Thank you for joining us today for the launch of our study in action plan for carbon capture and storage in California opportunities challenges and solutions. I am Sarah Salzer from Stanford Center for carbon storage, and I am joined by and can a body from the energy futures initiative. Today's program will include the following. Let's start with a fireside chat with Professor Lynn or informer secretary of energy or new monies. This will be followed by a joint presentation by the study leads Melanie kinder dine in Sally Benson. Their presentation will be followed by an audience q amp a on the study. We will then have a panel session, moderated with additional opportunities for q amp a. I'd like to introduce our moderator, Professor Lynn or Professor or is the clean and Carlton bill professor emeritus at Stanford University. He served as the under secretary for science and energy at the US Department of Energy was the director of the pre court Institute for energy at Stanford University. The Dean of the School of Earth Sciences at Stanford University from 1994 to 2002 over to you when good afternoon everyone or morning or depending on where you are. Welcome aboard. It's my pleasure now to introduce. Ernie Moniz Ernie is the founder and CEO of the energy futures initiative. He was the 13th secretary of energy. One of the founding members of the Cypress Institute and has worked at MIT as the Cecil and I degree in Professor of physics and engineering systems. He's the director was the director of the MIT energy initiative and I and looking back I think that might be when we first met but the truth is that's lost in the midst of antiquity and so nobody's really sure. He was also the director of the library the environment. Ernie and I have been cheerfully disagreeing over the years as to whether MIT or Stanford is the best energy research program in the country. But we definitely agree that those are the actually two best together. Each of us has been known to introduce the other as the former director of the second best program for either way it's pretty clear that the two efforts are stronger for the collaboration and friendly competition over the last couple of years and it's nice to work together again on this project. So Ernie we we spent lots of time working together at DOE to create a fully stocked portfolio of ways to decarbonize decarbonize the US energy systems and indeed the world's energy systems. And the topic today is one element of that portfolio carbon capture and storage. So how do you how do you think the landscape has changed for CCS since you were leading DOE. Thanks Lynn and first let me say I agree with almost everything you said in the introduction. But I think the change just in these, let's say five years since Paris have been enormous for one thing, the science has told us that we need to be much more aggressive and ambitious in our in our decarbonization targets. I would say that in turn has led to a greater realization about the fact that we need every option that we can generate for low carbon, and that means a very, very broad portfolio of technologies, what the quarter, that you in fact led at at DOE. Another example is I would say that those very aggressive targets net zero being basically understood to be the mid century goal goal now. And that also means we're going to need negative carbon technologies, many of which as we'll discuss will depend upon some sequestration, but there I just emphasize in the, in this point of view of portfolio that we published a portfolio needs just for carbon dioxide last year at EFI, and there were 27 different portfolio elements just in carbon dioxide removal. So imagine now across the board, the kind of the onslaught that we need this decade on innovation. Now in sequestration, there's again I think been a lot of shifting in the sense that originally the discussions of sequestration were focused mainly on what you'd call firm power. Those have evolved to have a strong focus on industry. And in today's report we're going to see it's not either or it's it's and that these are all going to be needed in California, as well as as well as more broadly. So I think I think there's a big focus, a big focus shift, but within that, it's only elevated in my view, the focus that we will need CCS for different, for different regions of the country. California is one of those that we'll hear is very, very well suited to that. Yeah, I think that looking back on gosh, a lot of work over the years that we have enough experience now with injecting CO2 into the subsurface to know that we, if we choose sites well and operate them. The projects well, then we can do that safely. And the challenge now is to figure out how to get to a scale that really matters. And based on the study today, I think we'll show that the California can play an important role in that. So, could I say, Linda's on that on that. But I think what the reporter also shows is that the innovation push we need is not only in technology, but also in business models and policy slash regulation, and that will be of course a major focus. So, so energy futures initiative this has devoted considerable effort to thinking about decarbonizing California. I'm remembering the report that you did last year on that topic. Can you, can you say a word or two about the report and what what was in all of that. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. In fact, the title of the report was optionality flexibility and innovation. And those are three very important words. The subtitle was California's pathway to meeting its aggressive goals. And in particular, what we showed is that the, the California statutory goal for 2030 of a 40% economy wide reduction. What I'll say is it can be met. But we also looked at 30 plus technology pathways and saw this is a real challenge. We got a we got a hit on all cylinders. And I guess in the world series going on now I'd say, we need a really really high slugging percentage to get there. And within that, what we saw was the largest potential reduction of CO2 in both the electricity and the industrial sectors would be if a strong push would be on CCS, particularly taking advantage of the incentives that are out there. The time limited federal incentives of 45 Q, and of course the state incentives around low carbon fuels, for example, but without sequestration. So it looks awfully tough, even much tougher to meet those standards. Yeah, I think it's just another example of we we need all the tools that we can use now the ones we know how to do now plus some more we need to invent going forward and and that report makes that that point I think very well. The FI has also looked at the interplay of clean energy and jobs. How does CCS fit in that area. Well, our view has been that look clearly we're talking about here a very significant sectoral transition, an industrial transition if you like, of the energy sector. And historically those that have that has always led to disruptions in work with workers with with communities. We think that to move at the scale and the pace that we need to. We're going to need to address those issues, because, frankly, not only is it the right thing to do, but we're just going to have political headwinds if we don't address the issues of workers and community so we look at it with both sides of the coin. Now, having said that, we formed a a partnership with the AFL CIO called the Labor Energy Partnership, and we listed 10 areas that we think are very important for addressing climate and addressing the jobs issues. There are three of them that we are launching right now, and carbon capture and sequestration is one of those three first first priorities. And the labor sees CCS through the lens of climate change risk reduction, but also through the lens of jobs. It's worth pointing out that a separate EFI study on the energy jobs in the United States. Over five years pre COVID, what we found is in the data that job creation in the energy sector outpaced the economy as a whole by a factor of two. And there's also the fact that if we put our shoulders to the wheel in getting this this work done for the energy energy transition. It's also a great leverage for for job creation, which we desperately need right now, given the the ongoing economic effects of COVID. So it's multifaceted. And finally, I just say that, look, one of the industries obviously with a lot of uncertainty is the oil industry in the future, California has got hundreds of thousands of workers in that industry. So if we see a big sequestration CCS industry developed in California and elsewhere. That's also a great way to take care of some of these job issues because the skill sets, whether it's in the kind of the big chemical capture plant, or the co2 infrastructure. It's really the subsurface work that you know so well. That's the skill set in that industry. So it's also a very interesting transition strategy on the job side, as well as on the key objective of carbon reduction carbon emissions reduction. I think there's there's no question that the that that many of the sort of bits of intellectual property that that have to do with flow and in the subsurface are applied just as well to co2. In fact, a fair amount of the experience that we have with injecting co2 has come from that area. Maybe one last quick question before we move on to the next thing. You mentioned the questions of carbon dioxide removal and the challenges there. Concentration of co2 is in the air is pretty low. So, so that's a thermodynamic challenge for sure. It might very well need it if we don't move faster on reducing emissions. Is there, is there a reasonable fit between these, these CCS and CDR there as well. Well, sure, because if you capture all that co2 you got to put it someplace. And until we we resolve the issue of economic utilization of co2 on the gigaton scale. Clearly sequestration, but also I we also forget in the negative carbon technologies, something that's actually fairly straightforward is BEX bio bio energy use for power production, for example, or hydrogen production with carbon capture, using hydrogen, another area where sequestration can be a key enabler of, at least in the next decade decade plus to to blue hydrogen, meaning using gas plus sequestration. So sequestration is also a major enabling tool for the negative carbon technologies that we will need, almost, it's almost a tautology for net zero, and certainly for for net negative. We also don't want to lose track of the fact that we mentioned earlier that there's many, many other ways of doing negative carbon. And once again, we need like everything including the kitchen sink. If we're going to manage this problem. I think that comes back to the point that you made early on that the optionality is important all of these. These approaches are going to have to compete their way into the various marketplaces that will develop in ways that we don't foresee exactly right now. So having the option space be as full as possible gives us more, more ways to meet those challenges as they come along. So, so any, any final parting shots before we turn it over to Melanie. I think our conversation just reinforces that we agree on everything but one thing, which I won't go back to. I remember a fair number of disagreements over the years about the, the, the cost of air capture and whether or not that we were going to be able to pull that off but those were all in the spirit of the, the interesting debate about how to tackle a very, very interesting challenge. And now, and now net zero again. Yeah, indeed. There's no difference from when we were DUE that was not the language then. Yeah, that's for sure. So there's a, there's no question that there's, there's plenty to think about here. So my task now is to introduce the two leaders of this study. The first is Melanie kind of dying. Melanie is a managing principle of the energy futures initiative with Ernie, and a non resident senior senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which is a Washington think tank. She served as the, at the Department of Energy where she was the leader of the energy policy and systems analysis group and a counselor to the secretary, and she also helped to establish that that other energy program the MIT energy initiative and served as its executive director. Alison is a professor in the Department of Energy Resources Engineering and the School of Earth energy and environmental sciences at Stanford. She was an incredibly effective director of the pre court Institute for energy. And then before that, an in combination Stanford's global climate and energy project. And then Stanford Sally was associate lab director for energy sciences at Lawrence Berkeley national lab, and then in payment for doing a good job there she became deputy director at Lawrence Berkeley as well. So Melanie and Sally, take it away. Thank you everyone for joining us today. I hope all of you are healthy and safe. I'd like to thank our advisory board and the co chairs Ernie and Lynn were fabulous co chairs are sponsors and the members of our team from both Stanford and EFI for the incredible work they have done and for their shared commitment to deep decarbonization. So let me get started. This is our study approach in the, the framing of the study, the analysis focused on five key areas, meeting California's deep decarbonization targets and the critical role of that. The status of CCS in California today the opportunities in California, the challenges for CCS project development in the state, and a policy action plan for maximizing the value of CCS in California. And I'm going to give the bottom line up front these were derived through a bottom up process that we've been working on for the last seven months but the high level goals and action plan, comprise the action plan for policymakers, maximizing the value of CCS for meeting the state's economy wide decarbonization goals, both affordably and equitably, motivating the private sector to decarbonize, enabling economic and reliability benefits from existing industries and power generation and unlocking new clean energy industry and jobs. So this is just a little bit about what CCS can do in California, and, and its value for emissions reductions. This shows California's 2017 emissions by sector and sub sector lined up against the results of our analysis. Sally's going to talk about this a little later in detail, but suffice it to say that our conclusion was that CCS in California could reduce emissions in the state by as much as 15%. If you look at that, the 15% doesn't sound like a lot at first but that's 65% greater than emissions reductions potential from all of California's in state power generation, 44% greater than emissions from the entire building sector in California, 84% greater than from the agriculture sector and 65% greater than all emissions for heavy duty vehicles. In short CCS in California, while not the silver bullet could be a major contributor to meeting the state's emissions reduction Okay, these are slow these are the goals that secretary that we we looked at in in part some of the goals that we looked at a 40% reduction by 2030 carbon neutrality in 2045 net negative emissions there after. It's about motivating the private sector in California to deeply decarbonize its options operations to that's expense really essential industries 21% of total emissions. It has the largest, it's the largest manufacturing state in the country, and there are few technology options for mitigating emissions in industry. One of the industries we looked at just to give you a sense of the value of cement has to the economy. It's about 2% of the state's emissions. So it's substantial not huge but it has almost 17,000 employees and cement and related jobs, it has a payroll of almost $1 billion. Each year it puts about a half a billion dollars into the state revenues and its economic contribution to the state is $12.1 billion. I'm switching here to electricity and what CCS can do for reliability in electricity and how it can enable continued reliability benefits from clean firm power generation. And this is from the previous study that Lynn mentioned of California and what you are seeing there is every day of the year in California in 2017, blue is wind, red is solar. And the numbers that you see popping up are the numbers of days in California in 2017 where there was little to no wind generation. And you have 10 days in a row with no wind, a week in a row, seven, eight days in a row, five days in a row. The duration of battery storage right now is four hours. There's also significant seasonal variation of wind and solar in California, wind and solar combined in June of 2016. And the difference between the wind and solar combined in June and the wind and solar in January was 3.2 terawatt hours. In the last slide I showed you that it's seasonal. There's also significant variation in hydro in 2015 prolonged drought reduced hydro generation to only about 7%. In 2017 it was 21%. It went down again in January of 2018 as well. The conclusion of the previous slide I showed you and what I've just talked about four hours battery storage is that you need a fuel. Right now that fuel is gas, which according to Cal ISO provided 60% of the firm dispatchable generation last year, and that that is very, very important to enable renewables and reliability. This shows you can enable continued reliability benefits from clean firm power with CC us at a lower cost. The focus on the two bars on the right, the middle bar and the far right bar. This is capacity of the various generation types with CCS and without CCS. No CCS is the middle, the right is with CCS what you see there. There's a significant less capacity that is needed to meet demand with CCS. You need 31% less battery capacity that's the red on the bar, you need 23% less solar. The cost savings of natural gas gets cut in half. And if you add CCS and and the cost savings of those differences are $750 million a year important for consumers. This is because when you add CCS to the NGCC's the system operates much more efficiently. Massive redundancy of batteries and solar is not necessary to accommodate intermittency and NGCC capacity factors increase so less overall capacity is needed. Let me turn. I think that Secretary Moniz covered almost everything on this slide. This is unlocking new clean energy industry jobs. Over here on the left is carbon dioxide removal direct direct air capture that when you capture the carbon out of the air you need geologic storage CCS starting now can support that director captures very expensive so we've got some innovation same with hydrogen from electrolysis hydrogen from electrolysis without emissions is 45 times more expensive than than hydrogen produced from natural gas. If you capture the carbon from that natural gas generated hydrogen while we are innovating to get the cost down on electrolysis, we will be building out an infrastructure that will be important from hydrogen. Also, this is the crosswalk between energy and I mean, oil and gas jobs and CCUS jobs and there are 317,000 oil and gas workers in California and and those skill sets are very well suited to CCUS subsurface pipelines etc etc. This is I'm going to switch to international CCUS IEA put out a CCUS global report. One of the conclusions in that report that came out last month was reaching that zero will be virtually impossible without CCUS and they compared the stated policy scenario which is everyone meets their Paris targets and their sustainable development scenario 1.7 degrees by 2070 what technologies to you need to meet the difference between those two. You need efficiency you need renewables fuel switching nuclear, but you need 9% of the, the emissions reductions needed in that scenario are from CCUS. The global CCUS industry, we've heard from several people that CCUS oh you can't do it right now it's not commercial. This is a picture of what's going on in the world today. The red bars, the red sir large red circles. So there are 19 large scale CCS systems in operation under construction or completed. There are a whole lot of pilot scale projects around the world but there are 19 large projects so it's out there. It's commercial. This is volumes of CO2 that is stored you can't see it. Sorry I clicked through it, but between 2010 and 2018 roughly 350 metric tons of CO2 has been stored. This is a SAP snapshot of the 10 existing projects in the US. Two are on hydrogen plants, three are on fertilizer plants, three are on gas processors or gasifiers, and one is on a cold unit. Some of the projects are transporting CO2 for storage on pipelines that are 205, 104, 83 miles long. So the infrastructure has been tried tested, and, and that's the point of that slide. Finally, a little bit on the status of CCS in California, the agencies of jurisdiction. That's on the left and projects seeking LCFS, low carbon fuel standard incentives are on the right. On the far left there, those are the agencies of jurisdiction for power generation, electricity, CEC, etc, etc. Over here on the right are the agencies of jurisdiction for industry, they're different on a carbon and calcium, etc, etc. There are some federal agencies in their EPA. In here in the middle are the permits that all CCS projects, whether they're electricity or industry would have to meet and get class six permits class two permits authority to construct and permit to operate. Then down at the bottom there are project dependent permitting requirements, and that's very like location specific size specific. Does it cross a federal lands? Is it in an, does it affect endangered species? Is it in California coastal zone? So, so those will be very project specific permitting requirements. There are a lot of them and we need to think about coordinating them. It's going to be one of the recommendations that you'll see in when we get to the recommendations in this study. Those are the four projects utilizing LCFS credits. One is a hydrogen biomass facility in California. One is on an NGCC CHP combination. One is in Texas on an ethanol plant, but they sell bio ethanol into California so they're eligible for an LCFS. And one is in Texas on a DAC facility, which is also eligible under the LCFS in California. And now I'm going to turn it over to Sally Benson, my colleague and co director of the study. Okay, thank you very much Melanie. And again, my thanks to the to the advisory board to the sponsors of this project to our amazing team, and really thank you all for joining. It's really wonderful to see so many of you here. So, yeah, so I'm going to run through what we a lot of the work we did in the project. And we started with identifying those sources that might be suitable for carbon capture and storage and where they were located. We then assessed the opportunities for storage in the state. What was the potential. We then went on and did a techno economic analysis, basically trying to answer the question is under the current current incentive structures is CCS affordable. Finally, we did some work on understanding social equity and community benefits that could arise from carbon capture and storage, particularly looking at benefits in terms of improving local air quality. And of course jobs as Secretary Moniz spoke about earlier. So, let's start with the emission sources from the industrial sector. We applied some screening criteria, first over 100,000 tons per year so that it would be eligible for the federal 45 to tax credit. Also we looked only at operating facilities that were reporting emissions in 2018. And then within refineries of course there are many sources and we only looked at the largest sources within the refinery. We combined about 35 million tons of CO2 a year could be captured with carbon capture and storage from 51 facilities. On the left hand side you can see that the largest amount was associated with hydrogen production from natural gas. Second combined heat and power, typically inside the fence line of large industrial facilities, cement plants. Those refineries and finally ethanol. And you can see from this map that they're broadly distributed across the state. Now moving on to opportunities in the electricity sector. Now again we applied a set of screening criteria, and in this case particularly for retrofit, meaning those facilities that we're operating today that CCS could be added to them. We only looked at natural gas combined cycle plants, built after 2000 with no planned retirement, and with a capacity of greater than 250 megawatts, which then would again make them eligible for the 45 Q tax credit. And so what we found is there were 25 natural gas combined cycle plants that fit this criteria, corresponding to 15 gigawatts of power capacity, and these were emitting 21.6 million tons a year. As you heard about earlier, our modeling suggests that these plants would be operated with a higher capacity factor. There'd be many fewer, but they'd be operating at a higher capacity factor. So we'd be capturing at about 27.5 million tons a year. Again, you can look at the map on the right and you see they're broadly distributed in the state, the darker ones being those we selected as retrofit candidates. Okay, so those were the sources. So the question is, is where where could we put the carbon dioxide that is captured. And it turns out that there's a tremendous amount known about this. A number of important studies have been done. The Department of Energy together with the California Energy Commission ran the West car program which was focused on assessing capture and storage opportunities. The West then did its own independent study. And there's excellent capacity in the national labs, Livermore and Berkeley in particular, who studied this issue. So we took all of that data. We then applied screening criteria that were over and above the those included in the assessment. In particular, the low carbon fuel standard, which is the largest incentive for CCS in California has some additional criteria. So we applied those. And of course, all the US EPA's requirements for class six wells. So first thing, the second thing is we applied additional screen, which was basically an exclusion layer that shown by the pink on the left hand side here. So this accounted for, you know, avoiding areas with faulting or seismicity, or areas with high population density, any ecologically sensitive habitats or otherwise restricted lands. So we did source sink matching. And you can see that on the left. So basically the broad green zone in the middle of the picture are saline formations, and you can also see a number of oil and gas reservoirs there. So the bottom line is that we have about 70 billion tons or gigatons of CO2 storage capacity and saline formations and anywhere from one to two in oil gas reservoirs. So what that boils down to is if we were to store 60 million tons a year as identified in this study, you could do that for more than 1000 years. So California has very abundant and very high quality storage resources. So let's take a little closer look at the at the emission sources and what it would cost to capture them from a technological perspective. On the left hand side, you can see the average emissions per facility. And NGCC, it's about a million tons a year. That's very in line with many projects that are operating today. And then down the line we can see that the ethanol sources, for example, are the smallest ones. On the right hand side, we can see the costs that that we are incorporated into our technical techno economic studies. These were derived from other studies that have looked at this but some of our own screens as well. And you can see that capturing CO2 from ethanol facilities is relatively low cost. However, capturing CO2 from the largest emitting sources things like combined cycle and NGCC plants costs are significantly higher, and that will play into our analysis as I'll show you shortly. Based on based on taking this information we can develop a cost curve that incorporates every one of these individual facilities that we identified. And on the X axis there we have how many million tons of CO2 could be captured a year for a particular cost. If you read this, if the bar is below the zero line that means it's profitable for somebody industry to do it today. If it's above the line, that means it's not yet affordable. Now it's important to note that we've included the current financial incentives for carbon capture and storage in this analysis. And as I mentioned the low carbon fuel standard applicable to transportation related emissions is is currently a value that about $200 a ton. We decided to take quite a conservative approach and only included the value of that at $100 a ton. Second we incorporated the 45 Q tax credit. So what you can see when you apply these is about 20 million tons of CO2 could per year could be profitably captured. And these include things like hydrogen generation, ethanol facilities, refinery emission sources. On the other hand, we can see that there's another 40 million tons that with today's incentives are just simply not economical, and that includes the large sources such as the natural gas combined cycle plants, and of course the cement plants as well. Okay, so we also did a very detailed analysis of the infrastructure build out that we'd be required to support this. And there are some plants that are actually co located with very good storage resources. So those are shown by some of the black dots in the middle. However, we identified there are many sources that are located in regions where there aren't nearby sources so a gathering system to to pull together the CO2 and then transport it to a good storage hub would be needed. So we identified a Northern California hub system, Southern California hub system, a desert Salton Sea gathering system, and then finally Central California and South Bay gathering system that would be required to economically and efficiently take advantages of economies of effort and economies of scale in in this endeavor. Okay, I mentioned that we also looked at the social equity and community benefits of choosing to deploy a CO2 capture and storage. And it turns out that many of the industrial facilities with high CO2 emissions also admit high levels of criteria airport pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide and particulates. Now, if you want to deploy carbon capture and storage on those facilities, you need to clean up those emissions first. So if you were to deploy carbon capture and storage, you would necessarily have to make significant reductions in those other pollutants as well. So there are also benefits in terms of local economic activity. Facilities would generate construction jobs, operations jobs, maintenance jobs, and then there are also significant multiplier effects across the supply train that drive other economic benefits. And finally, there's the opportunity for job creation and preservation, new jobs in carbon capture and storage, but also taking advantage of the skill set of refinery and chemical plant operators and subsurface geoscientists to put to work in this area. Okay, so so given all these opportunities, one would say, well, you know, why aren't we doing this 20 million tons of CO2 could be profitably captured today. We decided to interview a large number of organizations who were engaged with this a total of 59 organizations and and many more individuals, technology developers, industry leaders power producers project as well as NGOs, we engaged and and what we identified through this is that there were a number of key issues around ambiguity, regulatory complexity, financial uncertainty and broad based awareness and public support of this technology. So I'll jump into these in a little bit more detail. So, so on one hand, I mentioned that the state of the low carbon fuel standard currently by the $200 per ton of CO2 CO CCS is eligible there so one could say these appear to be very strong incentives. On the other hand, CCS is ineligible under cap and trade. So for example, cement plants which are not eligible for for the LCFS are not profitable today if they if the cap and trade system were applicable to CCS. Today, those sent cement plants could be profitably implementing carbon capture and storage. Second issue has to do with the complex and untested regulatory process. Now clearly it's very important to have public engagement and to have robust permitting requirements for all of these facilities. But one of the challenges today because this is an untested process and relatively new. There's a great deal of uncertainty about timelines. So if you're a project developer, and you don't know if it will take you three years to get your permits or 10 years to get your permits. It puts a real damper on your ability to make an investment decision to go ahead. Another source of concern is the revenue and cost uncertainty, which make it difficult to finance projects and in particular I'll focus on one the low carbon fuel standard. Today that's valued at $200, but it's really not clear what it would be valued at in the future. And if you want to go to the bank, and you don't know the value of that critically important incentive, it's difficult to develop project finance. And then finally, CCS is a relatively new technology and even though there are 19 projects and we're today we're storing capturing and storing 40 million tons of CO2 a year worldwide. The perception is that this is still a relatively untested and people are not clear whether CCS work so there's an education that's needed. And also there are varied opinions about the how important this will be in deep decarbonization. So back to you Melanie. Thank you so much, Sally. What this is the solutions the solutions chapter and and the figure is it's a complicated figure but I actually think it says a lot. This is the pyramid figure at the top or the high level goals. I mentioned those earlier so I won't go into them in any detail. At the bottom are California strong foundations and talked about those as well good geology large industrial base with few technology options etc etc. But then we identified key drivers and those drivers are now at the at the bottom of each of the the sections above foundations and and the key drivers are near term action for meeting climate targets. He enablers of carbon neutrality and then finally at the top opportunities for global leadership on CCS it's not just opportunities for leadership it's opportunities for markets. You saw what I showed you from IEA and and and the world needs CCS technologies. The various boxes there identified a policy recommendation focus areas. Okay within those boxes on there are there are many different recommendations specific recommendations and you see their near term actions affirm or affirm state support for CCS issue guidance for CO2 storage etc etc. And again these are all detailed in the study and Sally and I are just going to discuss a few. Okay and and this near term actions and I'm just going to talk about a couple of those issue policy guidance to clarify CCS eligibility. California should incorporate CCS into its biennial integrated resource plan and long term procurement planning process and California should make CCS eligible and eligible resource under SB 100 goal of 100% of retail electricity sales from renewable and zero carbon sources by 2045. And then skipping over to the right develop state supported CCS demos with industry. Underneath that larger category of couple recommendations. California should consider supporting a large CCS demonstration project to help overcome high at risk cost in the project's early stages. Untested permitting processes throughout the value chain and public acceptance of CCS and then California should prioritize projects that have demonstrable local air quality benefits. There's a large section of discussing how there are air quality benefits from CCS local job opportunities are created as well. And to do those in line with the state's climate and equity goals. And I'm going to turn it back over to Sally for the next couple of sections. Okay, great Melanie thank you. So, Secretary Moniz mentioned that when he and, and, and Professor or we're in the Department of Energy, the idea of net zero and carbon neutrality hadn't fully been established but now that we know that we're for headed for net zero and we need to do it relatively and that CCS is an incredibly important part of this. We need to start thinking about how can we enable the technology that's going to get us there. Things like hydrogen economy, things like carbon capture and storage negative emissions. So, so some of the key actions that can be taken. I'll just actually highlight to one of them is the state could begin to step statewide targets for carbon removal. That would be really incentivizing for people getting getting going on this, but but a very important one is to incorporate CCS protocol in the cap and trade. So, I mentioned that cement plants, for example, it would now be economical if they could take advantage of 45 q tax credit plus cap and trade to begin to implement this. So that would be a key action for really stimulating industry to get engaged in economy wide decarbonization. And specifically the carb could the carb protocol for the LCFS could be incorporated into the cap and trade program. So Melanie next one please. Okay, and finally, you know California you know is certainly a leader today. And, and there's so much that needs to be done around the world and California can continue to be a world leader by again helping CCS get off the ground. And I like to focus on one particular area. And that is the need for clean firm power. There have been a number of recent studies, including one that was led by Jane Long of the Environmental Defense Fund that made the point that the clean firm power meaning power that you can turn on and off when you want to, but has low to no emissions really enable the deployment of massive amounts of renewable generation. And one of the things that is that is an opportunity in California is to really assess what how much clean firm power do we need in our grid as it's decarbonizing. And what is the role of clean firm power and reliability planning and what are the key technologies within the state and we've talked about natural gas combined cycle with CCS as a technology that provides clean firm power but there are others as well. And then finally, what are those policy options that are going to economically support the scale up and deployment of these technologies that are going to be essential for for future reliability and affordability of our electricity system. Thank you. My first task here is to introduce the panel we have a remarkable group of folks today who have very broad experience across the full spectrum of areas where carbon capture and storage will have to play. So let me say a word to them and then we'll start with some questions and hope that we managed to save some time for audience questions as well. So first is Jane Long. Jane is the Kravis senior contributing sciences, scientists at the environmental defense fund. She's a former principal associate director at large for energy and environment at the Lawrence little more national lab. And she's been very much involved in EDF work on geo engineering and evaluation nuclear power and wastewater from the oil and gas industry. Deepika Nagarbushan is at the clean air task force. She leads the task force on decarbonized fossil energy, which develops policy and advocacy strategies aimed at making carbon capture utilization and storage technologies available around the world by mid century. Before joining the clean air task force she spent five years with Schneider Electric. Keith Pronsky is the president and CEO of clean energy systems. He's a mechanical engineer with more than 30 years experience in the power industry in North America and South America and in Europe. And prior to his work at CES he served as the vice president of business development plant America for track to build. Kate Gordon is the director of the governor's office of planning and research and senior advisor to governor on climate. Before she was appointed as OPR director. She was the founding director of the risky business project, which focused on quantifying the economic impacts of climate change on us energy demand crop yields coastal infrastructure as well as on human health mortality. And then finally, Trudy Sun said is the CEO of gas Nova gas Nova was established by the Norwegian government in 2005 to further the development of technologies and knowledge related to carbon capture and storage. And in addition to this to serve as advisor to the government. Trudy has 30 years of business experience with a focus on energy environment and climate issues. And she's, she has a lot of experience in actual deployment of CCS as well. So let me start with Jane Long Jane. Last month, the governor signed an executive order that will phase out sale of gas powered cars by 2035. I think that means that they're going to be electric cars. And then there's a whole lot of other electrification that's going to have to happen in the, in the California economy as well if we're going to meet these goals.  That's a great question. Thanks Lynn. I think there's there's a lot of stuff that we know about that that issue and some things that we don't know and really desperately need analysis. We just completed a study looking at what how the system could work in 2045 when the state is required to eliminate emissions from electricity. Assuming flat out a doubling of demand, which is likely with all this electrification including transportation. And what we saw there is that the need for clean firm power is pretty overwhelming that it's going to cost significantly more for the state to try to do it without clean firm power, and it probably won't work. It's highly limited by land use limitations on solar power for example, the need for new transmission will go up by an enormous amount. So, if we tried to do it without clean firm power and if you look at California as you guys have analyzed one of the best ways to get clean firm power in California is carbon capture and storage with with natural gas. So I think that that our study definitely confirms the direction you're going with them with this study. We were technology neutral about the clean firm power. But in point of fact, it's pretty hard to imagine the magnitude of what we need without some form of a clean of carbon capture and storage because even if it's going to be fuel. The most likely pathways will include some kind of sequestration capturing sequestration. But I do want to say one thing more about your question. I don't think there is a good study to date that links all of these changes together for heat for industry for transportation and electricity and really evaluates whether we have a reliable system in plan and we I think we don't. We simply don't. And so the time of use issue which you've which Melanie so beautifully explained and the the variability that we were building into the system because it's cheaper. You know it's cheaper to put the solar on because it's you know so it's such a small amount of money per kilowatt. But it makes everything else intermittent every if you put one intermittent thing on and make it your major source it makes everything intermittent. And so all of those the economies of that have to balance out and it has to balance out so that you end up being able to provide energy not just electricity whenever people need it and we don't have an integrated study that links all those things together. So I think you're right that the the it is the system now there's there's a benefit from from having it be diversified. It has options for more reliable operation, but how it all fits together is is something that that we've you know we those of us who work on the technology side like to focus on a particular technology but the other point is that the system matters and I think that's absolutely right. Deepika at the at the Clean Air Task Force you've focused on making a carbon capture and storage widely available around the the the world. What's going on around the world or some key trends that you've seen in other countries around the world in this area. Thanks Lynn for that question. There's a few good trends that that are exciting to talk about, you know, firstly, I would say that there's a growing climate ambition across several countries, Europe in particular that that means that there's commitment also being made to reaching carbon neutrality by mid century. Second, there's a realization that CCS is now essential to meeting those goals and that there's probably no way we're going to do it without CCS. That means that there's potential for comprehensive policy roadmaps to to to integrate CCS into our plans and to make a plan for leveraging the technology that is available. And then finally there's, you know, different business models being attempted and there's actually government investment going into making these projects successful. I want to go a little deeper on in some of the onto the project piece specifically because I want to highlight the business model aspect of it. So European Commission, European Union Commission last year announced that they want to go to 20 climate neutrality by 2050. There are several states within the EU as well we've got Germany wanting to tighten its targets. We've got Netherlands also wanting to do deep reductions in alignment with that climate neutrality goal. And the thing is that there are projects that are actually actively being supported in Norway I know truly is going to speak later but Norway is definitely a frontrunner in this leader, you know, actually committing money by supporting two billion dollars to support the development of the longship project which is not just capture its capture transport and storage. And the same thing is happening in the Netherlands where you know government is supporting the development of a business model where a whole infrastructure, a whole cluster and hub model is being developed at the Port of Rotterdam where you know there's going to be multiple sources using common infrastructure to transport the captured CO2 and to store it, which is very much in alignment with the opportunities that are currently available in California based on all the report that you just highlighted. So I just wanted to, you know, highlight these business models are available and it's not just, you know, they're not just ideas they're actually even operational. If you look at Canada, we have the same business model being applied with the Alberta carbon trunk line project where the government both the federal and state governments funded the oversizing of a pipeline that connects currently two projects to its storage site. But the pipeline can actually capture a transport 10 times or more than 10 times of what it's currently capturing so that oversize capacity was funded by the government. These are great ideas to make it work even in California and you know those are the main highlights I would like to, I wanted to highlight. So some competitors are already out there working hard but with lessons for all of us. Keith, Jane mentioned the hydrogen business as an area of interest here and it certainly has a potential role with the executive order for transportation but also in potentially in the area of power generation because hydrogen can be stored in and run through a gas turbine as well. Can you talk about clean energy systems about the what what you're up to and how this will play in either transportation CCS and what the opportunity looks like. Yeah, sure. Thank you, Len and really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you all. Yeah, we've been working really for the last several years on carbon negative energy projects. Earlier, Secretary Moniz referred to them as BEX bioenergy with CCS and what we're what we're trying to do is take advantage of what is a depressed biomass power market in California with the world's highest price carbon pricing linked to the transportation sector so roughly half the biomass plants in the state closed because when their PPAs expire, they compete against new wind and solar and they lose out so we have a situation where the biomass industry has collapsed. And so our idea is to take these stranded assets that are largely in the central valley and convert them into carbon negative energy plants it's really an indirect air capture model that produces transportation fuels either electricity or hydrogen as a byproduct So the basic idea is the carbon dioxide obviously goes into the trees into waste ag waste. And we take that and instead of burning it in a conventional boiler we gasify the fuel and we produce a sin gas and in that sin gas is hydrogen. So we can extract that hydrogen we call it the cheap hydrogen just simply remove that with membranes and what's left is the hydrogen depleted sin gas. And that's mainly that's where all the CO2 is or all the carbon in the form of methane carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. So what we do is we burn that in our power cycle which is essentially modified rocket engines, and we're burning with pure oxygen so we make steam and CO2. We can use that to power turbines, and that electricity runs the process, it can also have excess electricity that goes to the electric vehicles and charging stations. And at the backside since we have steam and CO2 when you cool that down you get water and CO2 they naturally separate. We compress the CO2 and we store it in saline aquifers sailing formations right on site so there are no CO2 pipeline so these are facilities in the central valley. We're currently working on four sites and we did submit the classics EPA permit for storing CO2 back in January of this year so we're in active development, and we hope to have the first plant or plan to have the first plant online in 2023 time frame The first four projects will be removing about 1.3 million tons per year of CO2 and then this model can be scaled up and in total if you were to convert all the biomass plants in California, you'd be looking at removing about 10 times that about 13 to 15 million tons of CO2. So basically you have CO2 or CO2 from the air going into the plant we store the CO2 and the hydrogen can go to the hydrogen highway and for every mile driven, you pull three pounds of CO2 from the atmosphere so it really is carbon negative hydrogen. The same can be done with electricity going to electrolyzers to produce hydrogen on site or in refineries. Yeah so it really is carbon dioxide removal using those plants which I have to say they might not be the most efficient sources but there are lots of them and they've been using billions of years of evolution to figure out how to do it so there's something to be said for that. Kate that makes it a natural question for you to talk about the role of carbon dioxide removal for helping the state achieve carbon neutrality so I know that's something you've been working on so go for it and tell us about it. Thanks so much Lynn and it is a great segue we're in in in this administration really focused on looking across the board at a very integrated approach on how to get to our climate goals we need to do that because we have increasing as everyone knows, increasing and increasingly severe climate impacts and we do that to meet our goals that we've been very clear about going out to 2045. We see carbon dioxide removal as a necessary part of that larger approach. I think the California approach on climate for a long time and it's you know we're building on an amazing record from Governor Brown but for a long time has been primarily focused on the technologies and programs that will help us to bring down carbon emissions through a number of programs and regulatory standards. We've been focused up till now I would say on both carbon dioxide removal and also on climate resilience and both of those are real priorities for the governor and very clear parts of our overall strategy. You know the science points us there, all the reports point us there I don't need to repeat all the things that have been said. We clearly have to be getting the step out of the atmosphere at the same time that we're aggressively reducing risk from existing impacts and aggressively reducing future emissions. And as Jane I thought I'd said this really well it requires a really integrated approach this is not just a technology question it's a land use question it's an economic development question it's an environment question. It's a jobs and equity question it really goes across many many parts of the government and and those who've been in federal or state government at this scale know that there's a lot of silos in our government but I will say that under this administration. We are really taking an extremely integrated look at our climate policies and I think there's a couple of signals on that. Obviously the transformation of dog or the oil and gas regulatory agency to Cal Gem which is a recognition frankly that this is a larger carbon energy management conversation than it is an oil and gas conversation so just expanding the mission and the mandate and bringing in some really exceptional people to that agency as well as to resources under which it sits. We are doing inter agency task forces in a very intentional way around a number of related areas the most central is frankly a inter agency task force on engineered carbon removal so we're looking very specifically at this issue. And particularly focusing on some of the things that were called out in the study hard to decarbonize sectors, resident residual power, non combustion backs and I have to emphasize the non combustion California has a pretty strong policy direction on that. And, and potentially direct air capture we're looking at that like everyone is. We also I should say have related inter agency processes on on feedstock on woody biomass because we have a whole lot of non merchantable wood coming out of the forest right now in California we need to figure out what to do with it. That's that's actually a huge priority for us, as well as just transition the governor and his executive order and zero mission vehicles called for my agency with labor to put together just transition roadmap and there's a lot of intersections. As, as the Secretary pointed out, between these issues. So we have a number of these inter agency processes really with a goal of providing more consistent policy signals and ultimately more consistent approaches and operational processes on these issues. The governor has been really clear that when we have a clear policy direction that aligns with our climate and equity values. He wants us to have a business relationship that as he said is red carpet not red tape. Very clear on that so we're working on that clear policy direction, so that we can do better alignment and better, better integration. The last thing I'll say is that, you know, you mentioned this but the LCFS the low carbon fuel standard already envisions all of the things I talked about I mean we are in fact providing the most valuable price signal on this issue of any place. So, we feel good about that but we do fully recognize that we need to be locating that policy within again a more consistent vision and more consistent set of policies and a more streamlined and integrated set of policies and that's where we're heading. So I think that those of us who love to work on the technology side of all this need to be reminded periodically that that our energy system is not the only system that matters here. We need to, we have a system, a regulatory system we have a permitting system we have a variety of incentive programs that all fit together. As you say to to, we hope have an integrated approach to all this and that the design of those systems is everybody as important as figuring out how to move the power around on the grid. So, so I think that that brings us to truly to a question that I'm sure is on the mind of others around here and that is that, you know, we're, we're, we're talking about all these systems and doing it in in California, but in fact you've been doing it for quite some time. Gosh, I think didn't sleep or start in 1996 or there about so Norway has a more experience in CO2 injection than almost anybody. Could you talk a little bit about the history with CCS and what issues have come up and, and, and how's it how's it all worked there. Thank you and thank you for inviting me I wish I could be there in person it seems like such a long time ago since I was at the global climate action summit in San Francisco so I hope I'll be able to travel soon again. Yes, you're right. It started actually in the early 1990s in Norway with politician that they started an offshore CO2 tax, which was very high in the range of $50 per ton. And that created a CCS solution at the gas field offshore the sleep in a project which is quite a famous project for people interested in CCS. And we did a lot of research and and to study openly sharing with independent research organizations and universities so that we could make sure that the stakeholders looked at this as a safe solution and that we understood what happens once the CO2 store. So we in fact we have 24 years of experience of doing CO2 storage and not just doing the storage but really monitoring what's going on. And then on top of that then we had an LNG facility built in 2007 the SNOVIT project, and that use the same solution but build also a pipeline offshore. So this is about using saline aquifers and storing CO2 several thousand meters below the sea floor. Now Gasnova is a state enterprise and we do this on behalf of the Norwegian government. And we have worked very closely with the industry because we need the industry to be in lead so the policymakers can set up the incentives, but we need the industry to get on board and for the past five years we've worked with cement industry and waste to energy. And we now have this long ship project that Deepika just mentioned, and the long ship project the Norwegian government just proposed this fall, a $1.8 billion investment in this project. And Gasnova is so fortunate to coordinate the project, but it is the industry that will construct and operate and own the facilities themselves. So the state gives support. But what is interesting is that we have put surplus capacity in the offshore store of that project. So we're actually offering, we're building an open access infrastructure so that other industries from other countries in Europe can send their CO2 to Norway for storage. So that is an interesting business model. In those almost $2 billion budget, we also include 10 years of support for operational costs. I think that's important. So the government accepts that it's not commercial yet. The market is not there. We're just trying to make this happen and then invite others. We think this way of building infrastructure and I see from your report in California that you're also thinking about this to combine different mission sources with good stores with high capacity. Yeah, so it's, it holds carbon capture businesses interesting because there's the capture part, there's the storage part and there's the move it around part. And all of those pieces have rules and regulations of course, as they should. So, so Keith, could, could I ask you you're the you have the most direct experience of any of our panelists in the permitting process for CO2 storage in California.  Yeah, well, I have to say, it's been going overall very, very well, especially the coordination between EPA and the state agencies, you know, primarily with CARB. We've seen a lot of enthusiasm a lot of support. So we, we, you know, we greatly appreciate that I mentioned that we submitted our application in January. One of the things that has occurred obviously because of COVID and some furloughing and, and staff shortages as things are taking a little bit longer. Initially, the expectation was it could be done in a roughly a year, and it may, I'm speaking of the storage permit, it likely will go a year and a half or something like that. But, you know, as far as on a sort of the progress that we're making on sort of the technical review and everything, that's all going quite well. We are, of course, as we get further into the development and, and other parties and agencies become involved, you know, there are some things that we are seeing obviously. You know, one thing that would be helpful is for all the subsurface activities, we're really involving a lot of different agencies and permitting authorities and that was mentioned earlier in the presentation. We have the EPA, we do have CARB for permanence, and, and then on a conditional use permit as well. We're seeing differences in timing differences in requirements. One of the recommendations, you know, to have a lead agency somebody who's really going to take the responsibility and coordinate that we think that would be quite helpful to, you know, for sure. Another area that's not resolved in California and is in some other states is the poor space and who do you actually need to, you know, receive consent from and with respect to storing CO2, you know, nine or 10,000 feet in a saline formation. And the mineral rights owner, landowner, and so on. So having, you know, some, you know, sort of moving that policy forward, because it's kind of like open terrain right now, you know, just trying to find the right path forward so I was speaking to everybody. And then, you know, there's the, the issue of the financial responsibility because again there are differences there as well, you know, from the EPA and from CARB and is trying to get some, you know, sort of unified approach on that would be quite helpful. But bottom line overall, we're pretty happy with it. Yeah, okay, so, so, so progress and some more work to do that. That kind of sounds like our whole conversation. No matter a fact. So, the time to move to questions from the audience has come. So, well, here's, here's an easy one. This is to any of you but, but you might be first on the list. Other than the low carbon fuel standard, what significant California policies are realistically on the horizon that would drive forward action on CCS and other decarbonizing solutions. And I think really the sense of the question as well. You know, is there anything here that we could that seems like a straightforward step that we can knock off early, even as we work on the tougher parts. Yeah, that's, it's a really good question. And I will give what probably will not be that satisfying him an answer, because the reality is that much of what we need to do, which you've all talked about the report highlights and actually Keith just highlighted is is coordination across agencies and is being like the responsibility and accountability and litigate and liability issues and so to me. I would say it wouldn't maybe be the questioner might not think this is a significant California policy but I think just the fact of trying to identify and answer those questions under a clear framework of sort of where is the state going on carbon dioxide removal specifically on this set of issues specifically is really, really important and that's mostly what we're working on frankly is just the clarity of that direction. I think we're about to enter a new scoping plan process for for carb we're going through, you know, a new update to title 24 on building codes there's a lot of policies that are in review right now. So what we're really trying to do is to clarify our own kind of policy direction again in alignment with our values on climate and equity and then make sure that those are reflected in those processes so maybe not satisfying but I think probably useful given what people have said. I'm made easier by the virus situation I'm quite sure Jane maybe you would you.  You've spent lots of time thinking about all the various pieces of this if you had to pick off a near a near term action. Is there any you have any favorites you'd like to share. Well based on our study, the state is pretty clearly going to need about at least 30 gigawatts of clean firm power and, although you don't necessarily need that right away. You may not need to have it in place until 2035 or 24. We've had some conversation with so Cal Edison for example where they said they've looked at this and that it just doesn't work for them right now because it's more expensive and so they don't necessarily need that firming because they still got to the gas plants. So I think what California needs to do is put in place a portfolio standard for clean firm power now and ramp it up to at least 30 gigawatts by say 2040 2045 and get the planning in there because the economics are not going to drive the preparation. And when, when it comes time that the economics are going to make a lot of sense that you're going to have to have it, it won't be there to buy, and so those economics will be worse. So we need some for planning for that and I think a clean firm power portfolio standard that ramps up to 30 or 40 gigawatts by 2040 2045 is about what we need. Yes, here's an important question and we'll see who wants to tackle it and it's this is like a class as you know nobody volunteers and I'll call it somebody so so be prepared but the question is how can the state ensure that CCS deployment rectifies the disproportionate impacts on this disadvantages communities, living at the fence line of large stationary emitters as opposed to exacerbating them. I want to tackle that. Keith, go ahead. Yeah, I'll take a shot at it because and it's kind of goes to a comment that Kate had made earlier. Again a lot of carbon capture is associated with the fact that there's still a stack there and, and there are emissions but there are car it's not just us there's other oxy combustion technologies where it's essentially full capture, and you don't have the criteria pollutants so when we started working on these projects in the Central Valley, we found that a lot of the environmental groups were very concerned about even conventional biomass plants that even with pollution control equipment. And source points of pollution next to impacted communities. And if you can come along and do it in a manner where you don't have the criteria pollutants we're seeing that more than the carbon capture piece. In the Central Valley, the fact that we can reduce criteria pollutants and, and knock down the open field burning that these are going to be the key things so you know, we're seeing the opposite we're being able to bring jobs to these impacted communities and not bring the point sources of pollution to reduce the criteria pollutants. You know that I think that there is a way to make it a positive CCS should not be seen and this goes to the comment about public education as something that necessarily is bad for a community obviously it's technology specific, but there are ways to do it where it's beneficial and not harmful, obviously to the community. Let's just jump in on this really quickly as well. If you don't mind, I think it's a really important question and it actually goes to a larger question that I think all of us have to grapple with frankly who are in the climate space which is, what's the role of industry in a carbon neutral future and what we've done in California for many years we still are a large manufacturing space state but we have off short a lot of manufacturing. And, ultimately, when we're looking at that carbon neutral future we're looking at transportation emissions we're looking at jobs and local jobs and opportunity and frankly, the need to keep having a diversified economy which we know from COVID crisis is incredibly important to trying to just survive as a resilient economy. We will need to in fact have industry in California and I think it opens the question of where and how and how do we make sure it's as clean as possible. But my worry is that we start going down the path of getting rid of industry which is actually not a good answer when when you're looking at a carbon neutral future. Deepika I was just about to call on you but I see you're about to volunteer so go forward. No, I think I agree. I think the question really is not, you know, to use CCS as an excuse to, you know, create, you know, perpetuate any problems in fact CCS is a solution it's a pollution control equipment actually speaking. And so to the extent that some of the criteria pollutants do need to be cleaned up when someone has to put on CCS that's well and good, but I suspect that you know in some situations there may be other air pollutants. So I don't think that we can ride on a CCS wave I think that there has to be a separate, you know, targeted approach to removing of these polluted criteria pollution in in local communities where these facilities might survive even even in a world where we have electrified light duty vehicles. And so it's, I just feel like we need to have a, I just don't think that CCS can solve all the problems although CCS is extremely essential to meeting climate climate goals such as carbon neutrality. It is very important to sort of look at this problem separately as well and sort of have a parallel program to bring it down to zero along with CO2 emissions. That makes sense. Trudy do you, you've had maybe more experience than any of us in this in the question of public acceptance of carbon capture and storage. Do you have any advice for California on on that. I think the importance that we also have in our mandate to share experience and knowledge so we're happy to do so of course and you do have a lot of knowledge yourself. I think it's important to do stakeholder dialogue to engage and to educate the public. And I think that public acceptance will still be very important in the future. But I think also I would like to add that we see a change in the industry. We see that the industry is really getting engaged. I don't think we need the stick as much as we need the carrot from the policymakers. I think the industry is getting ready so I just wanted to mention very shortly that last week. Our project in Norway was joined by Microsoft who wants to contribute with their technology knowledge and they want to you know how can you optimize CCS technology how can you make it more efficient and cheaper. At the time they have this target of being carbon negative by 2030 so they really are seriously looking for solutions for that I think that's a great example of how we'd need to work together on a global scale to sort out the climate issue. I think it's I agree with Deepika is it's not just a technology solution. This is the part of the future and in 1015 years from now we'll look back and think what was what was the pandemic and why did we discuss whether we need CCS or not. Obviously it's a part of the solution. So so we're we're nearly at the end but there's one more question that I'm actually going to answer because it's in my in my area. The question is what happens over hundreds of years to the CO2 when it's injected into the saline reservoirs and is it at risk of escaping. And this is this is a place where choosing the site well that is understanding how multiple barrier layers that prevent vertical flow upward. That's a big part of it. It's also possible to monitor you what's going on you can monitor the pressures and various layers and the things you can do to mitigate if you if you see some movement. The main the main thing we need to be careful about is the wells, but we know how to make wells that don't leak and to make wells that and to seal them up when we want to to end it. So for projects that that are designed well and operated well, the risk should be quite low. Okay, thank you Lynn and many thanks to our panelists for all of you who joined us from around the world. This has been tremendous. I'd like to thank the project team everyone put in a lot of hard work over the last seven months and it's been a pleasure working with Stanford University in my colleagues at EFI on this effort. I'd like to thank our advisory board, which was chaired by Secretary Moniz and Professor or so many thanks to all of the board members who provided subject matter expertise over the course of the study. And finally, this report would not be possible without all of our sponsors who are listed here on the screen so many thanks to these foundations organizations and labor unions for supporting this effort. We would also like to remind everyone that the study is now available and can be downloaded from the EFI and Stanford websites that are listed here on the slide. The video of today's events as well as the slides will also be made available on behalf of Stanford and the energy futures initiative. Thank you for joining us today.