oil markets. Total petroleum exports are now averaging close to 7 

million barrels of oil per day- roughly 2 million of which is crude oil- and are becoming the 

norm from the U.S., offsetting crude oil imports to this country by foreign national oil companies 

Page I 3 
54 


and countries who bought up 30% of our oil refineries for their own benefit. The increase in 

exports will continue to create U.S. energy jobs and insulate our economy from commodity price 

shocks in the future. 

Stable prices are a boon to industrialized countries and developing nations around the world, but 

the U.S. needs to keep increasing its crude oil exports to keep world prices in an acceptable 

range. 

This historic transformation from energy scarcity to energy abundance is already resulting in a 

stronger balance of trade and unprecedented global energy security for the United States. 

And in a boon to our economy, the United States can participate in stronger global energy prices. 

In two short years, the U.S. will flip the script on crude oil, moving from the world's biggest 

customer for imported oil to a net oil exporter. That kind of conversion is unprecedented, but it 

will immeasurably improve the lives of all Americans. However, the U.S. needs to continue with 

significant new investment from U.S. companies in pipelines and port capacity for export 

shipments to harness our energy abundance and realize our full potential. As this infrastructure 

becomes available, we will fully engage in the free global market of oil and natural gas and exert 

our energy dominance. Our policies should foster this infrastructure expansion and promote the 

free flow of energy throughout our country. 

Page I 4 
55 


In the meantime, we can expect record employment in the energy sector, growing exports of 

crude oil, growth in the production and use of clean natural gas and growing LNG shipments 

around the globe, with cleaner air becoming the norm abroad as it has in the U.S. 

The U.S. oil industry is poised to continue its production gains, thanks to regulatory rollbacks 

under President Trump that have removed artificial barriers to growth. 

The commitment of the Trump administration to repealing unnecessary and in many cases, 

archaic and onerous regulations is the right move for America. For too long those regulations 

have had a stranglehold on the American economy. Many regulations were implemented with an 

oil and gas scarcity mentality and have since become inapplicable and obsolete. 

A perfect example is the current extreme CAFE standards for motor vehicles. The Trump 

administration recently announced they will work to revise the excessive rules set forth during 

the Obama administration. 

CAFE standards for motor vehicles were the product of the Energy Conservation Act, passed by 

Congress in 1973 in response to the energy shortage created by the Arab oil embargo. The 

premise was based on declining supplies. The regulation has hampered American auto 

manufacturers and is actually putting American lives at risk. Vehicle fatality rates had fallen for 

all vehicles in recent decades, but they have rose again to claim an additional l 0,000 Americans 

per year due to the small size imposed by CAFE standards. The vehicle fatality rate in2016 was 

Page I 5 
56 


the highest since 2007. Vehicle size/weight and fatality rates have a direct link. To meet fuel 

economy standards, automakers must "lightweight" the vehicles, compromising safety. 

In addition, the archaic SEC 5-ycar rule on booking reserves vastly understates oil and gas 

reserves in America and doesn't allow companies, or the country, to accurately state its true 

reserves. The U.S. has enough technically recoverable reserves to continue producing I 0 million 

barrels of oil a day for more than 75 years, and this figure is likely to be revised higher. 

I applaud the Trump administration and their willingness to roll back regulations that defy logic 

and to implement common sense regulations that allow America to prosper. 

Our push to become a net energy exporter is important to further reduce our country's trade 

deficit, which has been expanding over time. Our deficit stood at $46.2 billion in April, as other 

countries have taken advantage of the U.S. in past trade deals. The Trump administration's 

recently-enacted tariffs on some foreign goods were necessary to protect American businesses in 

the global market. Countries like China have been artificially subsidizing their industries, but the 

administration's new tariffs will level the playing field. 

The United States has the lowest gasoline and diesel prices in the developed world today. U.S. 

consumers are enjoying a low gasoline price environment due to low fuel taxes, growing oil 

production, substantial refining assets and supportive regulatory policy. The initial impact of new 

U.S. oil coming into the market drove diesel costs from $4 dollars a gallon, briskly down to 

$2.25. And U.S. exports arc keeping global oil prices (represented primarily by Brent) in check. 

Page I 6 
57 


One can only imagine the price of oil and gasoline without the influence of U.S. crude into the 

market. 

The unprecedented gains in our economy and the miracle of American oil and gas is shifting the 

geopolitical balance of power back to the United States of America. 

Page I 7 
58 


ABUNDANT U.S. OIL RESERVES MAKE CAFE STANDARDS OBSELETE 

FATALITIES ARE ON THE RISE 

The 2016 fatality count (37,461) is the highest since 2007, and the fatality rate of 1.18 is the 

highest since 2008. 

Vehicles are safer overall due to new technology and safety standards, but policy has limited the 

benefit. 

Newer vehicles in particular show up as much safer given improvements in technology and 

standards. 

Fatality rates have fallen for all vehicles in recent decades, but improvements have started to 

slow and fatalities are on the rise again. 

FATALITIES VS VEHICLE SIZE AND WEIGHT 

There is a direct link between vehicle size/weight and fatality rates. 

The smaller the vehicle, the higher the fatality rate. 

Average vehicle weight is not rising as much as before, despite a continued shift towards SUVs, 

which is partly due to lightweighting, which is likely limiting safety gains. 

Even adjusted for number of registered vehicles or miles driven, passenger cars are less safe for 

the occupants than light trucks, which are less safe than large trucks. 

These trends hold even for cars 1-3 years old. 

To meet future fuel economy standards, automakers must "lightweight" the vehicles, 

compromising safety. 

CAFE STANDARDS ARE UNREASONABLE AND UNECESSARY 

America is not short oil anymore. The US has 275.8 billion barrels of technically recoverable 

reserves of crude oil. At production of 10mbbl/d, that is 75 years of production. 

• The current market has a plethora of models and options that offer high fuel economy and 

exceed 2020 standards already. 

Upcoming standards are unreasonable. OverY. of current models meet 2020 standards, but this 

quickly falls off to <10% by 2022. Even some hybrids may struggle to meet future standards. 

New standards may not be achievable without compromising safety via lighter weight. 

The standards have minimal environmental benefit. Global transportation only accounts for 20% 

of global co, emissions. Light Duty Vehicles account for less than 10%. 

ECONOMICS 

Trucks and SUVs are taking market share among consumers, partly due to safety concerns 

Margins for automakers are much higher on trucks and SUVs than on cars 

Auto analysts have pegged the variable margin on each truck at $8,000-$10,000. Compare that 

to $2,500 on average for all vehicles sold, and it is easy to see that the trucks/SUVs contribute 

an outsized share of profitability. 

North American automakers are shifting away from making cars due to profitability, customer 

preference and technical issues of meeting CAFE standards. 

Foreign automakers are doubling down on smaller cars and taking market share, as US 

manufacturers pull back, therefore putting America last. 

This policy puts American jobs and manufacturing at risk. 
59 


FATALITIES 

Overall fatalities and the rate per mil are on the rise. 

Motor vehicle crash deaths per 100 million miles traveled 

42,000 lAO 

40,000 

.11 ~8,000 

i 35,000 

34,000 

1.35 .!) 

1.30 E 

c 

1.25 

1.20 t 1.1$ ~ 

1.10 ii. 32,000 1.05 .~ ·" 30,000 1.00 ~ 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

~Deaths -Rate 

Light Trucks are much safer than passenger cars and have seen fatality rates fall more In recent years. 

Occupant Fatality Rate per 100 Million VMT 

1.00 

Driver Fatality Rate per MHiion Registered Vehicles 1~3 years old (UHS) 

SO. I) 

45.0 I. 

40.0 I I. II 35.0 I 30.0 

25.0 

20.0 

2016 2015 2<H4 2013 2012. 

• Small/Midsize Vehicles lil\ large CarsjSUVs/Plckups 
60 


CARS CONTINUE TO lOSE MARKET SHARE TO SUVS AND TRUCKS 

Cars Resume Their Decline 

U.S. shifting toward tl\lcl(s, SUVs at rapid clip 

2007 

40 
61 


GAINS IN VEHICLE WEIGHT HAVE SLOWED DESPITE A SHIFT TOWARDS SUVS. 

VEHICLES ARE NOT GETIING LARGER WITHIN THEIR CLASS EITHER 

1975 1980 198$ 1990 1!195 2005 2010 2015 2020 

Model Year 

70 

65 

¢? 50 

~ 

t 

u. -, ... - 45 

40 

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 

Mode! Year 
62 


Consumers already have an increasing number of high fuel economy/low COz 

vehicle choices 

Emission Targets Are Too Steep and Unrealistic 

2020 2022 

Target Year 

2025 
63 


billion barrels 

l<:>WI!r ill!! 0!1si'IM!1! 

east 

registered r·ear.s 

(sq 
64 


Vehicles Account for a Small Portion 

Global 

• Transportation only rnn~nn'~"'~ 

emissions 

vehicles account for less than 

emissions 

the World Low fuel taxes, growing oil production, substantial and sophisticated refining assets 

supportive regulatory policy all contribute to a healthy gasoline price environment By exporting more, the US can help to keep prices down for all consumers $10.00 $9.00 $8.00 $7.00 $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 Global Retail Gasoline Prices in US Dollars Per Gallon m m w ro oo ro m m m o o o N N N v ID ID 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ro w ro ro w ro ro w ro ro ro w ro ro w ro ro w ro ro w ro ro w ro ro w ro ro w ro m w ro ro w 

us Canada -- UK -- Germany -- Japan -- Singapore BraziiANP India -- 

Sources: Bloomberg 

Product Burden = (Avg Brent Price+ 321 Crack+ US Retail Spread) X Total Liquids Demand World GOP (in USD) Prices as a %of Economic Activity Show Reasonable Price Levels 9.0% $120 8.0% $100 7.0% 6.0% $80 5.0% $60 4.0% 3.0% $40 2.0% $20 1.0% 0.0% $0 0 N <t <0 CX) ON <t <0 CX) 0 N <t <0 CX) 0 N <t <D CX) 0 N <t <D CX) 1'- 1'- 1'- 1'- 1'- CX) CX) CX) CX) CX) 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0 0 0 0 0 c; c; ..- ..- ..- 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0>0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N Product Prices as % of World GOP -Brent Avg Brent- Constant 2016 Dollars Sources: Bloomberg, IMF, lEA 
67 


U.S. VEHICLE SAFETY: 

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety {IIHS) compiles data and statistics on 

vehicle safety 

Some interesting data points: 

See chart below. The larger the vehicle, the safer it is ... 

- Generally, newer cars have become safer for similar sizes. Despite a car 

being newer, the larger the vehicle is, the safer it is. The vehicle shadow 

is the area of the vehicle's length times width. 

Car driver deaths per m!IHtl!l regl5!ered velllcle years 

"'"'''9 '"""-"~ {treml) m<lfik>lcan 1<itlrirm {trend) 

Ill! 

110 

vehr<le shadow (sq ft) 

- IIHS also did a study of insurance claims for a vehicle that was 

conventional and the same model that was a hybrid that was 10% 

heavier. The study found that people in the heavier vehicle were 25% 

less likely to be injured than in the lighter version of the same vehicle. 

All things being equal, a heavier vehicle is safer. 
68 


IIHS also classifies driver fatality rates by car type (see charts below) 

o Mini and Small Cars typically have the highest fatality rates 

o SUVs are clearly the lowest 

o Pickups seem to have variance, but are higher than some of the 

larger car models 

Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehldes 1-3 years old, 2016 

Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1·3 years old, 2015 

larg-e 
69 


Cars 

Cars 

Oriver deaths per m11!!on registered passenger vehicles 1-3- years old 1 2014 

Cars Cars Cars 

Vf!fY larg-e 

Driver deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old, 2013 

Cars Cars Cars Can. Pickups 

I suv, 

midsize small mlds!z-e large 

SUV1 

very 

SUVs 

very 

large 
70 


Dnver deaths per million registered passenger vehides 1-3 years old, 2012 

100 

s.ma!! 

large 

Links to IIHS information: 

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/vehide-size-and-weight/ganda#cite-text-0-1 

http://www.iihs.org/iihsf.topics/.t/.vehicle-size-and-weight/.fatalityfacts/.passengervehides/2016 
71 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you all. You know, I remember coming to 

Washington as a young staffer—I am still young—and I remember 

the gas lines. 

I remember having a 1 at the end of my license plate which allowed me to fill up, after an hour and a half, at a Shell station 

around the corner here on Capitol Hill. 

And, Mr. Arriola, I don’t know how you did it but you got one 

of the sharpest people in your organization in the woman behind 

you, Maryam Brown. 

She was one that worked hard with our Energy and Commerce 

staff to actually develop the strategy that, I got to tell you, was bipartisan—the North American Energy Independent Plan—and laid 

it out. 

We had testimony from Dr. Yergin back then, who predicted that 

we could do this if you unshackle the industry, and I got to tell 

you, 9 years ago, the day that President Obama was sworn in, the 

gas price—average gas price, and that was before Memorial Day 

and before July 4th, was $3.84 a gallon, and it hurt a lot of people, 

particularly the most vulnerable. 

And as I recall, that summer gas prices got pretty close to $5.00 

and even over—in some areas like California even maybe $6.00 a 

gallon. 

This last weekend, I was home in Michigan. I watched gas prices 

at $2.65. So forget inflation. I mean, we are so much better off, and 

the strategy that we laid out, which, again, was bipartisan. 

Mr. Hamm talked about it. President Obama signed it into law 

to lift the crude oil, and there were still some, even from Texas, 

who voted against the omnibus, even though that was part of it, 

despite Mr. Barton’s pleading, and he did a great job in lining up 

the support to get that done. 

But where would we be today without this? And I guess the 

other quick question that I have for Mr. Yergin, you said in your 

testimony that we anticipate that U.S. production could grow by 

another 60 percent over the next 20 years. 

You know, I talk to my farmers who use natural gas to dry their 

corn. You know, most of my constituents—many of them, anyway— 

have natural gas for heating and cooling and so those rates have 

gone down. They’re not even a third of what they were 10, 15 years 

ago. 

Where are we headed with this continued new production that in 

fact not only can we export and so help our balance of trade, but 

what is that going to do for the average family across the country? 

Dr. YERGIN. What it’s meant is lower cost for electricity, lower 

cost for heating, and it’s also, because of the impact on this economy, I mentioned in my written testimony we’ve added about $120 

billion of new investment directly in manufacturing, about maybe 

a same amount as ancillary. 

So it’s created a lot of jobs. It’s really been beneficial across the 

board. 

Mr. UPTON. And it’s done a lot for the climate as well. I mean, 

we know that emissions—CO2 emissions—have dropped by 30 percent. I think half of that is just by the transformation to coal—from 

coal, I should say. 

72 

Dr. YERGIN. Well, I mean—yes, if you look at it, our emissions 

today are back to the level of the early 1990s although our economy 

has almost doubled since that time and gas has been an important 

part of that. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Hamm, you indicated in your testimony that 

U.S. has the lowest gas and diesel prices in the developed world. 

What are the biggest drivers of reducing those prices and what can 

we do to continue to keep those prices low? 

Mr. HAMM. A lot of it has to do with the product that’s produced. 

Just like the Bakken—you know, that’s—that oil has no bottoms to 

speak of, no asphalt. 

Basically, a lot of middle distillates, which is gasoline, diesel, 

kerosene, and when that—you know, prior to it coming into existence back in 2007, you saw diesel prices at $4.00, $4.50 a gallon, 

and that was because there wasn’t much you could wring out of a 

barrel of bitumen coming in from Canada. 

But with the addition of all this oil coming in in the Bakken, that price went to $2.25 and it did it very quickly. And so as a result, we see both diesel and gasoline prices the cheapest that you 

have seen. 

And so we have the lowest gasoline prices in the world that we 

are enjoying and this is with some State taxes on it, and some of 

them, like, California, get pretty high. 

Mr. UPTON. So in my remaining 15 seconds, if the oil price stays 

about the same—where it is today—is that going to continue to see 

the exploration and the drilling and the production of domestic resources versus going too low and maybe shutting those off? 

Mr. HAMM. You know, we have a great supply. You know, I think 

we are all—I am a geologist—looking forward with natural gas. 

I think we’ve got a 100-year supply or more. You know, I think 

we can produce 10 million barrels a day of crude oil for the next 

85 years. You know, again this is an entirely new reservoir to explore. 

Basically, what we’ve done in the past is explored what leaked 

off of these giant shale fields where the oil was generated. And so 

all we could do is maybe that 15 percent that leaked off into upper 

reservoir traps we could go after that. 

Today, we can go into those resource beds like the Woodford and 

the Bakken and produce the oil left in them. So there’s about 85 

percent available. What can we get of that—20, 25, 30 percent? 

Sure. 

Mr. UPTON. My time has expired. Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your time has more 

than expired. 

Excellent presentations. I really appreciate all of your words. Dr. 

Yergin, the financial disclosure of climate effects for oil companies—is that possible to make that happen? What would it—how 

would it affect the economy? 

How would it affect the companies and how can we get that information to shareholders if they’re not going to be able to produce 

that information? 

Dr. YERGIN. I think a lot of that is being produced now. Companies are preparing their financial disclosure reports, their sustainability reports. 

73 

The question is does it go in the financial reports, does it go in 

others, and I think there’s a process going on with the climate-related financial disclosures to get the right framework for meaningful information that’s meaningful for investors. So I think we have 

pointed to something that’s in process and being developed. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Do you—in my opening statement, 

I mentioned the cyclical nature of the oil business economically. Do 

you see that happening now or do you think because of the shale 

revolution that it’s going to flatten out a little bit? 

Dr. YERGIN. No, I think—I think you hit it on the nail. It’s a cyclical business. It’s always been a cyclical business and if you look 

at the oil market today you see that we’ve gone from that really 

big surplus that led to the collapse with a tightening market and 

you have some very important geopolitical things that are happening. 

One is the rapid decline and collapse in Venezuela in oil production, which is something that we can feel the impact of in the next 

several months. 

Just to give you the numbers, Venezuela was 21⁄2 million barrels 

3 years ago. Today, it’s 1.4. We think next year it’ll be at 800,000 

and could be lower than that. 

And the other thing that’s, obviously, with the sanctions coming 

on Iran, with a very different pacing by this administration and the 

Obama administration, right now there’s uncertainty about that. 

So I think, you know, whenever they say cycles have been abolished, I tend to think no. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. You know, I believe one of the big 

drivers to the shale revolution was the way that ownership of the 

minerals below the surface as handled in this country as compared 

to other countries. 

Are other countries going to be able to carry on this—pick up the 

shale revolution or is that going to be continuing to be driven in 

this country? 

Dr. YERGIN. Well, it’s in Canada, but the kind of early thoughts 

that it was going to spread rapidly around the world has not borne 

out, partly for geological reasons, partly for political reasons, and 

partly for the reason you point to—that the resources under the 

grounds are owned by governments, not by the farmers who work 

on them. 

I would say the area now that there’s the greatest optimism 

about is what’s called the Vaca Muerta, which means dead cow, 

which is an area of Argentina and that’s where the focus is. 

But so far, this is really a North American deal. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. How about geopolitical leverage of our oil export 

and natural gas export versus what’s happening as a result of us 

pulling out of Paris and sort of repercussions of us pulling back 

with regard to being a leader on climate change? 

Dr. YERGIN. I think there are kind of two separate things. Obviously, Dr. Kennedy has described the latter. 

But I am very struck when I go to a country like India to see 

that, to them, it’s very significant that there’s this whole new dimension to their relationship with the United States that we are 

exporting gas to them. 

74 

We are actually exporting oil to them and it gives a whole new 

strand to that relationship and a kind of dialogue that wasn’t there 

before, and I see that in many countries around the world. 

And I think that the—you know, I don’t know where we are on 

trade right now but, certainly, LNG exports to China were seen as 

one factor that changed the trade balance between our two countries. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Dr. Kennedy, could you give me 

some indication of the job creation per kilowatt hour equivalent of 

renewables versus oil and natural gas? 

Dr. KENNEDY. I don’t have those numbers off the top of my head. 

But I would be happy to sort of go back to the office and gather 

some of that information and provide it to you, yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. 

Mr. Arriola, I am concerned about Sempra’s design of selling off 

its renewables. Can you give me some clue where Sempra is with 

regard to that process? 

Mr. ARRIOLA. I think what you’re probably referring to, Congressman, is a shareholder proposal that we received in the last 

couple weeks from an investor group, and what I can tell is Sempra 

is totally dedicated and committed to continuing our focus with renewables. 

In fact, if you look at—and you know our company, San Diego 

Gas and Electric, it’s actually one of the leading companies that 

procures renewable power on behalf of our customers. 

In fact, last year over 45 percent of the power that we procured 

was renewables and we are continuing to focus on what we can do 

from the battery storage technology standpoint in looking at electric vehicles. 

So Sempra, at its core, is focused on sustainability and part of 

that is renewable energy as well. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. OK. Thank you. Yield back. 

Mr. OLSON [presiding]. The Chair now calls upon the gentleman 

from Texas, the vice chairman of the full committee, Mr. Barton, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. I thank the gentleman from Fort Bend County, 

Texas, and I can’t tell you how excited I am to have this hearing. 

It’s really exciting for me. 

I’ve got all kinds of questions but I am going to—since I only 

have 5 minutes I am going to try to be as quick as possible. 

Mr. Yergin—and this would be also for Mr. Hamm—what’s— 

with current technology and current resource base, what’s the 

upper limit for oil production per day in the United States as compared to Saudi Arabia and Russia? 

Dr. YERGIN. Well, as a famous wildcatter in Texas said about 

around 1900, on Dr. Drill knows for sure. But I think now an informed view, and I think we see it from even the Energy Information Administration and others, the U.S. today is a little short of 

11 million barrels a day. 

It could be 14 or 15 million barrels a day. Russia is around 11 

million. Saudi is, like, 10.3. So we are moving into this position 

very significant and, you know, you take the Permian in Texas, 

which Mr. Hamm referred to. 

75 

Eight years ago, it was 900,000 barrels a day. It’s 2.5. We think 

another 5 years the Permian alone will be 5.4 million barrels a day, 

which will make it larger than any country in OPEC except for 

Saudi Arabia. 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Hamm. 

Mr. HAMM. I don’t have any change to that. Daniel is right on. 

You know, this year, best guess that we are going to grow about 

900,000 barrels per day in the U.S. 

So, you know, there’s some infrastructure things out there that, 

you know, will cap some of that—that growth. But, you know, I 

don’t see that number changing for a while. 

Mr. BARTON. Is there any other country in the world that has a 

higher delta potential production increase than the United States? 

Dr. YERGIN. Well, I will say that—— 

Mr. BARTON. I hope the answer is no. 

Dr. YERGIN. The answer is no. I don’t think anywhere in the 

world has actually seen the kind of growth that we’ve seen in the 

United States in the last 5 or 6 years. It just doesn’t happen anywhere else in the world. It’s breathtaking. 

Mr. BARTON. What is China’s potential oil and gas production as 

a percent of its demand? Do they have the ability to produce what 

they consume in oil and gas or will they—will they be a net importer of—— 

Dr. YERGIN. No, they’re going in just the opposite direction we 

are. They are now importing 75 percent of their oil and I think IEA 

has just said next year they’re going to be the largest importer of 

natural gas, which has become a real imperative for them. 

So they’re becoming more deponent and, you know, it’s striking 

to see that part of their portfolio now is from the United States. 

Mr. BARTON. This next question is for Mr. Arriola, since you’re 

with Sempra. What’s the 10-year outlook for LNG prices on the 

world market? I would assume they’re going to come down as we 

ramp up our exports? 

Mr. ARRIOLA. No, I think—Congressman, I think you’re correct. 

I think what we are finding is that as demand externally continues 

to increase, there’s more production going on here domestically and 

it’s helping to actually keep prices relatively flat or actually continuing to push them down, and as we see additional advances in 

technology I think it’s really good for consumers long term. 

So what we are seeing in why countries on the outside are looking to buy U.S. natural gas is because of the stability of those 

prices. 

Mr. BARTON. My assumption—of course, I am not in the market 

like you are, but my assumption is that as we ramp up our expert 

terminal capability and capacity that those prices are going to come 

down, but they’re going to level out, I hope, about halfway from 

where they were a couple years ago and where our domestic price 

is. 

So if we can get it $7, $8 in MCF equivalent, I think—I hope it’s 

somewhere in that range. Can U.S. exports be profitable in that 

price range? 

Mr. ARRIOLA. What we are seeing from the market is that the 

demand is there, and Mr. Hamm knows probably better than anyone that the U.S. production market is continuing to look for more 

76 

natural gas and oil, which they wouldn’t be doing it if it weren’t 

profitable. 

Mr. BARTON. This is my last question and I am going to sort of 

pat myself on the back here. You know, I helped lead the fight, and 

a lot of Members on the committee did, to repeal the ban on crude 

oil exports 3 or 4 years ago, and this committee also led the effort 

to make it possible to permit LNG terminals in a more timely fashion. 

What’s the geopolitical significance of those two congressional actions? 

Dr. YERGIN. I think the geopolitical position is strengthening the 

United States and strengthening our position in the world. 

I mean, it really gives us a whole new vocabulary to talk to countries about and the degree and a whole new category of kind of respect and a deeper relationship. So it’s been proved to be, I think, 

very positive. 

Mr. ARRIOLA. Congressman, what I would say to that is we talk 

to customers outside of the United States. They’re looking for options. They’re looking for options away from Russia and other countries and they want the United States to be one of those options. 

Dr. YERGIN. If I could say one other thing—it also—there’s a lot 

of contention in the relationship with China right now. 

But this has taken one issue of contention off the table, because 

if you go back 8, 10 years, there would still have to be this zero 

sum game between China and the United States for energy. That’s 

completely gone, and I think that’s something that improves our 

position. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OLSON. Pat on the back complete. The Chair now calls upon 

Mr. Peters from California for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for 

being here. I will say hello to Mr. Arriola from San Diego, and congratulations on the SDG&E being at 45 percent. 

I say it’s the highest, the most renewable. If you know of a utility 

that’s doing better you should—unless you know that, you should 

say it’s the highest, not one of the highest. 

Mr. ARRIOLA. We’ll do that in the future. Thank you. 

Mr. PETERS. OK. Thanks. Not that you’re running for office. 

You referred to clean natural gas in your testimony. I think that 

implicit in that is the statement that natural gas burns cleaner 

than coal, and I think most people would concede that. 

The thing that a lot of folks say, though, is that a lot of the benefit of natural gas is lost because of fugitive methane emissions— 

that methane being a much more damaging agent to climate even 

than carbon dioxide in the short run. 

The flip side of that is if you could contain it—if you could—if 

you could keep methane from escaping you could have a good impact on the rate of climate change. 

Let me ask you kind of how do you think the United States is 

doing in terms of methane capture? And I would like you to address that—I am going to ask the same questions of Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. ARRIOLA. You know, it’s a great question, Congressman, because I think with all of the advancements in technology and all 

of the capital expenditures that we’ve had within our industries 

77 

over the—I would say over the last 10 years, we have been able 

to identify and remediate substantially a lot of the methane emissions that come from the natural gas supply chain. 

And so when you compare the United States—and this is based 

upon numbers that were coming out of the EPA, the United States 

is probably one of the lowest when you look at the overall supply 

chain—probably close to 11⁄2 percent is the number that I’ve seen. 

What I would tell you is that there are additional opportunities 

for us to be able to capture methane emissions that don’t necessarily come from the natural gas supply chain but, rather, from 

the agricultural industry, the water supply industry, landfills, and 

within our company we are actually looking at new technologies to 

try to gather this and really create renewable natural gas by using 

it for either transportation fuels and/or reinjecting it into our pipelines. 

So I think there’s more opportunities there and we are focused 

on those. 

Mr. PETERS. Just in terms of natural gas collection and distribution, it’s my concern that the market may not provide sufficient incentives to look after that. 

Mr. Kennedy, what do you—what would you tell me about methane capture? 

Dr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Congressman. I would agree that 

both—that there are many of the technologies that are available 

and can be used to help contain and capture the methane leakage 

from the oil and gas industry but they are often not being used to 

the degree that they should be. 

In a recent report just last week, some academic studies looking 

at the degree of methane leakage across the oil and gas industry 

are suggesting that it is much greater than EPA had been estimating. 

I have not had a chance to look in any depth at that study but 

am greatly concerned that that is an indication that while CO2

emissions are down because of the advantages on the combustion 

side between natural gas and coal that the methane leakage may 

in fact be using up much of that advantage or even all of that advantage. 

I would also agree that there’s opportunities for renewable natural gas from other sources. We have done some recent work on 

that. So there’s other opportunities to capture other methane. 

But the oil and gas industry has the ability, but needs a lot of 

attention to make sure that they really capture methane as they 

could. 

Mr. PETERS. I would just say I would like to follow up with both 

of you or all of you about what we could do on that. I was invited 

to attend a conference held by Harvard Business School on America’s unconventional energy opportunity, they called it. 

It was in—it was in Mach of 2015—where they assessed that the 

cost of actually controlling this was very small in relation to the 

revenues and the profits. 

But I don’t—it just strikes me that we should come up with some 

regulatory regime because this is classic market failure, I believe, 

when the cost of capturing that few—that little bit of methane gas 

may not be sufficient to induce someone to keep it from escaping 

78 

and I think—I think, frankly, Sempra’s been pretty open to that 

and I look forward to working with you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. The Chair now calls upon Mr. Shimkus 

from Illinois for 5 minutes, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my colleague’s line 

of questioning—from California. 

I do want to make a point on the renewable natural gas that in 

the RFS in the advanced bucket there are credits for renewable 

natural gas. 

That’s actually a growing part of the advanced bucket of the 

RFS. So we should visit on that as we go down this route. 

A question I have—I am going to focus on the refined products 

and exports for a minute and I would like to ask Dr. Yergin and 

Mr. Hamm what countries outside of North America do we ship refined products to? 

Dr. YERGIN. Well, I don’t have all of them in my head by any 

means. I know Latin America is a big source, sometimes Europe, 

perhaps even Asia. 

I think in terms of LNG exports, I think so far we’ve exported 

LNG to about 26 different countries. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Hamm. 

Mr. HAMM. Yes. You know, the refineries in this country, 30 percent of it is owned by foreign governments and entities and they 

can ship wherever they want. 

They, basically, own those refineries. Much of it was built for 

their own oil, like the Canadians, Venezuelans, PEMEX. And so 

that oil, basically, is coming through, refined here and where it 

goes is any customer that they have around the world. 

And so about 5 million barrels a day is refined products that go 

to those customers wherever. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Can anyone talk to me the difference between the, 

in essence, the refined product on the gasoline side for octane ratings the difference between the United States and the European 

market, and is there one? Does anyone know that? 

We’ve been working on it. Bill Flores and I are—we are focusing 

on trying to revise the renewable fuel standard. As many of you 

people know, there is a push on looking at octane, and then the 

basic argument is this—why not get our smartest petroleum engineers and our smartest engine engineers to work together to figure 

out what’s the best product. It addresses maybe a CAFE issue. It 

might address a little carbon issue. 

So in our research we found out that in the United States our 

regular is 91 to 92 real octane number. The European gasoline is 

at a 95 real octane number. 

So the question would be do you see any benefits of a kind of a 

unified octane standard in just markets as far as exporting refined 

product to the European market if we had the same octane standard as they would have? 

My guess is that would be beneficial, just through simplicity of 

markets and commodity product. Is that farfetched? 

Dr. Yergin. 

79 

Dr. YERGIN. This is new to me. I feel I need to go back and ask 

my refinery—my colleagues who work in refining that question and 

focus on it. I would be happy to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, I think—well, we are putting a lot of time to 

it and I would appreciate any smart people looking at this. 

We are trying to address this—obviously, the White House is and 

the secretary of ag and the secretary of energy and the EPA administrator. 

The industry is being whipsawed back and forth with different 

proposals and I think that’s what happened when you don’t have 

a legislative fix and a legislative schedule and agenda. So we have 

a lot of different stakeholders. 

The last thing for—part of this is, and I direct this to you, Mr. 

Hamm, because we do talk about CAFE standards, and without a 

change in the fuel mix, as we are predicting, the way to reach 

CAFE standards is to have smaller lighter vehicles, which might 

address, one, safety issues for some, and then in rural America, a 

total rejection of—because we like big trucks, big engines, big 

power aspects. 

Do you—if—in this issue of—do you see a—do you see a benefit 

in the aspect of CAFE if you have high-compression engines that 

can go further on the same amount of gas, as far as meeting CAFE 

standards? 

Mr. HAMM. You can only go so far with that technology and manufacturers have done what they could with high-compression engines and fuel injection and everything that goes along with that, 

and what it came down to was the shadow of a car gets smaller 

and smaller and smaller, and it’s rejected by the buyers in America. 

So pretty soon everybody’s buying SUVs. Everybody is buying 

pickup trucks or they’re buying these little cars if that’s all they 

can afford and putting their families in it. 

But what we’ve seen is that we’ve reduced—we’ve reduced with 

seatbelts and airbags and everything else safety fatalities from 

45,000 down to about 30,000, and that was the bottom, and now 

it’s crept up due to the small size of these cars back up to 40,000. 

So it’s killing 10,000 Americans per year, and we have—that’s 

the number of them because you have got a huge mix of bigger vehicles out there with these little cars. And they’re made out of aluminum—they crush up like a beer can, kill everybody inside. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. UPTON [presiding]. Mr. Tonko. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Earlier this month, Pope 

Francis met with some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies 

to urge them to take the threat of climate change more seriously. 

But the consequences of climate change are not just moral or environmental-based. Any of the world’s largest investors say it is an 

economic concern as well. 

Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England and chair of 

the G–20’s Financial Stability Board, has made it clear that businesses should be assessing and disclosing climate related risks. 

A 2016 Black Rock Investment Institute report concluded that all 

investors should incorporate climate change awareness into their 

investment process and that advice is being heeded. 

80 

Investors representing trillions in assets have urge this sector to 

be more transparent and take responsibility for its emissions. 

Dr. Kennedy, I listened as there was some discussion about 

shareholders in this whole arena, and shareholders have helped 

drive greater disclosures of companies’ climate-related risks. 

How important is it for shareholders to be given this information 

when making decisions on how to invest their money? 

Dr. KENNEDY. This is a topic that I’ve not gone into in depth. But 

what I would say is that our economic system, our investment system, which is often driven by short-term returns, has a great difficulty in dealing with longer-term challenges and longer-term economic risks like climate change. 

And so the more information that can be made available to investors about the implications of the investments and what those 

mean in the long term is going to be very important and very helpful. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And is there a risks to the United States 

economy if companies fail to make these disclosures? 

Dr. KENNEDY. The risks of climate change itself are actually very 

great for the U.S. as we are already seeing significant impacts. 

From the changing climate, from increased severe weather, from 

increased sea level rise, storm surge, a wide variety of impacts are 

already starting to show up and we can only expect those to continue to increase over time, particulate if we don’t find ways of reducing emissions. 

So the more that can be done from a variety of perspectives including in terms of how investment decisions are made is going to 

be critically important to address those real risks, going forward. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. According to Sempra’s 2015 corporate responsibility report, Sempra began responding to the annual carbon 

disclosure project—CDP survey—in 2006, which reports the emissions of major companies and releases and assessment of their potential climate risks. 

Since 2015, Sempra has scored 100 out of 100 on disclosure. Mr. 

Arriola, why has Sempra made this a priority and do you believe 

that such disclosures are important across the energy sector? 

Mr. ARRIOLA. Congressman, it’s important to us because it’s important to our consumers in the communities where we do business 

as well as to our shareholders. 

As you have mentioned, there’s been a trend I would say over the 

last decade that really started in Europe but now has come more 

forcefully to the United States where investors—and I am talking 

about large institutional investors—really do want to understand 

what companies are doing to address climate change, but not just 

climate change—how they’re dealing with water, how they’re dealing with diversity in companies—really, both sustainability and 

corporate responsibility. 

And we—this is something that we take very seriously in our 

company and actually on Friday we’ll be releasing our most recent 

sustainability report, which I think continues to get better and better and it gets acknowledged by different organizations because we 

go beyond what we need to because we think it’s important for investors to understand what we are doing on their behalf. 

81 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And Mr. Hamm, Continental Resources 

is one of the largest non-responders to CDP’s annual disclosure request. Any reason why you do not participate? 

Mr. HAMM. Excuse me. There’s not any specific reason. You 

know, climate change—I am a geologist. I believe that we can affect the climate and I certainly think that investors can pick or 

choose which company that they would want to invest in and who 

are the best stewards of the land and water, air. 

Continental certainly fits in at the top of that rank. With horizontal drilling, there’s a lot of drilling that goes on but it certainly 

doesn’t look like it.You know, the methane emissions that you talk 

about, our company has been doing green completions as long as 

I remember. So—— 

Mr. TONKO. But that being said, why not then respond to CDP’s 

annual request? 

Mr. HAMM. You know, I don’t believe we’ve had the specific annual request in that regard that I recall. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you. The Chair would recognize Mr. Latta. 

Mr. LATTA. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much for 

holding today’s hearing and thank you very much for our panelists 

for being with us today. 

It’s very, very important as we go forward with energy development in this country. 

Mr. Yergin, if I can start my questions with you. You know, we 

on this committee have a great opportunity to speak with political 

leaders and business leaders across the world, and it’s very interesting through the last several years I’ve had—the discussions I’ve 

had with those individuals they’ve all asked this one question— 

how is it the United States has been able to do what you have done 

and be able to accomplish it so quickly. 

And then the next question would be is do we have any competitors or other countries that are out there that are trying to do the 

exact same, maybe to duplicate, you know, what we’ve done in this 

country and are they able to do that as we did in this country. 

Dr. YERGIN. Do you mean in terms of the unconventional revolution or in general? 

Mr. LATTA. Correct. 

Dr. YERGIN. I think aside from what we’ve seen in Canada, 

which is kind of like an offshoot of here, no, nobody else, and it’s 

a combination of the resource base, the ecosystem, our legal system, our entrepreneurial system and the fact that we have all 

these supply chains to respond to it. 

So that’s why, you know, it is something you look at and you say 

things don’t happen normally this fast and this has really happened fast. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, I know someone had asked a little bit earlier 

a question to you and you responded back about what’s happening 

with Iran and in Venezuela. 

Where do you see the United States—I know this has come up 

in some of the other questions—but when you’re looking around the 

world—our place in the world, because it’s hard to explain to people that don’t remember the mid-1970s and understand what happened in this country, and trying to explain to people that, you 

82 

know, in some areas of the country either, A, you didn’t buy gas 

on certain days because your license plate didn’t end with a even 

or odd number, or, you know, people were just told we didn’t any 

energy in this country. 

But where do you—you know, where do you see this country and 

what that means for us geopolitically then? 

Dr. YERGIN. I think it’s—I mean, at that time the view was that, 

you know, we were just going to be held hostage—that we’d lost 

control of our lives on a daily basis in terms of gas lines and in 

terms of our economy, and this has been such a turnaround. 

Ben Bernanke, when he stepped—was at our conference just 

after he stepped down as head of the Federal Reserve, said this unconventional revolution was one of the most positive, if not the 

most positive thing, to have happened since the 2008 crisis. 

Clearly, people who don’t remember, you know, it’s—you know, 

they see grainy images maybe on television of gas lines and said, 

what is that all about. 

So that’s why it’s such a big turnaround, and I think it took a 

few years psychologically for people to—you know, for many people 

to realize that this is for real. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. Mr. Hamm and Mr. Arriola, what growth 

have your companies seen in job creation and career opportunities 

as a result of the shale revolution? 

Mr. ARRIOLA. Sure. Starting at Sempra Energy, if you would 

have looked at our company just over 10 years ago, our LNG business really didn’t exist. 

So we’ve hired, I would say, hundreds of people to help develop 

our LNG projects in Mexico and Louisiana, and we are looking forward to hiring even more in Texas. 

I think that’s probably the biggest part. I can’t give you an exact 

number but it’s in the hundreds, of well-paying jobs. 

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Hamm. 

Mr. HAMM. Well, you know, our company, like a lot of independents, you know, we’ve had good growth over this period of time and 

the industry in total has added over a million jobs—you know, basically, every sector from the service sectors through B and P production and exploration, and so it’s been a tremendous driver of the 

American economy. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, I think what was just brought up is also important because I think that sometimes when we talk about a company and how many jobs are being created it’s not all the folks out 

there who are, you know, in—on the steel end and those who 

produce the pipe, and you name all the different things that have 

to be done to get there, and so all of the other jobs that are the 

offshoots. So it’s been a great boon for the economy. 

Mr. ARRIOLA. Congressman, if I could also just interject that—— 

Mr. LATTA. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. ARRIOLA [continuing]. The jobs I was talking about were directly at Sempra. 

Mr. LATTA. Right. 

Mr. ARRIOLA. If you look at the projects that we’ve had—for example, our Cameron LNG facility—there are over 10,000 people on 

the job today. Once we develop our Port Arthur facility, there will 

be over 3,000 jobs going for 4 to 5 years. 

83 

So it’s not necessarily just the jobs directly at our company that 

are important from an economic perspective but it’s all of the jobs 

that get created by these projects. 

Dr. YERGIN. We calculated a couple of years ago that it was well 

over 2 million jobs because the supply chain in the Middle West 

that was a very big beneficiary because of the supply chains, because of the manufacturing capabilities that fed into this. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time has 

expired. 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the ranking member, 

for holding this important hearing, and I am glad to know that the 

World Gas Conference is here in Washington. 

Dr. Yergin, I remember a few years ago we had one of our conferences in Houston and you interviewed our EPA administrator, 

Gina McCarthy, and I think that was the first time she went to an 

energy conference, and I appreciate the hospitality and also representing an area that deals with environmental issues every day 

because that’s our job base, our refineries, our chemical plants in 

east Houston and Harris County. 

So Texas is the largest generator of wind power in the country 

right now and, hopefully, we can do other things. But what we’ve 

seen, though is that the mix of the electricity—and we do need 

electricity plants to produce those for those electric cars—and, you 

know, our choices are in Texas we have 20 percent nuclear power. 

That’s the base power. You know, wind energy—coal has actually 

gotten down lower because the price of natural gas is so cheap and 

that’s why it’s—I think that mix works and we’ll continue to see 

renewables pick up some. 

But it’s easier to turn on a burner on a natural gas plant than 

it is to try and keep a coal storage facility. 

The—our American energy renaissance—because I’ve been in 

Congress since 1993 and it’s been amazing what’s happened. Mr. 

Arriola, in your testimony you talk about how the U.S. regulatory 

certainty at FERC could hinder U.S. LNG development in comparison to countries like Russia, Australia, Qatar, or Mozambique. 

What changes would you like to see in the regulatory process? 

Mr. ARRIOLA. Thank you, Congressman. You know, I think we 

believe that it’s important to have a very thorough and exhaustive 

review process on any permitting, especially from FERC and the 

DOE. 

What we’d encourage is just making sure that it’s as streamlined 

as possible—that it’s efficient but that we check the box as quickly 

as we can—that we don’t recreate the wheel on every project, and 

I will give you an example. 

When we went through the process for our facility in Cameron, 

Louisiana, it took FERC 553 days to get through the entire project. 

As we are seeking approval here for our Port Arthur LNG facility 

in Texas, it’s essentially the same engineering design that we are 

trying to duplicate in Texas. Right now, we are estimating that it’s 

probably going to take closer to a thousand days. 

Now, granted, there are more projects that FERC is looking at 

and we’ve been working very constructively with their staff and everything. 

84 

But I think part of it is just making sure that they have not just 

more resources but the right resources and that the agencies like 

FERC and DOE work together to eliminate the bottlenecks to the 

extent that they can. 

Mr. GREEN. Right now I’ve been told—and if you could confirm 

it—the Trump administration’s approval time line for LNG export 

permitting trails that of the Obama administration. Is that correct? 

Mr. ARRIOLA. That’s our understanding. 

Mr. GREEN. I think that would shock a lot of us. 

Mr. ARRIOLA. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. And I want to make sure that FERC has the staff 

it needs to move efficiently through the permitting process. 

I’ve also—in fact, this committee passed legislation on cross-border pipelines to sell natural gas from Texas or New Mexico to Mexico, and Mexico has—literally, can only refine about 60 percent of 

their petroleum they need for diesel and gas and 40 percent of that 

comes from typically the refineries along the Gulf Coast. 

The Eagle Ford Basin doesn’t stop at the Rio Grande River either 

and there’ll come a time in the future that Houston’s petrochemical 

industry may need the gas from Mexico and those pipelines could 

benefit us in our industry and east end. 

Mr. Mullin and I addressed this with the cross-border pipeline 

that passed the House last summer, and I am pleased that Senator 

Hoeven introduced companion language in the Senate last week to 

move it quickly to conference. 

Mr. Arriola, could you speak how our energy relationship with 

Mexico has shifted recently? What benefits does the U.S. stand to 

gain from an integrated North American energy market between 

Canada, Mexico, and the United States? 

Mr. ARRIOLA. Sure, Congressman. I think it’s—you know, this 

truly has been a win-win situation between the United States and 

Mexico as it pertains to energy trade. 

In fact, in the most recent year that I’ve seen the numbers, 

there’s actually been a trade surplus from U.S. products and services related to energy that go to Mexico. In fact, I think the last number what I saw was, roughly, an $11 

billion surplus on the side of the U.S. We are continuing to provide 

them with natural gas. We are continuing to provide them with 

other petro fuels sources, for example. 

If you look at gasoline, diesel, and other jet fuel resources, the 

United States has, roughly, a 90-day inventory supply. Mexico has 

two to three days. 

So there are more opportunities to build infrastructure in Mexico 

that can receive future U.S. products and that’s one of the things 

that we are looking at. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I know I am out of time but if—— 

Mr. UPTON. We are going to have votes on the House floor shortly. So—— 

Mr. GREEN. OK. Well, I was just going to say that it’s not just 

Mexico. It’s also LNG exports. In fact, my joke is anybody in Louisiana and Texas who has a five-foot ditch off the Gulf of Mexico 

they want an LNG export facility. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. UPTON. Gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. McKinley. 

85 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this meeting. 

As Dr. Yergin noted earlier in his testimony not only this time 

but previously, there is indeed an abundance of natural gas located 

in the Marcellus and Utica shale gases in West Virginia, Ohio, and 

Pennsylvania, and it’s estimated that this region will produce 

about 37 percent of the Nation’s natural gas production by the year 

2040. 

These shale gases underscore this potential of a historic renaissance that he referred to in American energy. But as we’ve heard 

earlier, the naysayer continue to trot out their tired, disproven 

talking points. 

Unfortunately, the facts have proved otherwise. Just the last 10 

years, CO2 emissions in America have gone down by 20 percent. 

Shale gas has given the Appalachian area a breath of fresh air, 

perhaps a chance finally to transform and revitalize a whole region 

of the country, and subsequently Rick Perry and the DOE have 

concluded that there’s a need, perhaps, to develop a second petrochemical center located in the Appalachian region. 

A recent study by HSS Market have concluded that the economic 

advantages of extracting ethane in the Appalachian region—has 

concluded that the resin could be produced at 23 percent lower 

there than being shipped down to the Gulf Coast to the crackers 

and back up. So I think that was an interesting conclusion with 

that. 

Now, we can achieve lower energy costs and dramatically decrease it if we take a different approach and work together. 

Congress should fully innovate research to reduce emissions—the 

concern, Dr. Kennedy, you’re concerned about—if we just put the 

money into research. 

The technology of American scientists developing higher efficiency and low emissions could be sold around the world—marketed around the world—and thereby address this worldwide concern about greenhouse gases, because we’ve got to remember the 

world is going to increase its energy production and use by 28 percent by 2040, and fossil fuels by will count still for 75 percent of 

the energy use. 

So what my concern is, if that’s the case, what are we doing with 

China and India? Isn’t it time that some of our Members recognize 

that, until the rest of the world—especially India and China—produces electricity more cleanly, continuing to overregulate fossil fuel 

in America will have virtually no effect on the global environment. 

Therefore, shouldn’t we be first—innovate first, do the research, 

then regulate? 

So, Dr. Yergin, with this shale gas present, this revolution going 

on in Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia, what potential do you see 

for a potential petro chemical industry up in the Appalachian area 

and with projection they’re saying as much as $36 billion invested 

and maybe 100,000 jobs? Do you believe that. 

Dr. YERGIN. Some people see the Marcellus, now the region in 

the Utica as the largest gas field or gas concentration in the world. 

I thought that some companies had actually committed to build 

petro chemical facilities there. I thought Shell was doing it but you 

have a—— 

86 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Shell is doing it in Monaca, Pennsylvania. That’s 

one portion of it, but there are others. I know they’re doing some— 

the ethane storage hub that we’ve been promoting here has been 

the—the question is whether or not any of you have the realization 

that could this be a center of a secondary? 

We are not trying to replace Houston, but just is there a secondary—is there a second—possibility of a secondary? 

Dr. YERGIN. Yes. Sure. I mean, the resources is so enormous 

there. I mean, as you said, it’s going to be such a large part. 

Also, I did want to say—you mentioned the R and D. One of the 

big themes over at the World Gas Congress has been specifically 

about methane and applying the technologies to address methane. 

So, I mean, there is definitely a research agenda to address the 

questions you’re talking about including methane. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Dr. Arriola, any comments from you? 

Mr. ARRIOLA. I really don’t have anything to add on that other 

than given the infrastructure that we have and lacking pipelines 

in some parts of our country, it may make sense to develop those 

centers that you’re talking about closer to the source themselves. 

So from an economies of scale standpoint, that could very well 

make sense. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. UPTON. Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 

Vermont, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much. I thank the panel. 

Mr. Yergin, your opening statement indicated with the shale gale 

it just has been a huge game changer in jobs and economic activity 

in our ability to go from being an importer to an exporter, maybe 

the largest one. 

One of the other issues, though, that I would like to focus on is 

energy efficiency. I mean, it’s tremendous that we have these resources and it creates the economic activity and the jobs. 

But some of us are concerned also about carbon emissions and 

the impact that has, and my understanding is that the energy efficiency policies that we’ve been able, and I’ve worked a lot with Mr. 

McKinley on this actually—energy efficiency has allowed us to save 

on the demand for energy. 

The Alliance to Save Energy says that if we tried to run today’s 

economy without energy efficiency improvements that have taken 

place in ’73, we’d need 55 percent more energy supplies than we 

now use. 

Could you describe what you understand to be the Trump administration policies on energy efficiency, A, and, B, whether even as 

we exploit the shale gale, does that suggest that we can take our 

eye off the importance of efficiency? 

Dr. YERGIN. I am not really in a position to address what the— 

you know, because I haven’t studied what the Trump administration’s specific policies are. 

I do agree with you. When I began my work in energy, it was 

based—focused on energy efficiency and, off the top of my head, I 

would say that we are probably twice as energy efficient today as 

a country than we were, you know, a few decades ago. 

So I think energy efficiency is a very important—you know, I regard energy efficiency as another energy source. 

87 

Mr. WELCH. And my is the energy companies have to be part of 

the solution. They have to be, and I am wondering—you’re over at 

the meeting with the gas folks—12,000 people—are there any topics that are being discussed specifically as to energy efficiency? 

Dr. YERGIN. Well, in the speeches I heard, it was certainly said 

that, you know, this has to be a big part of the energy mix and, 

you know, if we hadn’t become more efficient as a country, we 

would be in a—we would also be in a very difficult place. 

The thing about energy efficiency so much, it’s—you know, it’s— 

it goes through the entire economy. It’s decisions that people make 

when they build houses. 

It’s new processes in industry. What’s always struck me about it, 

it’s a very decentralized activity. There has been a general trend 

towards being more efficient. 

Mr. WELCH. Is there a place for appropriate regulation in order 

to meet energy efficiency standards, Mr. Yergin? 

Dr. YERGIN. Yes. I mean, you can see it, for instance, in housing 

and other places and that regulation has been part of the mix. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. Mr. Arriola, would you agree with that, 

I mean, as the representative of a major energy company? 

Mr. ARRIOLA. Yes. What we see, Congressman, is a lot of that 

regulation happens State by State. So, for example, in California, 

whether it’s the housing codes or through our Public Utilities Commission, there’s a lot of work that goes on in energy efficiency. 

Mr. WELCH. So, you know, there’s—— 

Mr. ARRIOLA. And our companies are directly involved to help facilitate that. 

Mr. WELCH. All right. Mr. Hamm, I know you have been supportive of the president’s deregulatory agenda. We’ve heard some 

testimony here about the appropriate use of regulations like Energy Star. 

Do you support that? 

Mr. HAMM. Well, you know, the best efficiencies is gained by the 

private sector. For instance, in 2014 we had 1,950 rigs working. 

Today, we’ve got a thousand rigs doing the same job. 

So, basically, you have got one rig as efficient as five were in the 

1980s. So that’s efficiencies that you can gain from the private sector —— 

Mr. WELCH. Well, that’s efficiency in the exploitation process, not 

in the use process, right? Now, do you believe that EPA has a 

role—the Environmental Protection Agency—in promulgating appropriate regulatory mechanisms for energy efficiency? 

Mr. HAMM. I don’t think they—EPA is there to enforce the law 

and basically ensure that rule of law is followed, and so they have 

that job to do and they do it sometimes very well, most of the time 

very well. But as far as efficiencies—— 

Mr. WELCH. Right. I just have time for one more question. 

What’s your view on the president’s tariffs on oil exports to 

China—or the China retaliatory tariffs on us with respect to our 

oil exports? 

Mr. HAMM. Well, right now, we don’t have tariffs that apply to 

oil going to China, and we’ll see if that happens or not. 

Mr. WELCH. Are you OK with the tariffs? Do you think that’s a 

good thing for business? 

88 

Mr. HAMM. Am I OK with tariffs? I think tariffs are counterproductive. I think everybody here believes that. 

What’s going on right now is setting some of that straight. You 

know, the countries have gotten too carried away with tariffs in the 

past. Nothing was done about it, and so some of those corrections 

are being made today. 

Mr. WELCH. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. UPTON. Gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Griffith. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I thank the gentleman and appreciate it. Dr. 

Yergin, appreciate you being here today. I got a couple questions 

in that regard with the geopolitical aspects of all of this. 

So we’ve heard a lot about foreign countries, and Mr. McKinley 

touched base on it, and we were talking with one of the foreign 

countries earlier today. 

But isn’t it true that if we were suddenly to cut off American gas 

exports that a lot of the countries, particularly some of the developing economies, would just continue to use coal from other parts 

of the world? 

Dr. YERGIN. Well, I think—I mean, we are just part and we are 

still a beginning part of the LNG market. We’ll have more when 

you guys get going. 

But I think there is—you know, there’s a competition going on 

on a global basis for, you know, what’s going to be the balance between coal and natural gas and renewables for developing countries, and I think many of them—you know, there’s definitely a 

push towards using more gas. 

We see 15, 20 countries are going to—that don’t import LNG now 

will import LNG because they want to have—clean up and not 

use—clean up their electric generation. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And one of the questions that I would have as we 

look at this is as we go to using the LNG, are we able to compete 

worldwide with that? 

Because, obviously, and I represent a coal district like Mr. 

McKinley does as well—obviously, you know, it doesn’t make sense 

very often unless you need some good high-quality, as they called 

it this morning, coking coal. 

But the—what we call metallurgical coal in my neck of the 

woods—unless you need that, if you’re just buying steam coal, it’s 

hard to buy that for basic energy in some parts of the world—hard 

for us to ship it to them and compete against the Australians, and 

insert about four or five other countries. 

But from what I understand—you correct me if I am wrong—our 

LNG resources can reach worldwide and be pretty competitive 

wherever we go. Isn’t that true? 

Dr. YERGIN. Yes. We are quite competitive in the market. You 

know, we are maybe not as competitive as some pipeline suppliers 

in Europe. 

But there’s definite—I mean, I saw it this morning at this APEC 

conference with all these Asian countries. They’re really interested 

in important LNG from the United States. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And I think that makes a lot of sense, and as a 

part of that, I would have to say that while I don’t have any of the 

Marcellus. 

89 

DOE, earlier this year, announced a project in conjunction with 

Virginia Tech in my district to investigate the resources—the resource potential for reservoirs in the Nora Gas Field in southwest 

Virginia, and I am excited that this research is being conducted to 

improve our understanding. 

But it appears that we are down another level from what they’ve 

looked at before and so they’re drilling some deep mines or some 

deep wells to see what we have down there, and we are excited 

about that because we have coal bed methane but we haven’t been 

doing much on any other gas. 

We don’t have the Marcellus or the Utica shale. But we may 

have this and we are excited about that. We already have some 

petro chemicals—Eastman Chemical, even though it’s in Kingsport, 

Tennessee, and people say, why are you interested in it. 

They have 10,000 employees and a thousand of them drive the 

eight miles from my district to the plant. So we are excited about 

that. 

But I think it’s important that we realize that, as we move forward, this is important for the world. I also would echo some of the 

comments my colleagues have made that we need to do the research, because it’s not just the United States that we are dealing 

with. 

It’s the world and we are looking at global warming, et cetera. 

If we don’t provide the research to burn our fuels more efficiently 

worldwide, and something that the rest of the world can also afford 

and obtain, then they’re going to continue to burn coal. 

They’re going to continue to burn all kinds of products and put 

stuff in the air, and I know it bores people but it’s just my favorite 

factoid of all time. 

NASA did a study. They followed a sandstorm from Central Asia 

in the middle of the Gobi Desert, and it takes 10 days for the air 

to get from the middle of the Gobi Desert to the eastern shore of 

Virginia, based on their satellite research. 

So we need to work on this from a worldwide viewpoint and not 

put American jobs out of business because we are trying to set the 

standard, because the rest of the world is looking for jobs, period, 

and if they have to use something improper or less efficient they’ll 

do it. 

But if we can find a way to do it through research they’ll share 

in that. Everybody wants to have a cleaner world, but they want 

to have jobs first because the number-one—the number-one thing 

is to have jobs and that helps your health as well. 

Wouldn’t that be correct, Dr. Yergin? 

Dr. YERGIN. Yes, and I love your factoid. I’ve never heard that 

before. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. It’s a fun factoid. All right. I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Walberg. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 

panel for being here. 

Mr. Yergin, in your testimony you mentioned that by 2025 as 

many as 4 million jobs—direct, indirect, and induced—could be 

supported by unconventional oil and gas activities. 

Could you explain in further detail for us the types of jobs that 

are supported by unconventional oil and gas activities? 

90 

Dr. YERGIN. Well, those three categories are really categories 

that the Department of Commerce uses. The direct jobs would be 

working on one of Harold Hamm’s rigs, working in the oil field. 

Indirect would be kind of service jobs supporting that, and then 

the induced jobs is the money that flows into the community because, as we’ve seen in Pennsylvania, suddenly people are able to 

buy cars, are able to buy houses. 

Realtors service computer specialists in California, financial people in New York, and so that’s kind of the methodology that’s used 

for estimating that, and what it really says that these supply 

chains go all the way the across the country and the money that’s 

being spent is staying in this country and being distributed in our 

economy. 

Mr. WALBERG. Moving along with that, several of you mentioned 

the numbers of jobs—direct, indirect, in construction as well as exploration for finding all that go on there. 

Let me ask Mr. Hamm and Mr. Arriola, what types of job training and recruitment efforts are you using to meet those needs? 

I mean, we see all across the vocational spectrum today a real 

lack of people to do the jobs—real rural jobs that we need—and 

what are you doing to train people for the jobs? 

Mr. ARRIOLA. Congressman, I can tell you, in the case of the 

LNG facilities that we are talking about, we work very closely, obviously, with our subcontractors that are hiring people but we are 

also working directly with the trades to train people, whether it’s 

welders, whether it’s supply procurement experts. 

There’s a whole host of jobs, whether they’re low skilled or high 

skilled that we are trying to do, and I think one of the great things 

is we are creating a pipeline of skilled workers that—especially in 

some of these areas that workers that wouldn’t necessarily have 

opportunities that can now go from facility to facility to continue 

to build. 

So sometimes we think of these as temporary jobs but they’re 

really skills that are being developed that can be utilized across the 

construction industry to continue to build energy infrastructure. 

Mr. WALBERG. So you’re working with the trades. What other— 

I mean—— 

Mr. ARRIOLA. We are working with the trades in the case of our 

utilities where we are enhancing pipelines to carry natural gas. 

We are working with the junior colleges and other organizations 

to identify people that are coming directly out of high school or junior colleges to give them the skills that they need to be able to be 

productive members of our team. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Hamm, I would ask you if you’d respond as 

well, especially since being an innovator—innovation in directional 

drilling and all of that. 

Mr. HAMM. Thank you. What we’ve seen, really, that added so 

many new jobs is these very expensive petro chemical plants that 

have been added with all the natural gas resources that we have. 

In fact, it’s been estimated that one out of eight people, you 

know, have been associated with our industry. So it’s very intense, 

particularly in Houston and some of the areas that these plants locate. 

91 

And so it’s very intense. Vocational technical training has helped 

a great deal in places like Oklahoma. As far as our industry goes, 

it’s been a great resource. 

But it seems like the—you know, we are down to about 3.8 percent of unemployment in this country now, which is wonderful, and 

the closer you get to the 3 percent level, the harder it is to find 

those employees that you need. 

But so far, we’ve been able to do it. 

Mr. WALBERG. Recruit and train your own? Is that how you—— 

Mr. HAMM. We recruit and we’ve trained. We train both at the 

company level and then also we use technical schools for training 

as well. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, everyone, for 

being here. It’s been a great hearing so far. As we all know, the 

United States is well on our way to becoming a net energy exporter 

by 2020—I think a natural gas exporter—it was the first time last 

year—first time since 1957, I believe. 

I commend the Trump administration’s support for robust domestic energy production, which has consequently strengthened our 

leadership on the world stage. 

Mr. Arriola, you note in your testimony that the failure of the 

U.S. to seize the current LNG opportunity has international implications. 

I couldn’t agree with you more, and besides the fact exporting 

gas to U.S. allies will contribute up to 452,000 American jobs from 

2016 and 2035, add about $73.6 billion annually to the U.S. economy. It can also provide energy security to our allies. 

Prior to serving on the Energy and Commerce Committee, I 

served as chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee on 

the House Foreign Affairs Committee and I utilized that role as 

that chairman to focus on energy opportunities in North and South 

America and how we can work to achieve not only America energy 

independence and energy security but also hemispheric energy security and independence. 

In this region of the world, we have the ability through U.S. 

LNG exports to help the energy poor. Countries reduce their dependence on corrupt state-owned regimes and increase the quality 

of life for so many people around the world. 

I talk about quality of life a lot of times, how energy can improve 

the quality of lives. Just in infant mortality rate—through energy 

and a constant 24/7 baseload power supply that that energy, possibly with LNG natural gas-fired power plants providing that electricity can keep babies alive. Where you have intermittent power 

now in neonatal intensive care and incubators cannot run to keep 

those babies alive, you see a high infant mortality rate. 

A lot of quality of life issues that we, as Americans, with our energy—abundant energy resources, exporting those to our friends 

and allies around the world to improve the quality of life of folks 

elsewhere. 

So, Mr. Arriola, from your perspective, how can LNG terminals 

further open up access for U.S. LNG in these markets? 

92 

Mr. ARRIOLA. Well, Congressman, your point about natural gas 

and different types of energy impacting more than just the economic side is truly right on. 

In fact, I saw—I spoke to a professor from the Stanford Natural 

Gas Initiative yesterday and he shared with me in a conference we 

were at that, although we don’t talk about it very much, indoor air 

pollution is one of the largest killers in this world, and we don’t 

think about it here in the United States because we have, for the 

most part, natural gas or electricity to help, from a cooking fuels 

perspective. 

But if you go to other countries—developing countries, they use 

wood. They use dung. They use charcoal, and last year, roughly, 4 

million people died from indoor air pollution caused by cooking 

fuel. 

Mr. DUNCAN. And I am glad you said that. I talk about that all 

the time. The indoor air quality is terrible when you’re burning on 

wood, charcoal, dung, other things that people around the world 

have to cook on, and the fact that they don’t have a 24/7 baseload 

power supply to keep their food fresh in a refrigerated environment. 

Mr. ARRIOLA. So not only are we impacting economic prosperity 

around the globe by being able to export clean U.S. natural gas, 

but we are changing people’s lives. We are changing the health and 

their livelihood. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Improving lives of so many people around the 

world through American resources that we take for granted. We 

take for granted that that light is going to come on when we flip 

the switch. 

We take for granted that the machines of industry to produce the 

widgets that America produces—that that electricity is going to be 

there to provide for those machineries to turn on. 

But you know what? It’s not just a third world problem. Even in 

second world and first world Europe they have problems with 

intermittency and power supplies. 

So this is geopolitics of American energy. When I was in Spain— 

and I understand Portugal is the same way—but they want to be 

the LNG importer for Western Europe because right now, Western 

Europe is relying on who? Russia. 

Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country. But they’re 

providing that natural gas to Europe and they use the levers of influence of turning that spigot on and off to affect policy not only 

in Eastern Europe but in Western Europe, and as those pipelines 

continue to be built to provide that natural gas, Western Europe 

is looking west to the United States, a stable energy producer, an 

ally and a friend, to provide LNG so they can meet their energy 

needs and lessen their dependence not on the Middle East for their 

energy but lessen their dependence on Russia and their less dependence on Russian gas and more strong dependence on, possibly, 

hopefully, American LNG exports to provide that energy. 

So the geopolitics are real. I appreciate your comments, and let’s 

improve the lives of folks around the world through American energy production. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

93 

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman yields back. I regret to say that votes 

on the floor have started again. They’re not going to be completed, 

they tell us, until after 4:00 o’clock. 

I know a couple of our witnesses have to leave by 3:45. So I am 

going to ask that Mr. Olson, who’s next in line for questions, take 

the chair and he will ask questions, at which point we will adjourn, 

and those Members wishing to still ask questions will do it in writing, and if you could respond on a timely basis we’ll adjourn rather 

than keep you here until 4:15, knowing that all of you are pretty 

much gone. 

Mr. Olson. 

Mr. OLSON [presiding]. I thank the Chair, and welcome to our 

four witnesses. 

I want to start by saying congratulations to our friends at—our 

good friends at Sempra. Big merger with Oncor. Congratulations. 

Mr. ARRIOLA. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Arriola, your company is working on some significant LNG export terminals along the Gulf Coast. You mentioned Cameron being up and running, Port Arthur coming online. 

Can you talk about why getting American liquefied natural gas 

to market is time sensitive? Why does it matter how fast we ramp 

this production up? What markets are in jeopardy if we delay or 

drag this out? 

Mr. ARRIOLA. Sure, Congressman. 

I think, as we’ve discussed, when foreign countries decide to 

enter into contracts for LNG, they’re ordinarily in the 20- to 30- 

year timeframe. And so as I am buying a product or a service for 

20 or 30 years, I don’t need to come back every year and re-up. 

And so as U.S. companies, including Sempra, look at building a 

project, whether it’s in Cameron or in Port Arthur, we are really 

focused on trying to get all those contracts together up front so that 

we can get them financed and to build the project. 

If we can’t get those projects this year or next year because 

somebody else has already signed up these 20- to 30-year contracts, 

we are out of the market, and the construction jobs that we’ve been 

talking about and the impact to the local economy goes away, or 

never develops, I should say. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes. Thousands and thousands of American jobs. Mr. 

Hamm, the people back home in Texas 22 want me to thank you 

for your efforts in the Bakken shale play to change the entire world 

and America’s energy future. 

We are now an energy dominant country because of you, Mr. 

Hamm, and a Texan named George Mitchell at the Barnett shale 

play. 

My question is, can you talk about the most important actions 

that the Trump administration can take to help you with oil and 

gas production? 

You mentioned adjusting the CAFE standards, ACC. How about 

public lands, capturing other things? What can we do to help you 

out and make sure this production continues and doesn’t get stifled 

by Washington, DC? 

Mr. HAMM. Well, we have a friendly audience here that listened 

to us today, which is good. We need to do a lot with Federal lands. 

94 

They should also participate in this energy renaissance, and they 

haven’t up to this point. 

The bulk of what has been done has been on fee lands, particularly in the Bakken and Texas, and we need to get it where permitting could be done rapidly instead of waiting, you know, 6 months 

to a year, and so that’s one thing we are working on that. 

And we have an audience that’s listening and wanting to do the 

right thing. So I think we are moving in the right direction. We 

just need to keep the ball rolling to get it corrected while we are 

doing it. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, and thank you for your example of what the private sector can do. The private sector developed directional drilling 

and hydraulic fracturing. 

That wasn’t something that came from DC. That came from Harold Hamm and George Mitchell. So thank you for that. 

My final question is for you, Dr. Yergin. Let’s talk about 

CERAWeek. It used to be CERADay, maybe CERAHour in 19, 

what, 83? You got that ball rolling, and now it rolled into the energy capital of the entire world—Houston, Texas. 

Your testimony mentioned how the revolution in shale oil and 

gas—the shale gale—has had enormous impact on our relationships abroad. 

I’ve seen that firsthand. You mentioned India. I went there this 

past March. Their motto is, natural gas for today—renewables for 

the future. 

But as you mentioned, right now they’ve signed a contract for 20 

years of liquefied natural gas I think somewhere about 14.4 million 

metric tons from America to India. That helps them get their air 

cleaner. It helps them where they want to go. 

Also, as you mentioned, they’ve got, I heard, 2 million barrels of 

American crude oil that they haven’t had for almost 50 years. They 

are taking the wood to OPEC and Russia with our energy. 

And so my questions are can you tell me more details about what 

that means for allies? We can help out India. We can help out 

South Korea, Japan, even help out China getting their air cleaner. 

How can we use this energy renaissance to make the world better? 

Dr. YERGIN. I think, first of all, by helping to reduce conflict. 

Secondly, I think it builds confidence. I think it really—what’s 

happened here in the United States is actually a big contribution 

to energy security for the whole world and we benefit from that. 

So I think it radiates out from it, and I think what you described 

in India—I’ve seen it in other countries, too—it gives a—they have 

a deeper relationship with the United States and it connects them 

more to us, and I think that’s very beneficial for our overall political situation in the world. 

Mr. OLSON. One example—Mr. Shimkus signed this poster on the 

floor last week—this big tanker ship called Independence was 

pulled into Lithuania. 

Probably 500 people—normal people from Lithuania—were greeting this tanker ship going, ‘‘Yay! Yay!’’ That’s because they know 

that takes Mr. Putin’s weapon away from him forever. 

Dr. YERGIN. Well, I think it’s true that what’s happened with 

LNG to Europe—and it’s not only us but from others—it’s really, 

95 

in a sense, depoliticized—it turns Europe more into a gas market 

and takes out the kind of political implications for it. 

So I think it’s something that’s very welcome in those countries— 

that they know that we are there and we are their friend. 

Mr. OLSON. I am out of time. 

Just one warning, sir—my Houston Astros will beat the Boston 

Red Sox again this year, going for the World Series. 

Dr. YERGIN. What a forecaster. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OLSON. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind Members that 

they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the 

record. 

I would ask that witnesses submit their answers—their responses—within 10 business days upon receipt of those questions. 

Without objection, this subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:36 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, I have repeatedly signaled my support for an all-of-the-above energy portfolio, however, I feel this hearing represents a missed opportunity. 

Instead of simply focusing on oil and gas production, I believe a more worthwhile 

topic of discussion should be centered on shifting geopolitics based on the American 

energy landscape, as a whole. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe there has indeed been some beneficial impacts of exporting liquified natural gas (LNG) and crude oil to friends and allies who are now becoming less reliant on Russian energy supplies. 

I also support supplying Caribbean partners, including Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, with LNG in order to help them rebuild their energy infrastructures 

in a more sustainable and efficient manner. 

However, we should be examining the larger picture of our domestic energy portfolio, including the benefits of investing in renewable energy and even energy efficiency initiatives. 

Mr. Chairman, by taking this holistic approach we are better able to examine the 

benefits that clean energy and energy efficient technologies have on our economy, 

as well as their positive impacts related to the serious issue of climate change. 

Mr. Chairman, by most accounts, the country that innovates and develops the 

clean energy and energy efficient technologies of the future will have a leg up in 

all of the economic benefits that come with selling these advancements to countries 

around the globe. 

However, instead of maintaining our global position as the world leader in clean 

energy investment, development, and research, the Trump administration has taken 

a series of misguided policy calculations that have ceded this number one ranking 

to the Chinese. 

Unfortunately, this short-sighted and backwards-looking perspective is costing our 

economy jobs and business opportunities that other countries are gladly claiming. 

Mr. Chairman, a smarter discussion of America’s energy future should include a 

more comprehensive examination of all of the many resources we possess in the 

country. 

That discussion should include not only the safe and responsible production of domestic fossil fuel energy sources, but also all of the economic stimulus and job creation associated with moving towards cleaner and renewable energy sources of the 

future, as well as additional conservation and energy efficiency measures. 

Mr. Chairman, the American people are never content to sit and back and follow 

someone else’s lead. 

No, instead, our constituents expect us to enact policy and make investments that 

help solidify our forward-looking leadership in the world and show others what is 

possible. 

It is high time that, as elected representatives, we exemplify the foresight and audaciousness that has come to define who we are as a people, and the energy sector 

is the perfect place to make that mark. 

96 

So I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses and I hope that we can have 

a balanced and honest debate on this issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

97 


OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

Dr. Daniel Yergin 

Vice Chairman 

IHSMarkit 

1300 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. 

Washington, DC 20036 

Dear Dr. Y ergin: 

RAYlJUHN 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 

July 20, 2018 

fRANK PALLONE, 

RANKING MEMBER 

Thank you for appearing before the Subeommittee on Energy on June 26, 2018, to testifY at 

the hearing entitled "The Shifting Geopolitics of Oil and Gas." 

During the hearing, Members asked you to provide additional information for the record, 

and you indicated that you would provide that information. To facilitate the printing of the hearing 

record, please respond to this request with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Friday, 

August 3, 2018. Your responses should be mailed to Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Committee on 

Energy and Commerce, 2125 Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed 

in Word format to ]i,;_]JL!,:>J1!.!illi:!:L!!ll!lh!li9Jl?!U!!l.l' 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Fred Upton 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Attachment 
98 


Reply to question from Congressman Shimkus from the June 26, 2018, hearing of 

the Subcommittee on Energy: 

Thank you for the question from the Honorable John Shimkus. The issue of a 

unified octane standard is a complicated matter, with multiple pathways that 

might be explored to bring U.S. standards into alignment with international and 

European gasoline standards. In our view, more study is needed to understand an 

economically optimal solution and to supply consumers in an economical and 

sustainable manner. 

Daniel Yergin 

Vice Chairman 

IHS Markit 
99 


GRfG WALDEN. OREGON 

CHi<IAMt\~~ 

Dr. Kevin Kennedy 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGHESS 

Ff-lANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

(f[ongress of the 'ijllntteb ~Mates 

ll)onsr of l'\rpnsmtatibcs 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBunN Hous<: Omc~: Butt DING 

WASHING ION, DC 20515-43115 

July 20,2018 

Deputy Director, U.S. Climate Initiative 

World Resources Institute 

10 G Street, N.E.; Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20002 

Dear Dr. Kennedy: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Energy on June 26, 2018, to testify at 

the hearing entitled "The Shifting Geopolitics of Oil and Gas." 

During the hearing, Members asked you to provide additional information for the record, 

and you indicated that you would provide that information. To facilitate the printing of the hearing 

record, please respond to this request with a transmittal letter by the close of business on Friday, 

August 3, 2018. Your responses should be mailed to Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Committee on 

Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed 

in Word format to k!?fu:_.f,_!.!Jint>1Lilli:t.!1lli:!t1~c.i.!~~!:-

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Fred Upton 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

Attachment 
100 


WORLD 

RESOURCES 

INSTITUTE 

10 G Su:eet, NE Suite Boo Washington, DC 20002 GSA (PH) +1 (202) 72lJ·7600 {FAX) +1 (2n2) 729~7610 ww1N.WRto(g 

The Honorable Fred Upton, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-6115 

Dear Chairman Upton: 

I would like to express my thanks for the opportunity to appear before the 

Subcommittee on Energy to testify at the June 26th hearing on "The Shifting 

Geopolitics of Oil and Gas." 

July 31, 2018 

I would also like to thank Congressman McNerney for his question regarding the 

relative employment for renewables versus oil and gas when considered against the 

amount of energy produced. While I did not have that information available at the 

hearing, I have attached my response based on data from the 2018 installment of the 

U.S. Energy and Employment Report (USEER), along with a fact sheet World 

Resources Institute produced in early 2017. 

I would be happy to follow-up further if you or other members of the committee have 

questions or are looking for additional information. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin M. Kennedy 

Deputy Director, U.S. Climate Initiative 

cc: The Honorable Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy 

The Honorable Jerry McNerney 

Ms. Kelly Collins, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Christina DeConcini, Director, Government Affairs, World Resources Institute 

Attachments 
101 


Additional information for the record of the June 261h, 2018, hearing of the Energy 

Subcommittee of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce on "The Shifting 

Geopolitics of Oil and Gas,"from Kevin Kennedy of the World Resources Institute: 

Congressman McNerney asked about the relative employment for renewables versus oil 

and gas when considered against the amount of energy produced. The 2018 installment 

of the U.S. Energy and Employment Report (USEER) contains data that address this 

question. 

The U.S Department of Energy (DOE) released the USEER in 2016 and 2017 to survey 

and quantify energy jobs across the domestic economy. As the DOE elected not to 

produce a 2018 iteration of the Report, the Energy Futures Initiative (EFI) and the 

National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) opted to publish an updated 

report applying the same survey methodology as previously used by the DOE. This 

report can be found at https://www.usenergyjobs.org/. 

The 2018 USEER finds that in 2017, wind and solar accounted for over 450,000 jobs 

combined, as seen in Table 1, copied below. Looking at renewable energy more broadly, 

nearly 35% (approximately 650,000) of Americans employed in the overall Electric 

Power Generation and Fuels sectors were working in wind, solar, geothermal, 

hydroelectricity and bioenergy. (These sectors include "the entire range of business 

activities that support both fuel extraction and production, as well as utility-scale and 

distributed electric power generation.") Employment in the U.S. renewables industry is 

disproportionately high relative to other energy sources, as these technologies supplied 

only 10% of U.S. primary energy consumption in 2016, as seen in Appendix B of the 

2018 USEER. Meanwhile, oil/petroleum and natural gas each employed fewer workers 

than did renewable energy, although they accounted for 37% and 29% of the nation's 

energy supply, respectively. 

Energy efficiency, often regarded as a source of renewable energy, employed 2.25 

million Americans in 2017, more than double the number of Americans employed in 

traditional fossil fuels. In fact, the conclusion of the Report states, "The growth of energy 

efficiency jobs and the penetration of energy efficiency technologies continues to be an 

important indicator of economic development opportunities and increasing 

competitiveness for American industries." 

As wind and solar generation continues to grow and burgeoning technologies such as 

battery storage and offshore wind begin to take off, there is tremendous potential for 

increased employment in the renewable energy sector. 

I have also attached a fact sheet that WRI produced in early 2017 that provides 

additional information on clean energy employment in the U.S. 
102 


Table 1. 

Generation and Fuels Employment by Major Energy Technology Application and Detailed 

Technology Application 

&liar 149,72S 

Wind 107,441"1 

GeoO!ennel 7,917 

(H> 17,239 

~ ll,;H:1S :!0.,1,-146 

Com E!lllnol 3i!,Sl2 

OCher~ )0,083 

~ IIICIUdfn&lllodWoody ---for EMrliY 31,428 

and Clllulooto Blotua 

OCher Blotud 18,414 

l.cwlml*t~ 11.53:1 

-

Tllldlllonllll)dto!lower 55,341 

Nu_. 6·~.74.3 8.~6l 

Cooil 9)$<13 74,1St) 

N-Qaa 66.385 311,36-1 

Oll,i'Nnlllum l2,407 SlO,OlS 

AIMIIICIIOCIQaa 41,03,4: 

JJ It is lmpoda11t tn- rwul! lhat the:se figures •rM::1u..d-e all efnpi<Jyeeswh-o-spefid some portion of tht~oir !irtH! oo a 

SP!:N..if!C tectlfiDIOg¥. 

349.715 

107_4.<H 

7,927 

17,,2.3S 

llb.S:H 

3tl,S,1 

20,00 

31.41 

toA! 

!.ts:u 

SS)~l 

73,70S 

167,013 

378.749 

S2l,<t2.! 

41.034 

~ ... The SOlar fourH:laUoo has beE'n produdng: annu,a! solar r-eports Slnett 2010. UStng a substantially St1rtdar 

tru!:ihock.ltogy to tills rSi)OrL see hups:J /tsfcenS~.Js . .o:rg for more lnfonnatiorL The Sotar Fouttdilrtion 2011 N<tticm&I 

sor.:1r Jobs CcrrsusJB'W R~soorch Partne-rs.~!p 

38 

Source: Energy Futures Initiative and the National Association of State Energy Officials, U.S. Energy and 

Employment Report, May 2018. Available at https: 1/wv.w.usenergyjobs.org/. 

2 
103 


WORLD 

RESOURCES 

INSTITUTE 

The clean energy economy in the United States-including wind, solar, and efficiency industries-is putting more arid 

more Americans to work. Solar and wind energy are among the most dynamic industries in the nation, employing 

hundreds otthousands of Americans. Energy efficiency efforts employ millions, while saving money for both 

companies latest data on how many Americans are working in clean 

energy and where the jobs are located. 

that about 

generation technologies in early 20 !6, nuclear, 

an~ advanced/low-emission natural gas. By comparison, 16o,ooo 

Americans worked in coal in early 2016. (DOE)1 

Solar jobs are among 

sectors in the nation. In 2016, the U.S. solar industry created jobs 

17 times faster than the overall economy. One out of every so new jobs added 

in the United States in 2016 was created by the solar industry. 2 The solar 

wotkfurce grew25 percent from 2015 to 2016, reaching 374,000. (Solar 

Foundation)$ 

Wind jobs are also a rapidly expanding job sector in the 

U.S. Wind employment grew 32 percent between 2015 to 2016, 

reaching 102,000. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that wind-turbine 

technicians will be the fastest-growing occupation over the next 10 years. 

(Dept. of Energy)' 

Of these, 

more than half, 1.4 mHlion are in the construction industry. (BLS)5 

growing. Of the 24 million 

workers in the industry in early 2016, more than 259,000 work with 

alternative-fuel vehicles (including natural gas, hybrids, plug-in hybrids; all 

electric, and fuel cell/hydrogen vehicles) and at least 710,000 jobs arc focused 

on improving fuel economy or transitioning to alternative fuels. (DOE)!' 

WORlD RESOURCES INSTITUTE 

CONTACTS 

Helen Mountford 

Director of Economics 

hmountford@Wri.om 

Joel Jaeger 

Specialist, New Climate Economy 

ioeUaeger®newcllmateecqnomynet 

World Resources Institute Fact Sheets 

find other lai:t sheets in .thi!;seri"'s at: 

wri.org/powe~in!t'america-10rward · 

FACTSHtET february2Q\! 
104 

Æ 


the country. More than soo 

factories build wind-related 

parts and materials in 43 states, 

making everything from major 

wind turbine components such 

as nacelles, blades, towers, and 

gearboxes to internal 

components like bearings, slip 

rings, fasteners, and power 

converters. They are especially 

concentrated in the Midwest, 

the ~ortheast, and Appalachia.7 

efiiderlCV iob•s. Florida, 

Illinois, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, New York, North 

Carolina, and Ohio also rank in 

the top 10 in multiple categories 

of clean energy jobs (see figure 

at right). 

NOTES AND REFERENCES 

2 1he2016datarefertoQ1(JanuarytoMarch).The2015datarefertoQ2(Aprilto 

June) 

3 TheSolarFoundation,NationaiSo!arJobsCensus2016,http://www.thesolarfoundation,orgrsolar-ac\:ounts·1·50-new-u-s-jobs-2016/ 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Fastest Growing Occupations, https:/ /wwwbls.gov/ 

emp/ep~table_103htm 

' WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE 

I The2D16datarefertoQ1(JanuarytoMarch) 

• 

New York 

2,855 

10 G Street NE j Washington, DC 70002 I www,WRI.org