Good afternoon, Congressional Climate Campers. Welcome to the second installment of ESI's Congressional Climate Camp. I'm Dan Berset, the Executive Director of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute. ESI was founded in 1984 on a bipartisan basis by members of Congress to provide science-based information about environmental, energy, and climate change policy to policy makers. We've also developed a program to provide technical assistance to rural utilities interested in on-bill financing programs for their customers. With their briefings or fact sheets, everything we do is freely available and accessible online. And as always, the best way to stay up to date and never miss a thing is to visit us our website at www.esi.org and sign up for our bi-weekly newsletter, Climate Change Solutions. The first time we gathered for a congressional climate camp, which was on the afternoon of the last Friday of January, so a month ago, we focused on process and specifically the opportunities in appropriations, budget, and stimulus to advance climate solutions. If you missed that session, visit www.esi.org to watch the entire video or just the segments that you want to learn about or read the written summaries. Today, we will take a step back and consider federal policies for high-emitting sectors and specifically these five sectors, agriculture, power generation, buildings, industry, and transportation. Each of these sectors deserves a dedicated explanation and discussion, and each needs to be put in the context of the entire economy. Climate change is an economy-wide challenge. The interrelationships between sectors are complicated, but critically important to understand if we're to make any progress at all with the necessary urgency that climate change demands. And to help us understand all that, we have enlisted five top experts whom I'll introduce in just a few moments. My introduction today is a little shorter than normal because we have so much to cover, but let me just share two more bits of logistics. First, we still have more congressional climate camp sessions in the works. Next month, we will dig into lessons learned from past Congresses and current public attitudes on climate change, and in April, we will study examples of federal policies for mitigation and adaptation win-wins. Each online briefing is structured to break out individual presentations to help busy staff target their learning. And everything, including slides and written summaries, will be posted online at www.esi.org. And a condensed audio-only version of each congressional climate camp is available as an episode of our bi-weekly podcast, The Climate Conversation. And second, while we have a packed agenda, you can still send us questions that we will try to incorporate into the discussion as we go. If you have a question, you have two options to ask it. You can send us a message on Twitter at ESI online or you can send an email to esi.org. Just to set realistic expectations, we will not be able to get to every question. We have a very full agenda, but ask away anyway. We will do our best to follow up and answer every question submitted during today's congressional climate camp. And now it is my privilege to introduce the first of our five experts. Christina Tonito is an ecosystem scientist in the Department of Global Development at Cornell University. Her research quantifies the environmental outcomes of agricultural forest and watershed management decisions. Her work combines literature review with statistical simulation model development to quantitatively compare land management decisions. Key themes in her research approach include quantifying the greenhouse gas impacts of land use decisions, quantifying the water quality impact of land use decisions, comparing conventional agricultural practices to ecological management scenarios that are economically viable, quantitative assessment of human impact on carbon and nitrogen cycling, and ecological approaches to soil and nutrient management. Christina, welcome to our briefing today. Thank you in advance for your presentation and I will turn it over to you. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on regenerative agriculture and greenhouse gas mitigation. I'm gonna talk today about greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture, compare conventional and regenerative practices, look at the greenhouse gas mitigation potential of agricultural systems and have some discussion of policy considerations. So first let's look at greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture contributes about 10% of US greenhouse gas emissions. Nitrous oxide is the largest form of greenhouse gases released and it's mostly from soils and it's mostly due to applying too much nitrogen fertilizer.  The other largest contribution comes from animal agriculture in the form of methane, in part due to the digestion of cattle, as well as manure management. So let's look at different agricultural systems. First I'll start in looking at historic Midwest ecosystems. So these are restored lands in Illinois. So you see on the left a restored wetland. So these wetlands have very saturated soils and as a result, carbon does not decompose easily. So these systems would be fairly carbon rich. The prairie on the right would also be a carbon rich soil because these prairie species direct a lot of their growth to very dense root zones. In contrast, this is what most productive corn and soybean regions look like in the United States. So they have extensive periods of bear fallow. So this is what they would look like right now, the image on the left. So bear soil and also tilled soil. So a lot of disturbance happening every year. And they're also extensively drained so that wetlands do not form. And as you can see these drainage ditches directing water off of the field so that they're productive. But this also results in a lot of pollution. So the excess nitrogen and phosphorus leaves these systems and produces trouble on the left. You can see a picture of Lake Erie experiencing eutrophication that leads to toxic algal blooms. And in recent years, at the end of the summer and in early fall, Toledo has not been able to use its drinking water due to algal blooms. We also have an annual dead zone due to hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. So a zone without oxygen where fish can't survive. And that averages more than 5,000 square miles a year. Conventional practices also result in a lot of soil erosion. So on the left, you see that natural erosion is about 21 meters per million years. And the highest instances of erosion are in the steep mountain regions in the West. In contrast, if you look at croplands, the map on the right, you can see that in intensive areas in the Mississippi drainage, you can have 1,000, 2,000 meters per million year loss of soil. So about two orders of magnitude, larger erosion losses on croplands. So regenerative practices have really emerged in response to environmental degradation. And the main goal is to reduce bare soil cover. So by increasing plant cover, you bring more productivity into the system. This leaves more plant residue on the land and increases soil organic matter and therefore organic carbon. It also maintains a longer active root zone. So nutrients get retained in the system. Water can infiltrate into the soil and groundwater. It reduces soil erosion and it improves the soil physical structure. To improve the cover of soils, we use diversified rotations. So one example are the images on the right. So using cover crops instead of winter bear fallows. So this can retain nutrients. If we're using a legume cover crop, it brings nitrogen into the system using solar energy. So the photosynthesis is providing the energy for nitrogen. We can also use perennial rotations which have these deep and dense root zones. There's also use of no-till such as this image. So you see a farmer on the left planting seed into a field that has a lot of plant material on it. So they're directly drilling seeds into the ground instead of using highly tilled fields. On the right, you can see the benefit of no-till. So in this image, the no-till or zero-till part of the image shows that following a heavy rain water could infiltrate into the soil. So that water is used for subsequent growth or it's used to replenish the groundwater supply. Whereas on the right, the conventional portion of the field, the water is just ponding on top. There'll be a lot of runoff and erosion of soil along with that runoff. And these are examples of perennial systems that you could find in the United States. So perennial grasses that can be used for livestock forage on the left. And then on the right, there's an example of perennial wheat. So the really, really long roots are perennial varieties that have been developed by the Land Institute and in contrast to the much smaller root zone of an annual wheat plant. And so these perennial varieties are not economically competitive yet with annual varieties. But they're increasingly becoming economically viable. So increased breeding might enable these to be more common in the landscape. There are definitely trials in different parts of the U.S. right now. And so what about the potential for greenhouse gas mitigation and agricultural systems? Our group developed the fast greenhouse gas accounting tool that looks at commodity crops of corn, soybean, and wheat. Management practices of cover crops reduce till, no till nitrogen management. We look at a hundred year time scale and we're counting for nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, soil organic accumulation, organic carbon accumulation as well as leakage and permanence. This is an example of results using fast greenhouse gas for corn across the United States. So the tool would selects legume cover crop as the best management practice and moist Eastern U.S. regions and no till on the dry parts of the U.S. And overall, if we implemented the best management practice over all harvested lands, we could expect about 8.3 million metric tons of CO2 emissions avoided. So to put that in perspective, if we implemented these best management practices over all corn, soybean, and wheat lands, this would be about a five to 10% reduction of agricultural emissions. But that would only be less than 1% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. And these benefits would result from both the regenerative ag as well as nitrogen management improvements if we wanted to get up to closer to 10% reduction. And so some policy considerations. The main benefit of improved agricultural management practices is to improve the soil resource and improve water quality. This is achieved through increasing soil organic carbon, retaining nutrients, reducing soil erosion, improving soil structure and water management. Greenhouse gas mitigation is a co-benefit that is both produced as non-reversible benefits, which the biggest example is if we reduce an excess nitrogen application, we'll get a reduction in nitrous oxide emissions. We'll also get a reduction in carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions because we will be producing less nitrogen fertilizer. And once that is accrued, that benefit is real, it doesn't disappear. You've accomplished that in the given year, it's accomplished. In contrast, we have reversible benefits of soil organic carbon accumulation. And so to think about that more thoroughly, because soil carbon is reversible, we have to deal with issues of permanence. If we have an improved management practice over 20 to 30 years, most of that carbon accumulation is occurring in those first decades. But in order to retain that carbon in the soil, we have to maintain that practice indefinitely essentially. And so we need to understand what the cost is of a long-term commitment to an improved practice. And not just the cost, but whether it's realistic. So we need to understand what the risk of reversal in practice is. So that's really important in a policy setting. And so in general, if we're talking about reversible benefits like carbon accumulation, these are gonna be riskier to account for than the non-reversible benefit of nitrous oxide, reducing nitrous oxide emissions or avoiding carbon dioxide emissions. And so it's important to use these longer timescales, such as the 100 years that's common IPCC reporting, if we're thinking, especially when we're thinking about these reversible processes. Another key feature in agricultural systems is thinking about leakage issues. So if there's a change in yield, you have to account for the greenhouse gas consequences of the yield change. And in greenhouse gas emissions accounting, the yield change actually is really significant. So we need to understand if a management practice reliably changes the yield outcome. If there's a yield reduction, is it met through extensification, which is bringing more land into production or intensification? Can we increase productivity on existing lands? We need to be able to associate a carbon cost for converting natural lands into agricultural production. Or in the case of a yield benefit, we wanna be able to credit the carbon benefit of removing land from production. If we have as a goal to increase carbon storage in the landscape, this might happen through a reduced demand for current commodity crops in the future. So there could be a future where there are more perennial systems, improved perennial forages and managed grazing. The perennial grains we looked at earlier through increased breeding could become more economically viable. And we might have a future where second generation biofuels and bioenergy create a bigger portion of the bioenergy distribution than now. There might also be dietary changes where animal production is less important in the food supply chain. So animal production uses about 80% of agricultural land right now in terms of providing food for animal stocks. So this recent discussion about whether manufactured proteins will be disruptive and become really important in the food supply chains could dramatically alter animal numbers in the United States. We can also have a future where people are willing to pay for other ecosystem services, especially improved water quality, flood mitigation and wildlife habitat or recreation. And then to think about how is improved management motivated? We often look at an ecosystem services framework. So most commonly we use a payment for practice framework in which the benefit of a practice is generally estimated using a few long-term studies. And then where we apply this average benefit and assume that if we aggregate over many farms, we were getting that average benefit. And this is feasible to implement at scale and is used for things like encouraging cover crops to improve water quality in the Tesapeake Bay. But we also, there's a great need for thinking about payment for outcome approaches, especially in things like carbon markets where we want to be able to verify that a benefit has happened. And one of the main challenges to this approach is that on-farm monitoring is very costly. And so often it can cost more than the payment that's available for the ecosystem service. So this dilemma exists as to which approach is more realistic. Modeling can certainly bring down the monitoring costs to some extent, but we still require trained experts and all models require some amount of on-farm data to be robustly applied and data to also verify that the model itself is representative of the system. So in summary, to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions, we need to focus on reducing fossil fuel use across all sectors discussed today. Regenerative practices have a main benefit of improving the soil resource and improving water quality with greenhouse gas mitigation as a co-benefit. If we're assessing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, we have to account for leakage and permanence issues. Nitrous oxide and methane are the main greenhouse gases emitted in the agricultural sector. And it's less risky if we focus on the permanent benefits from practice such as nitrous oxide emissions. If we are gonna transition to carbon-rich landscapes, farmers will need support to improve their practice. This might occur if we have a dramatic shift in crop demand and will need to have support for accounting for ecosystem benefits in either a regulatory or market approach. So thank you for your attention. That's great. Thank you, Christina. I have a premonition that I will use that summary slide of your presentation for a lot of my work at ESI. That's a great sort of distillation of all of your points. Thank you so much for that. And thanks for your presentation. One of the challenges of this session we were talking about a little bit earlier today is there are sort of limitations of time and space. And the way we've organized today's sections where we're kind of going sector by sector make sense for staff, people who wanna do a deep dive and learn about sort of agriculture and emissions reductions. But one of our challenges is making sure that our audience has a clear set of takeaways about how each individual sector sort of contributes to the whole, but also relates to the other sectors. And so on one of your slides, you talked about a few different, the idea of net greenhouse gas emissions reductions, right? So there's some changes that we could be doing with respect to foraging and grazing. Perhaps there's some different outcomes with respect to bioenergy, biofuels, sort of less meat oriented landscapes. But can you help sort of explain to staff people who might be new to climate policy sort of how they should think about agriculture or the agriculture sector in the context of overall economy wide emissions reductions. Like what are the limitations of maybe putting too much sort of on the agriculture sector in terms of what it can deliver or are there is there an issue of scale between some of the sectors that we'll talk about a little bit later like power generation, maybe your transportation. Could you help just put the magnitude of emissions reductions possibility sort of in context? Well, so our overall conclusions, including an analysis of risk of reversal or including estimates of risk of reversal. I shouldn't say that there's not that much data on how do you estimate whether someone will be able to maintain a practice in 50 years. So because we include the risk of reversal, our conclusion is that if you have today's composition of crops, so a commitment to a landscape dominated by corn and soybean crops, that there's not that much potential for a crewing for guaranteeing long-term carbon storage. I guess the flip side to that is that we don't actually directly consume most of the corn that's produced in this country. Serial production, so actually humans eat in corn is less than 2% of the corn produced and all food supply is less than 10%. So 50% of the corn goes to feed animals and then 30% goes into biofuel and the byproduct of that goes to feed animals. And so, if there is a disruption of protein production and if you believe some of this new literature coming out saying that we can substitute a lot of dairy and meat for these alternative lab-derived meats, then there could be different plants grown in the landscape and people wouldn't necessarily drastically change their diets to accomplish that. There would still be high-end meat production, but there would be different proteins elsewhere. And if we didn't need liquid biofuel, if everything was electrified, then instead of the energy inefficiencies of creating a liquid fuel from corn, if you actually burned biomass directly to support electrification, you would be able to use different crops, for instance. And you could also, there's more efficiency, you don't have to burn the water essentially out of the ethanol out of what's created when you're producing ethanol. So it's mostly water. And so you have to get rid of that water before you can use it. So there are ways to, for the landscape to interact a bit with the other sectors, but it just requires a re-envisioning of what we want to do with our landscape. That's really helpful. And we think at EESI, we think about what the baths feels like. As we think about the transition taking place over time, electrifying some sectors like aviation, for instance, is a different set of challenges or heavy-duty equipment, for instance, or long-range traveling things. So that's a really interesting point. I really appreciate the idea of incorporating sort of the potential for reversal into our expectations and into our policy planning. That makes a lot of sense to me. Yeah, I guess I would add, if you could envision sort of land that would be set aside for committed uses in certain ways for decades and decades, then we could actually attribute higher soil carbon. But in a landscape where a lot of people rent their land, it's not clear to me that we can assume that any practice that's implemented in the next 10 years will be there in 50 years or 100 years. But that can change. We can have policies that change that. And there could be incentives for people to switch to alternative practices if they're supported, instead of them having to absorb the financial cost and the risk of that. Oh, you're muted. It has to happen once per Zoom, right? If not, people will be like, wow, he's too good at this. I'm actually gonna use a different mic because apparently I sounded a little bit too much like a robot and I'm not. So, but Christina, what I was saying while I was on mute was just to say thank you so much for joining us today and for helping our audience understand agriculture sector emissions, excellent presentation. And as a reminder to our audience, if you missed Christina's presentation or if you would like to see her slides, be sure to visit us online, www.emsi.org or everything will be posted in addition to a written summaries over the next couple of days. So thank you, Christina. We really appreciate you joining us today. One last sort of reminder before we move on to our second speaker. If you have questions, we are keeping track of them. And so we may not be able to get to all of them today in between the Q and A that we have is gonna be largely focused to sort of helping to tie the sectors together to weave the sectors so people can understand how they fit together. But if you have questions, please ask them and we will do our best to answer them even if it's after the fact today. That brings us to our second speaker. And it is my privilege to introduce Dr. Deepak Devan. He is professor and director of the Center for Distributed Energy at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He has over 40 years of academic and industrial experience in the areas of power electronics, power systems, smart grids and distributed control of power systems. He works closely with utilities and industry and is actively involved in research, teaching, entrepreneurship and starting new ventures. Deepak is an elected member of the US National Academy of Engineering, member of the National Academy's board on energy and environmental systems and part of its committee on the future of electric power in the United States. And yesterday, I think just yesterday had a big report released. So means a lot for us to have you take time out of your busy schedule, especially on the day after of a big report release to join us. So welcome to our briefing. I'm looking forward to hearing your presentation. Great, thank you, Dan. And I'm hoping you can hear me. Let me try and see if technology works and I can share my screen. And hopefully that works. Everything looks good, thanks. All right, wonderful. Well, good afternoon, everybody. And it's a pleasure to be here for the briefing for EESI and thanks, Dan, for the wonderful introduction. I'm gonna talk, which one is it? Sorry, I think this isn't wrong. Hang on, sorry, Mike, that I have too many things open out here. Sorry. Okay, is that visible to you? Not yet. How about this? Not yet? Okay, sorry about that. Give me one second. I thought I had it all resolved, but obviously not. It doesn't look to me, Deepak, like you're sharing your screen. Yeah, I'm not right now. So I'm just trying to get this screen to come up. You could also, if you would like, we have the slides on standby, if you would like to- Yeah, why don't we do that? Okay. It's giving me the wrong slide deck. We'll pull them up and you can just help us navigate the slides as we go. Yeah, we'll do, no problem. It's good when we have a backup. This one, that's good. Sorry about that, we did the trial run and it seemed to work fine at that time. So obviously, there had to be a bug somewhere. But anyway, it's my pleasure to be here to talk to everybody about the impact of the power generation sector on emissions. Next slide, please. As Dan mentioned, I lead the Center for Distributed Energy at Georgia Tech and we are working essentially on developing holistic solutions. Dan mentioned that also just in entrepreneurship, we've kind of worked on taking some of these technologies actually to market. And we continue to work on what we think is really an exciting time here where new technologies like solar and electric vehicles and wind and batteries are all started to become kind of really, really very, very important. So next slide, please. So before we get into the slides, coming out slightly differently formatted, but that's all right, I think we can manage. So I think before we get into the realm of how we can reduce grid emissions, let's think for a second about how we have been able to kind of forecast the way that the energy sector has actually been moving. On the right, you see a chart which shows in black how solar technologies have been deployed in the world. And out from that, you actually see the forecast that have been made by the IEA in terms of how much solar would actually be used. So something is obviously a miss out here because we are not able to forecast exactly how growth is going to occur. And in a sector that has so much of investment going on, that's a real problem. Over the last 100 years, we've done very well with it actually because we've taken the grid and made it completely a normal part of our life and everything we know really runs on electricity and without electricity, things would kind of go down. So why is it that it's so difficult to make forecasts about the future in particular? One example of that is shown below. If you look at that chart, where it says cumulative PV module sales, you see what we call a learning curve where we see that for every doubling of volume for the last 50 years almost, the cost of solar cells has been going down by about 22%. And that's an exponential growth. So we are starting to see that, all these technologies in some sense based on Moore's law, are showing exponential characteristics where we are unable to predict really how well that pricing is going to go down. And it's going down so fast that we are really not able to accommodate that in our business practices. And it's not just one technology, there's a whole multitude of exponential technologies that are at the bottom of this. And what that has done is it has taken, for instance, a solar technology, solar with four hours of energy storage, we're starting to see at below grid parity, below the price of gas, below the price of everything else. And when you start seeing that kind of an economic force, it becomes very difficult to predict how things are going to go. And these are all changes that are happening outside the utility sector. So that's the other part of it that is really problematic. So what is the opportunity that we have out here? We have the chance to take a very big part of emissions, which in this case of electricity generation today is 26.9%. But we also have transportation, which is 55% and then buildings and industry. So there's a chance that if we can decarbonize generation, we can have a really big impact on pretty much everything. So if you look at, what are the opportunities for zero carbon generation? There's hydro is already there. There's nuclear energy, existing nuclear fleet. We have wind and solar that have made a tremendous progress over the last 30 years or so. And there are many future technologies too that are coming out that include hydrogen and then some of the clean fuels that are zero carbon in terms of impact. And then some small modular reactors that are coming out in the next 10 years or so that could have significant impact. So if you look at the whole area of is there enough of this resource available? The answer is, I think there is, even if you have a 100 mile by 100 mile a BB plant located in the middle of Arizona, you would have enough energy generated to meet all of US annual needs. So the problem is not that the problem is, how do you couple that energy that is generated to all the points of use? You've heard that electricity really has to be consumed at the same time it's generated and that has to be done, not just at a certain place, but at every place at every time. So you had to balance everything from milliseconds to seasons and that creates a whole bunch of problems. It's also, we had to think about the fact that as you're planning the grid and operating it, we talk of something called dispatchability where you can actually act will whenever you want to have the generation startup. That's the problem. The second thing is, you might have heard of the California duck curve where we're seeing 13,000 megawatts an hour of ramp rate, which has to be supplied. And there are not so many resources, especially solar and all the solar happens when it happens. So how do you do that? So that's fast ramping is a big problem. Another one is what happens if a generator goes down? So we have to have something called spinning reserve which is kind of sitting there idling away and waiting for that occasional moment when it's supposed to be available for you. So what are the enablers for this type of technology? There's a lot of technology underlying all of this. This includes long and medium duration of energy storage. We just talked about that. Includes transmission. Sometimes it's DC for very long distance, otherwise it's AC transmission. We also include some new technologies like power electronics that really allow you to get that control of the electron in the system and be able to deliver it where you want it in the shape and form and everything else that you want the energy to be available to you. There's also a communications technologies, internet technologies, cybersecurity. These are all kind of underlying that.  So there's a whole layer of automation that needs to happen. You've just seen what happens in Texas. We've seen what happens in California. We need to have generation available at the edge of the grid, not just at central. So there's micro grids that are required. And then there's of course carbon capture and sequestration is the other approach. So we see a lot of new technologies that are kind of at the backbone of this future grid that we're talking about. So what is the approach? So far has been centralized generation. We have large generating plants. We have large control areas. And the utilities of the last 100 years have really developed into a fantastic thing except for occasional Texas-like events. I mean, the lights are always on. We never think about it. We turn on the switch, the lights come on. That takes a lot of work out there. But we are starting to see an approach where you can manage centralized generation and distributed generation in the form of solar and rooftop solar and small generators and micro grids all sitting together, which can together meet the reliability goals that have always been there, but also resiliency. Resiliency is something that has started to become more important. And in the era of climate change, we're going to see more and more of these 100-year events occurring every five years or so. And we need to be able to respond to that. And of course, it has to meet the cost goals as well. So the new paradigm that I think is possible will emerge, and that's me saying that, is that we get the reliability and resiliency from the edge of the grid where there's a lot of new generation being kind of located for other purposes. And you get the affordability and sustainability from the bulk PV when everything else because 95%, 99% of the time, that's the mode you will be in. But that time when you need to be resilient, you will have that resource available. So we see a massive transformation occurring out here from a centralized, passive and rigid grid to a decentralized, dynamic and resilient grid. So this is my educational slide. Can you go to the next slide please? Okay, so we see some, you've heard a lot about this. A lot of fast-growing sectors are transforming the way we use energy. PV and wind farms are there growing at 120 to 160 gigawatts a year globally. As you add storage into it, that's become the dispatchable and a more usable resource. So that's wonderful. On the right, you see energy storage. We've seen a lot of modular battery energy storage systems that are being deployed to Australia, here, everywhere, China, everywhere. So this is a massive growth area. We've always used pumped hydro where you use two reservoirs and you can pump water up and down and make that work like a storage system. So that's always been there. And we started to see some clean fuels emerge whether it's hydrogen or ammonia or other clean fuel. You've been seeing a lot about transportation. I know there's a whole section on transportation later. So I won't talk too much about it, except to say that it has to integrate with the grid. If we start to see DC fast charging as being the way to manage cars and trucks to fleet and have the flexibility. But that also means that if I have a few, about 10% of the vehicles charging with fast charging, I might need another 1,000 gigawatts of generation.  So this is another big issue. And then finally, I think resiliency comes from the bottom up micro grids that we've been talking about. But that's cost again. So how do you manage all that? So this is really part of the overall challenge that we face. Next slide, please. So if you look at, let's kind of jump back into the reports and to what, you know, Nesim has really been working on. And I know that Texas is probably on people's mind. So we just kind of, you know, kind of lead from that. There's a resilience report that was published in 2019 that came out of NAE where they kind of looked at the whole idea of, you know, how you would have, you know, prepare against big events of this kind. And a process has been established. But the recommendations that came up with were that there should be a visioning process that, you know, the state agencies and the utilities kind of, you know, go through that kind of imagines what would happen when you have, you know, these large plausible long duration outages that occur and to kind of really, you know, develop and demonstrate the technologies and operational arrangements that would allow us to mitigate the impact of such events. So this has been kind of done. And, you know, we seem to rediscover this every time a big event occurs for this part of life. Next slide, please. Another report that just came out a few months back was really, I think more aligned with what you guys are talking about here is decarbonization. And kind of looking at what is the pathway to getting to near net zero by around 2050. And looked at many different things, won't spend a lot of time on that, but the need to establish energy standards to kind of advance clean energy markets to make sure that we have zero emission vehicle standards and for manufacturing as well. And really transmission infrastructure is really important to be able to connect all these areas of energy surplus to where energy is needed. And then when you compare across different countries, we see that we are very low in terms of the amount of federal funding that goes into this area. Next slide, please. So the report that just came out yesterday, you know, is really kind of focusing on future of electric power. We see a major transformation that is occurring out here. The challenge is that because so many of these elements are happening outside the area of control of the utility industry, you know, we don't really see exactly how this is gonna manifest itself. All the new technologies are coming and they're coming at breakneck pace and they're coming in a sector that is not used to change at a very fast pace. So that is something that is still kind of, you know, kind of being understood. And this change is gonna be different in different parts of the country. But we see everything from smart grids to electric vehicles, to high voltage DC transmission, to presumers, to energy storage. All these things are kind of, you know, in there. Next slide, please. All right, so what, you know, there's about, there's a lot of 50 yard recommendations. I'm just gonna take two of those that come out of the technology sector. One is, you know, kind of, that there's a need to develop generation technologies with zero CO2 emissions, which have high dispatchability, fast ramping rate. And then we have to have storage systems with multi-hour, multi-day and seasonal time shifting. And then you have to have power electronics that allows real-time control of the grid. So this is, you know, overall, the second recommendation is really that there's a new paradigm that seems to be emerging, which is moving away from very large centralized facilities to more modular distributed edge intelligent systems, which, you know, have the possibility of changing the grid paradigm completely because you can get better sustainability, better reliability, better resilience, and better affordability all at the same time. A lot of other things that I talked about in the report, I'm not gonna take a lot of time on it, but it's important to see that you need to do, you know, transition of power generation to low carbon, and also to kind of make sure that we use this decarbonized electricity for transportation, building industry and other areas. As you move to this new technology, we find also that the grid stability becomes the problem has to be addressed. We see that there's a significant amount of innovation that is required to integrate all these things together. And as we said, we need more investment. Next slide, please. So this is again a summary. I think I would encourage you to kind of go and check on the nascent website. This is all available. We see, again, a need to develop generation storage technologies. We need to see government industry collaborate in this and de-risk the new technologies. And we also need to have all the other layers of technologies in terms of ICT, in terms of flexibility, automation, all of these things have to be put in place. Last slide, please. So I think in conclusion, what I wanna say is, you know, there is a pathway to achieving low emissions. In the past, it's been seen as a trade-off where we always say that low emissions comes with higher costs and poor reliability, okay? I think that has changed now. We see that there's been an unprecedented change in the last 20 years. And we're starting to see that the cost of these exponential technologies, which are the heart of how this can actually happen, have come down and keep going down at a rate that is absolutely unbelievable, but very, very predictable. I mean, you know, and so this is gonna have some major disruption in terms of overall things. And we need to kind of be flexible, prepared and adaptive in terms of how this can do. But this is an opportunity to transform the system to a low carbon system. There's also reliable, resilient and affordable. Needs fundamental rethinking, needs innovation, needs new policies, needs new investments. All the changes been done really when there's an alignment of forward-leaning policies and incentives that aligns with what technology can do. And when that happens, you get this explosive growth in solar and batteries and EVs, everything that's happening. It's really driven from that. So with that, thank you very much. And my apologies for the snafu in the beginning, but, you know, happy to answer questions. Oh, thank you so much. That was such a great presentation. And the snafu's are what, you know, make online briefings for me if it wasn't for that. Thanks for that. Just so you know, we'll post your slides and we have a PDF version. So the version, to the extent that there was any formatting, you know, different versions of PowerPoint, let's say. We'll make sure to post that because those are very dense slides and there's lots of great information in there. And we'll also, with your permission, include links to those reports as well, especially the one that just came out yesterday. I liked your slide about, you know, sort of the grid is changing, right? The future of electricity generation or the electric power sector in the United States, it's becoming more distributed, it's becoming smarter, it's becoming sort of quote unquote grid edge in a lot of ways. As that continues to happen, as that evolution continues to take place. What does that mean for how generation sector emissions will be impacted by or will affect the emissions from some of the other sectors we're gonna talk about today, like transportation and buildings in particular? Yeah. Yeah, that's a very big question, correct? I mean, and again, you know, I mentioned that these sectors are not controlled by the utility industry, which has generally been a very regulated industry, very plodding, very slow moving. And, you know, and the electric vehicles industry in particular transportation is moving at breakneck speed right now. And there's an assumption almost that there's always gonna be a plug somewhere you can plug into the grid and it's gonna charge you. And that's not so easy to think of because, you know, what's coming out is that both from an equity point of view as well as from a technology point of view and a social point of view, people really are gonna be looking more and more at fast charging, which means that my car is now gonna be charging at 150 kilowatts and my truck's gonna charge at one to one and a half megawatts. If I have 50 trucks charging at a station, okay, that's 75 megawatts, that's a substation. Okay, you can't do that in a few years. And that's the pace at which people are moving. So how do you reconcile that?  So there's a lot of grid integration that is required, which means there's gonna be generation at the edge that is required. And that's happening anyway, because we are seeing, you know, more and more data centers, we're seeing more and more kind of grid service providers, microgrids, all of these are going in. So there's an opportunity for the resource to be available at low cost, but it's not been traditional. The regulators have not normally allowed microgrids to operate except inside your own campus, okay? So there's some policy issues out here that need to be addressed at the same time. But once it can be done, I think the opportunity is really incredible, because I think of the grid as an ecosystem. I don't think of the grid as a service. The loads have a part to play. This generation has a part to play. Management has a part to play. All of these things have to work together to deliver the service. So that's my view. Buildings have a great opportunity here to become microgrids of their own. So they become contributing to the overall grid operation paradigm. And then of course, transportation is a very big piece of the puzzle as well. Great. Well, that's awesome. Thank you so much. And to our audience again, if you would like to go back and revisit any of Deepak's presentation, everything will be archived online. And really encourage everyone to go visit that, to access that report. It's great. And it represents some really excellent thinking on your part and your team. So congratulations on that. Thank you. Great. Well, you provided a wonderful segue to our next two speakers, who are the first of which will speak about buildings. And then we'll talk a little bit about industry and then we'll talk a little bit about transportation. But first buildings, which I won't say it's my favorite of the sectors, but I have a big sign spot for buildings. And it's a pleasure to introduce my friend, Elizabeth Beardsley. Liz brings more than 20 years of professional experience working on environmental and climate issues, both as an engineer and a lawyer. In her current role, Liz is senior policy counsel at the US Green Building Council, a global environmental nonprofit best known for LEED, the world's most widely used green building rating program. She provides strategic green building law and policy guidance and direction across the international, federal, state and local spectrum. And her work focuses on connecting building policy to climate mitigation. Welcome to the briefing today, Liz. I am really looking forward to your presentation and just from a timekeeping note, pretend as though we're starting exactly at 245. So we'll just kick everything a couple of minutes down the road, so don't skimp on us. Thank you, Dan. Thanks so much for that kind introduction and that was my first question. So I do have a jam packed presentation. So great to be here. Let me just share my screen. All right, how do I get this fixed here on the screen? Okay, super. All right, well, thanks everyone for spending some of your Friday afternoon and thanks again to EESI for hosting this event and inviting me. USGBC has been around for over 25 years. We are a mission-based nonprofit organization and we're focused on transforming our buildings and communities to support people that live and play and learn in them as well as the planet and to show what's possible and help drive market transformation. We're best known for lead, but we also have credentials, education, lots of resources for people. We do advocacy. So we have a full range of platforms that we leverage towards this mission. So my presentation this afternoon will focus on two parts. First, some facts to sort of set the stage for the role of buildings in the overall US greenhouse gas emission picture. And then secondly, getting into some of the policy approaches that are being discussed and proposed and there are many. So I'll give a smattering of that. So I'm gonna start with the takeaways because we'll quickly get into some graphs and things. So I just wanna make sure that they emphasize these. So first of all, buildings are significant as part of the overall picture of US emissions. The, as interested to see in the invitation for the event today, 12% was called out as buildings contribution. And that's actually the direct combustion piece of how buildings contribute. So when you're burning, if you have fuel oil or a gas connection at your building, that's what's being counted in that 12%. But if you include the emissions associated with their electricity use, that goes right up to 38% total. So clearly if we are going to make a dent in our emissions, we have to address buildings. And I do wanna, you know, the good segue from the prior presentation is absolutely, we need to have, sorry about that. We need to integrate buildings as part of the grid more and more. So whether it's to make space for beneficial electrification of buildings or to allow for EVs, the base load that we're currently, that the amount of energy that buildings are using really has to come down. But the good news is it can. So we'll get to that towards the end. The drivers of this contribution are the age of buildings, you know, whether they were built to a code or have had efficiency retrofits and sort of overall size of the building portfolio in the country. And another key point is that buildings have greenhouse gas impact beyond energy, although energy is the clearest and the most obvious we focus on that. But if you think about it, when waste is created, when you're building a building or replacing equipment over its life, you're using water to serve the building. You're using materials to build the building. All of these things also have an impact, which we'll get into. And with that, both the construction phase and the operations phase matters when you're looking at the lifecycle impact of a building. So looking at buildings as an end use sector, here are these two red arrow columns. This is data from the US Energy Information Administration. And you can just see that the blue part of the columns for residential and commercial there, those are that onsite combustion piece of it. And then the brown part is the electricity. So both matter. I mean, if you look at residential and commercial together and you stack those, that would be rivaling transportation. I think as the grids get cleaner, then as buildings get more efficient, that should come down. And so the relationship between them might change, but just to kind of give you at a glance what we're talking about. And this spaghetti chart, I'm not gonna force you to stare at this for too long, but I want you all to know it's available because work has been done to map out each of the different fuel types and how they're used by the end use sector. So if you get a question from your boss on, well, how much coal is really used in buildings these days? Like this is where you can find that information. So this is just letting you know this is available too. And then what in buildings is causing all this energy demand? This is gonna be a little different based on the climate zone, sort of the building stock characteristics and things like that. This happens to be from New York City, has done a lot of analysis, but you can see that here in this example that space heating is sort of the single biggest, pulling natural gas and some oil. And then your plug loads, which is literally things that are plugged in. So all your computer type stuff and other equipment and lighting are quite a bit. And then space heating or space cooling, excuse me. Hot water ventilation, there's some other things there, but heating, cooling, the plug loads, lighting, these are the kinds of things that might be in a little bit different order depending on where you're talking about. So there's the three scopes of greenhouse gases. And this is the UNF triple C's framework where scope one is that onsite combustion. Scope two is the greenhouse gases from electricity generation. And scope three are indirect emissions. And this has been getting more and more attention because as the grid gets cleaner, and especially if there is more beneficial electrification moving the reducing the onsite combustion, then the scope three will become more and more significant on a relative basis, right? So scope three is things like it's at water and wastewater. So if you're using a lot of water in a building that's being pumped, treated, pumped again, treated again, et cetera. If you're not using durable materials and you have to do a lot of replacement over the life of the building, that's another area where all of those materials have with them and the cost of carbon, there's embodied carbon to transport them, to put them in a landfill or what have you, and then commuting in other factors. So the sum analysis, it's gonna be different again based on the grid characteristics make a big difference, but like this particular donut graph that was done a few years back showed that the scope one was about a fifth, scope two was almost a half. That's the power related emissions. And then scope three was about a third. So if you think of scope one and two is shrinking that scope three will become more important again on a relative basis. And there's also a time component to consider. So if you think about the day one, like the first day of a new building, you've just had all this construction equipment, you've probably had materials from concrete to wood to windows come in from all over the place and that's transportation is a carbon cost to the manufacturing, mining, there's all kinds of things that go into making buildings and building products. So that's your day one cost. So a conventional building over a hundred year life, you might have like this middle graph where you have all of that operational energy kind of adds up over time. So the initial construction phase footprint is not that great, but as buildings are becoming more and more efficient, then that operational energy gets smaller and that construction phase gets more important. So it's starting to get more attention from a policy perspective as well. And then globally you can see here that buildings are getting more efficient on a per square foot basis, which is good. That's this graph on the left that's coming down. It needs to come down more but it's at least going in the right direction. However, it's really being offset by increases in floor area. This is a projection of how many more square feet will be added in each region. So North America here, and this is all that blue side is projected additional floor area that will be created. So if we wanna, we already have to make up a deficit in order to accommodate all that new building space, if that is even somewhat accurate, we've really gotta reduce our energy consumption in all our buildings. And then buildings aren't getting any younger. That's where retrofitting comes in, I guess, to give them a facelift. But as of 2012, about half of US buildings had been built before 1980. And we know that it wasn't until around 1990 that we had better energy codes starting to be in place. Now they're much better. So this half of buildings are tending to have poor insulation, envelopes that aren't as well-sealed and inefficient systems. So that has a lot of implications for policy to get that total energies from the building sector down. So the good news is we can do better. We know how to do this, it's happening, but it's not happening at the scale quite that we need yet. And that's where policy will come in. So for example, the New Buildings Institute tracks net zero energy buildings. This graph in the middle shows the trajectory of how many they've counted. And you can just see how that's rising so much, which is great. We have lots of case studies now. For example, the AGU headquarters near DuPont Circle, which is an old historic building, was renovated to net zero energy and have to retrofit. And that's a great example. We have a case study on our website and there's lots of others. And we also know with the existing buildings that we can get them to perform better. So a study in California, for example, showed looking at those other aspects beyond energy that the certified buildings had 50% less greenhouse gases associated with water use. Almost 50% less associated with solid waste and then 5% less from transportation. So those are also places to, with that scope, three additional greenhouse gas footprint can get better. So turning to policy, there's lots of ways to slice and dice this and there are a lot of great ideas out there. So it's a really exciting time. I wanna highlight the administration's goal to retrofit 6 million buildings. I think that would be a really great start. The way we tend to think about, one way to think about buildings is new construction. So every new building can and really should be highly efficient. It should use this latest technology. It should be comfortable and reduce energy intensity. Retrofits, this can be a harder piece of the puzzle, but as I said, like we definitely know how to do this. This can be done. Workforce is another category, especially with some of the newer technologies that are becoming more mainstream. We've gotta make sure the installers and the builders out there know how to work with them and are actually incentivized and encouraging their use since they're often the interface with consumers. And then our D&D and technology, like this has been a huge piece of the transformation and needs to continue, especially on that like deployment demonstration side. So we can add like sort of think of those buckets and apply that to different sectors. So first of all, federal buildings is really an opportunity to lead by example. We would advocate for investing in cost-effective energy improvements that can also boost resilience and health among other co-benefits. Appropriations and funding are of course like a primary way to do that, but we also would want to establish buildings, goals and buffer agencies and direction. There's been a lot of great work done by key agencies including GSA, Defense, Department of Energy. So we wanna kind of push them to the next level and set goals such as for energy and water efficiency, greenhouse gas intensity reduction, net zero for new construction, deep retrofits and incorporating charging for zero emission vehicles. And then there's also opportunity to leverage private sector finance. For example, the Open Back Better bill would use the AFFEC program to help fund resilience paired with performance contracts to implement deep efficient projects. Those are some examples. On the commercial building side, including non-federal public buildings, again, appropriations and funding is a key aspect. Also using all of the DOE programs to advance on all fronts.  Deployment and demonstration, energy codes, work is very important, the Better Buildings program. So there's really a lot going on there that helps support commercial buildings across the country, tax incentives. So the 17090 tax deduction for commercial building energy efficiency equipment. The Green Act is one example. There's also our proposal for EQUIP, which would allow accelerated depreciation for highly efficient equipment. And that's another great idea that's getting attention. Again, leveraging private sector finance, in this case, the open back better would be run through the state energy program to get out to public buildings and critical facilities like schools, hospitals and so on. There's a proposal for investing in public buildings energy improvements through the energy efficiency conservation block grants program and then state energy programs program overall has lots of pieces of this as well. Schools are near and dear to my heart. We have a Center for Green Schools and we've worked on schools policy for a long time. Some of the key proposals here are to boost the US Department of Education's ability to support healthy green, low carbon schools. The big bill for schools right now is the Reopen and Rebuild America's Schools Act. And that would include significant funding that would help address inequity in school facilities across the country. And it includes minimum energy codes as well as green school provisions. There's also a proposal for energy efficiency grants for schools. There would be a piece of some of the open back better could be used for schools. And then technical assistance is also really helpful with Department of Energy and EPA having programs as well as states through the energy offices and departments of education. Residential, there's a lot of ideas here too. Again, preparations and funding, one specific proposal is the Housing and Infrastructure Act, which was in HR2, the House Infrastructure Bill last year. And that would include a set aside for energy and water and there might be, yeah. So there's that idea. There's also all the DOE programs again, but applied to residential. There's how did USDA, Bureau of Indian Affairs programs basically anything where there's housing retrofits or reconstruction at a certain scale that provides opportunity to increase energy efficiency and resilience. And the Energy Efficient Neighborhoods Act is one bill that helps work with those programs. Weatherization Assistance Program has been well proven to be effective. And that's likely place for additional investment. Workforce training, one of the bills out there is Hope for Homes that helps provide even like online training for the workforce with incentives. And then tax incentives, the Green Act has some additional residential incentives for new homes as well as individual equipment. And then there's a rebate proposal as well with the Homes Act. So there's specific technologies and approaches as well. Certainly to reduce that direct combustion piece to go towards electrification where the grid can handle it and the grid is getting cleaner like that can have an overall benefit to the total carbon impact. And that's certainly helped along by some of the technologies that have come out of DOE's investment in building technology. So it kind of all comes together there. So there's a lot of individual pieces. There's thermal storage which is becoming a real thing. Battery storage when combined with onsite renewable energy that can really help with that grid integration piece. And really there's all these, there's so much going on in the building space. We just need to get it out there. I'm sorry I'm going so fast but I'm trying to keep an eye on time. And then just one example I wanted to highlight with some of the research development deployment is grid interactive efficient buildings. These are buildings that work with the grid. They're connected, they're integrated and utilize a lot of these technologies in combination in a way to help reduce impact on the grid and help support it by having a flexible demand and reduced peak. And there's been some work on this by New Buildings Institute with the grid optimal as an emerging standard. So that's something that is kind of pulling in a lot of these pieces and that department energy is working on. So lastly, I'll just say buildings are infrastructure. They're part of the system and there's really huge opportunities to improve resilience, health and quality of life while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And I'm excited to see what will come in the next few years. Thank you. Thank you Liz, that was a fabulous presentation and really appreciate that. I think one thing that really sets buildings apart from some of the other sectors we're gonna talk today with the possible exception of transportation is just how intimately we know buildings, right? We spend a lot of time in buildings and your presentation did a great job of running through some of the opportunities to reduce emissions in a sector that we're all pretty intimately familiar with. I always like to think that every building is an existing building. It's right, sort of by definition. So lots of great stuff. A lot of the points you hit on Liz will also be covered although by different speakers at a briefing we have next Friday that is available. You can sign up for it on our website www.esa.org, we'll be talking about a lot of those DOE programs. So great, thank you so much Liz. It's a wonderful presentation and thank you for helping our audience understand just how important buildings are in climate policy. Also thank you for making the buildings our infrastructure point, cannot say that enough. Okay, thanks Dan. No, thank you. We are going to, unlike the fact that most people interact with buildings pretty regularly, very few people interact with big industrial facilities very regularly. And to help us understand industrial emissions sector, industrial sector greenhouse gas emissions, it is my privilege to introduce our fourth speaker of the day, Dr. Julio Friedman. He is a senior research scholar at the Center for Global Clean Energy Policy at Columbia University where he leads a new initiative in carbon management. Recently he served as principal deputy assistant secretary for the Office of Fossil Energy at the Department of Energy where he held responsibility for DOE's R&D program in advanced fossil energy systems, carbon capture and storage, CO2 utilization and CO2 removal. He's held positions at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory including senior advisor for energy innovation and chief energy technologist. Julio is an internationally recognized expert in carbon capture and storage, hydrogen energy systems, industrial decarbonization and CO2 removal. Welcome to the briefing today, Julio. Sorry we're getting started with your portion, a little behind schedule, but we're all really eager to hear what you have to say. And please don't let the fact that we're a couple of minutes late impact too much how you proceed. We'd like to give you the full 15 minutes that we talked about when we were putting this together. So I'll turn it over to you. Excellent, thank you. And it's a delight to be here. This is an incredibly important topic and a great audience. So I'm happy to have a little floor ton. As Dan said, most people don't go to the store and buy 10,000 tons of concrete. So you don't see this stuff every day. You don't have an intimate relationship with it. But in fact, this is the big how it's around. This is the big lever for decarbonization of the United States energy economy and it's the hard one. So let me just give you a couple of facts to orient you. Basically, industrial emissions are almost a quarter of global emissions, 22%. Just heat, just the heat from heavy industry is 10% of global emissions. And to give you a sense of scale, that is more than all the cars and all the planes together. Just industrial heat. And most people don't wake up in the morning thinking about industrial heat. That's why I do that service for you and happy to talk about all the ways in which they can manage the emissions from heavy industry. A little bit of framing here. First of all, the core arithmetic of net zero is clarifying net zero means net zero, anything. All of the embodied carbon that Liz was talking about in her buildings that all comes from industrial production. You have to zero that out or else you're not doing your job. If you emit anywhere, you have to unmit an equal amount someplace else. And it's gonna require all sectors and all approaches. Industry is also a little different in that buildings are made and used locally. Electricity is made and used locally. Cars are run locally. Industry is trade exposed. It is making commodities that are used all over the world and compete on a global market and the options that we have to decarbonize them are relatively small, unlike the power sector where we have lots of options for decarbonizing and the industrial sector, we have only a couple of options and all of the options are expensive compared to a lot of the other things we would do. So it's born hard. It's just the nature of the beast, but it is every bit as important as power is twice the size of transportation. It is three times or four times the size of buildings.  And if we get this right in the United States, then actually we have an export technology that we can bring to other countries. We have an opportunity for trade, which is virtuous and good. Another thing about industry that most people don't clock is that like buildings, the assets are long lived. So this is a picture of a typical chemical production facilities. Most of these last for 30 years at a minimum. That's a typical half-life and almost all of them are less than 10 years old. So they're going to be around for a long time. So they're going to keep emitting unless we do something. So we have to use the existing fleet if we want to get someplace. It's even worse with steel. You just, it's just hard to do. And this means they're going to be around for a long time. That means we have to work with the existing stock. So let's talk about US industrial emissions. Again, depending on the data you look at, 2018 industrial emissions were the number three sector. In 2019, they're number two. In 2020, the data I've seen suggest it might be number one because people didn't travel as much. Transportation dropped, industry didn't, industry grew. And where it comes from, I would pay attention basically to the brown and blue together. That's refining and chemicals. That's more than half of the US fleet. The next big one, cement. After that, steel. Those three are the same everywhere in the world. Cement, iron and steel and chemicals are the three big emitters. Together, they're typically 60% of the mix worldwide. It's just a lot of stuff. And a lot of the processes that operate in these are constrained by their chemistry and they're constrained by their physical requirements. This is where they are.  The green ones are ethanol facilities. The blue ones are hydrogen facilities associated typically with refining. We've got petrochemical facilities. We've got cement kilns all over the country. They're in lots of places. One of the nice things that you might not have thought about is that a lot of those facilities are actually reasonably close to good places to store a CO2. So one of the options you can have is CO2 capture and storage. I'll come back to that later, but that turns out to be a very important option for heavy industry. So let's talk about what these things are. What are the options? What can you do? So let's start with just the temperature that these things operate at. Cement plants operate typically at 1500 degrees Celsius, 3000 degrees Fahrenheit. Any industrial process that starts with melting a rock uses a lot of heat. That's true for steel too. Steel is about 1200 degrees Celsius, about 2500 Fahrenheit. If you're melting a rock, you're using a lot of energy. And it means that you can't electrify things easily because you just need so much energy to get the job done and you have to deposit the heat inside the system. It's just hard to do. So what are the options that we have for this stuff? Hydrogen's an important one. If you have zero carbon hydrogen, you can do a lot. I'll talk a little bit more about that in a minute. This is actually hugely valuable in the industrial sector, more so than many of the other options. And another option is carbon capture, which we talked about. You can use fossil fuels to make the heat. You can capture the byproduct emissions from cement and from steel, which are tied to their chemistry of formation and just capture that stuff and store it. It's the only way to zero out those emissions. You can throw in biomass, biogas, wood pellets, all these sorts of things. The temperatures are an issue sometimes, but it's something you can use. You have to make sure that biomass is actually truly low carbon. If it's not low carbon, if your life cycle is poor, then you're gonna end up in the wrong place. And some things you can electrify, not a lot, but you can electrify a lot of things. In order to electrify something, it has to be zero carbon or you're wasting your time. In fact, if you use grid electricity and most of these processes, you increase the net carbon emissions. It's really gotta come in at low carbon electricity and you need high capacity factors. Most electrical facilities operate upwards of 85% of the time. Since they're constantly operating, you can't use intermittent loads. You have to use something that's reliable. An industrial contract is typically more expensive than a power purchase agreement. It's typically more expensive than a wholesale price. So the cost ends up being an important component of what goes into these things. Let's take a little bit, talk about hydrogen. Hydrogens, the Swiss Army knife of deep decarbonization. You can use it for all kinds of stuff. And in fact, there's a vibrant hydrogen market today. Worldwide, we make about 70 million tons of hydrogen. That emits about half a billion tons of CO2. In the US, we make about 10 million tons of hydrogen that emits on the order of 50 million tons of CO2. But if we can get zero carbon hydrogen, we can actually get rid of that 50 million tons day one and start making stuff with zero carbon hydrogen. That'd be nice. It also burns hot. Hydrogen burns at 2100 Celsius. It is hot enough for any industrial process. If you really need a little bit hotter, you can burn hydrogen and oxygen and it burns at 2800 Celsius. That's hot enough to melt tungsten. That's hot enough. And of course, hydrogen can be used in other sectors too. You can use it as a transportation fuel. You can make synthetic fuels like ammonia out of it. You can throw it into turbines for the power sector. You can run it through fuel cells. You can use it as a feedstock for a circular carbon economy. There's all kinds of other reasons to go after hydrogen. It just has particular value in the industrial sector. In the US, we make it mostly gray hydrogen. 95% of the hydrogen in the world and 95% of the hydrogen in the US is gray hydrogen. Gray hydrogen is something like steam methane reforming where you put fossil fuel in, you make hydrogen, yep, comes out and the CO2 goes into the air and oceans. You can make something called blue hydrogen. Blue hydrogen basically takes is the same process but you're capturing CO2 so it's not emitting. There's actually several facilities in the United States and in North America that do this today. For example, in Port Arthur, Texas, they capture about 60% of the CO2 to keep it out of the air. You of course can also make it by putting zero carbon electricity into water. If you do that, that's called green hydrogen typically. And green hydrogen, as long as it has zero carbon electricity going into it is truly very, very, very low footprint. It's near zero and that makes heat, that makes industrial feedstocks, that makes chemical reductance, it makes all these things that hydrogen is good for. The key cost here is challenge. So the key challenge here is cost, right? The other way around, the key challenge is cost. Today in the US it costs on the order of a buck, a kilogram to make hydrogen, a buck, a buck 20 depending on natural gas prices. If you capture the CO2, you're adding something between 30 to 80% to that cost, depending on how much of the CO2 you capture. So with a 80 or 90% capture of the CO2, you're basically up at two kilograms, give or take. If you're using cheap green electricity, then you're basically much more expensive. Most cases in the US you're looking at somewhere between three and $8 a kilogram. So much more expensive than what the market has today. This is a clear-eyed call for market aligning policies. You need the policies so that these things can enter the market. There are issues also with how do you make this stuff? Right now, electrolyzers to make green hydrogen are built in the Santus tool shed, like there is no mass manufacturing of electrolyzers anywhere. That's an opportunity for America, it's opportunity for other countries as well, but you gotta know that before you get into it. Ultimately, if you wanna make a lot of hydrogen, we're also gonna be limited by the infrastructure. We're gonna be limited by the infrastructure for transmission lines to deliver zero carbon electricity. We're gonna be limited by CO2 pipeline capacity to make blue hydrogen. There are infrastructure limits. We can get going, there's good places in America to start today on blue hydrogen and green hydrogen for real that are economic and smart. But if this is gonna be a national solution, we're gonna need more infrastructure, things like build back better, become an opportunity set to be considered. This gives you a sense of where blue and green hydrogen are made around the world. The blue facilities are at the top. Look at the numbers there in terms of the tons per day, hundreds to thousands of tons per day. Some of those are in the United States, such as air products, which is in Texas, or Coffeeville, which is in Kansas. You need fertilizer plant in Oklahoma. So we know how to do this actually, the United States is the king of low carbon hydrogen. Like we do this today. Quest is in Alberta in North America, up in Canada. Pull the attention though to the only working green hydrogen facilities in the world today. Trondheim in Norway and Fukushima is just 10 megawatts. The biggest operating system for green hydrogen in the world is 10 megawatts. That is a factor of 100 to 1,000 times less than a commercial system. So we got work to do. The good news is help is on the way. Projects like NEON in Saudi Arabia or the Asian Renewable Energy Hub in Australia are being built right now, and they will make hydrogen at these kinds of scales entirely with renewable energy. So it can be done to go from a white sheet of paper to a facility like that is about 10 years and about $40 billion. We can do it. You just gotta know what you're getting into. Let's talk a little bit about the sectors. Let's start with chemicals because that's the big one in the US. It's 3% of global emissions. It's a big fraction of US emissions. The heat alone is about half of that. We use it for all kinds of stuff. The best options for the chemical sector, hydrogen. We can start today with blue hydrogen because right now gray hydrogen's going in. We can retrofit those facilities today and capture the CO2 and make them blue. Good thing to do. Eventually we will get enough green hydrogen online that we can start phasing out the fossil hydrogen and start phasing in the renewable hydrogen. That's inevitable. Whether we do it in 2030 or 2050 or 2100 is up to us. We can also start with stuff like biogas. Instead of running natural gas or fossil methane into these systems, we can start making biogas either from landfills or from wood chips, whatever we want to do. We'll start feeding that into the system. That'll have a lower carbon. We can do a little bit of partial electrification. In particular, a lot of chemical plants have steam that goes into them. And there are small electric furnaces and boilers that will make steam heat at the level at which you need. This would double the price of steam, but it's a place to start. And so there's places, as these facilities start to replace their steam units, we can think about getting low carbon electricity into those and think about making some low carbon steam to go into the chemical processes. There's certainly, of course, an opportunity to go after efficiency. That is a big opportunity in the chemical system. It is not so much in cement and steel. Those are already very efficient systems. In chemicals, there's better opportunities to get the efficiency into the system. And of course, we should invest in innovation as well to get novel processes into these systems in a 10 or 20 year timeline. When these assets get replaced, we'd love to be able to replace them with something that's born clean. We have to invent those things still.  It's like large single sources, big how it surrounds that you can tap. And again, you need the high temperature heat to do it. The best option, buy a lot, is just carbon capture on the whole system. And the reason why is because when you make steel, you have byproduct CO2, the chemical reduction of turning iron or into iron emits CO2 and consumes coke. When it does that, it just gets emitted and you can't just substitute for that stuff. We are getting close to being able to use biocoke at some point to do such things, but today, carbon capture on the whole system, that gets you 50% reduction at about 50 bucks a ton. It's a reasonable price for a reasonable outcome. Some places around the world are starting to run hydrogen into the existing blast furnaces, up to 20%. Nippon Steel in Japan, Thyssen Krip Pilot in Germany, we're starting to get to being using hydrogen. So again, if you have the low carbon hydrogen molecules, you can start using them. There's some other options as well, modified coking. We can get out of the primary production business and increase recycling through electric arc furnaces. It's worth knowing that steel is already the most recycled substance on earth. 90% of US production is already recycled steel. So we can't do a lot more recycling, but it is something that other jurisdictions would be more valuable. Again, same thing, we need novel processes that don't exist yet to replace the existing assets. Hopefully we can get their companies like Boston Metals that are doing direct molten electrification are examples of the sort of thing which in 10 or 20 years we hope to be able to see in the marketplace. For now, hydrogen and carbon capture are the good things. For the cement industry, big fraction of US emissions, 21% of US emissions, a bunch of that is heat and there are really no good options. I can't say this again, there's really no good options. And this chart kind of shows this, 50% of the emissions are just the emissions from the byproduct chemistry, that's the gray bar. The only system that gets rid of that stuff is carbon capture, period plop. Otherwise, the maximum amount of reduction that you can get is like 40%. You just can't get any more with anything else. So CCS on the whole system. Also, cements use solid fuels that go into them. They throw stuff like tires and trash and municipal solid waste into them already. So thinking about improving the footprint of the biomass that goes into that thing is a thing you can do. So the better thing to think about with cement is what can you not do instead? So can you use less cement by substituting the cementations materials for clinker? Are there novel processes that, for example, will bind carbon dioxide into the cement? Are there other things that you can do in the system? This is an interesting arena that's going forward, but in the near term, the big lever is, you just gotta do the carbon capture on the plants. The good news is stuff is going forward on this.   You will lose 100% of market share on the global market. So what the things we're talking about here for increase of price for steel and cement, we're talking about like 100% increase in price for a lot of these options. If we did carbon capture on a cement plant, it would go from $100 a ton for concrete to $200 a ton for concrete. We double the price. For steel, it would go from 350 bucks a ton to 400 bucks a ton. These are big levers. However, the flip side of that is the price of the finished good to barely changes at all. If you double the price of steel production, the price of a car goes up 2%. If you double the price of concrete, the price of a bridge goes up 1%. And the reason why is because most of the cost of a bridge is not the cost of the concrete. It's not the raw materials. That architecture, it's the land, it's the labor, it's all these other things. And so the price the consumer sees is small. So there's a way to think about policy that makes this invisible to the consumer and protects the wholesale producer from trade exposed damage. That is where the policy discussion is today. This is my last slide. I'm gonna take a little bit of time on it. The way that you can think about these things then is a balance of incentives. So for example, the government buys half the concrete in the country, Department of Transportation, Army Corps of Engineers, they buy 20% of the steel. So by clean procurement is a huge policy option in this space. Government doesn't buy buildings the way that it buys concrete and cement, buys a lot of concrete and cement and steel, buys a lot of fuels that use hydrogen going into them. So there's a way to think about by clean that is specific. There are not tax credits for any of the stuff I've talked about. So thinking about a production tax credit or an investment tax credit for say low carbon hydrogen, a low carbon steel creates an opportunity and incentive to get investment into the markets and clean up the existing fleet. Because if you can get a tax break, people are excited. Of course, there's things like the Department of Energy grants, the 2020 bill that was the omnibus omnibus includes $6.5 billion of money and authorities for the Office of Fossil Energy to do demonstration and testing and a lot of this stuff. So there's, if the appropriations come, there's authorizations for it. There's ways to think about replacing existing assets. You can replace a blast furnace with something else that emits less. Awesome. We need to think about incentives that come together with that. Again, in the $1.9 trillion relief bill in a build back better bill, there's ways to think about that. I've mentioned infrastructure and passing. The infrastructure costs are the hardest parts of this for an industrial company to handle.  You don't want to build CO2 pipelines. We should be building that common use infrastructure for everybody and that will lower the price of entry for all of these clean solutions. A specific example of this actually is upgrading ports. A lot of ports are where the industrial facilities exist, they exist in ports like Houston or Los Angeles or Newark. So in fact, thinking about upgrading the infrastructure at ports, creating things like transmission lines, clean electricity options, carbon capture, storage sites, hydrogen pipelines, these are things that can actually serve a wide set of industrial facilities at these industrial ports. The last thing, of course, if you don't like carrots, you might like sticks. There's certainly ways to do this with regulations. You can think about stuff like an emission standard and just says, hey, if you're a cement plant, we're gonna cap you at this emissions level per ton, go figure it out. The problem is that that will really disadvantage US industry. We will have offshoring and we will have leakage. So you need a policy measure if you're gonna do that that matches. The one that is most commonly talked about is border tariffs, where you basically, it's a protectionist measure where you say, we're gonna disadvantage US industry and with it, we're gonna disadvantage foreign industry in the same time. That's a reasonable way to go. Might I offer an alternative? The alternative is something called an output-based rebate. And an output-based rebate is the opposite of that. You give support to US companies that exceed their regulatory threshold and pay them for performing better. It's that creates a virtuous cycle and instead of creating a tariff problem with another country, we are instead empowering US domestic production. And that makes us more competitive in a carbon constrained world. Behind all of this, we certainly need innovation policy that is essential and underserved right now. And of course, with all of this, we need to think about the wage and equity and labor considerations as well. A lot of the people who work in industrial facilities are black and brown in disadvantaged communities. A lot of these assets exist in disadvantaged communities that deal with environmental justice issues. So we should have to think about these things all as one party. It's different than the electric sector. It's different than the transportation sector. It's its own thing. In fact, it's like 10 things because each sector is a little different. Pulp and paper is different from glass making is different from ceramics. So you really need to get into it and think about it a little bit. As you go forward in that context, the last word, more analysis is good. In the studies that we've done at Columbia University, it is shockingly hard to just find data. The government doesn't even gather data on this. It doesn't do analysis on this. You could start at a pretty low level by asking for that. I'm a little bit over time, but not much. Thank you for your time and attention. This was fun. Well, I'm glad you thought it was fun because I thought it was fascinating. Excellent presentation. Thank you so much for that. There was so much information just as a reminder for folks who may have joined us a little late. Everything's available online. You can see Julio's presentation and we'll do a written summary as well. I'm glad that you spent so much time talking about the hydrogen piece of it. I think that's something that as we were putting this together, something that we haven't spent a whole lot of time on at ESI. So I really appreciate that you spent so much time in your presentation talking about that. It's really, really interesting. My pleasure. And I look forward to the opportunity to give you a 10-hour lecture on the subject. Okay, why not? Maybe we'll save that one back when we're in person. We can have it nicely catered. Have a progressive dinner hydrogen lecture combination. Right. I'm also happy to start with the 30-minute lecture if that's a little more convenient for people. Well, excellent. Thank you so much, Julio. Thank you so much for the presentation. That brings us to the fifth of... No, wait. Yeah, the fifth, number five of the five sectors. The fifth of five sectors that we're talking about today. Sorry. And it's my privilege to introduce John Davis-Pracari. He's a nationally recognized public and private sector infrastructure leader delivering some of America's most challenging projects and driving the adoption of equitable community-serving infrastructure policies and projects at the local, state, and federal level. John is president of Axelon Smart Mobility USA, delivering artificial intelligence-based transit and traffic solutions that reduce emissions and congestion and improve safety. John previously served as deputy secretary for the Department of Transportation for the Obama-Biden administration, leading the department's implementation of the $48 billion transportation component of ERA, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Tiger Grants and Loan and Credit Programs. As a member of the president's management council, John was then part of the core team developing policies, procedures, and budgetary priorities for the executive branch. He's gonna tell us all about transportation sector emissions, and John, we're a little bit behind. Sorry about that. We're getting you started a little later than we had a technical glitch a little bit earlier, but please don't let that impact your presentation. We would still have to hear all of it. I will absorb the overrun in my concluding remarks. So I hope that doesn't crimp your style too much. I'll turn it over to you to take it away. Great, thanks, Dan. And I will try to be succinct here. It's been interesting with the succession of speakers, each saying that they're the largest part of the problem that their sector is. It's refreshing from a transportation point of view because everyone agrees we are the biggest part of the problem. So at almost 30% of US emissions, 28.2%, the bottom line is you cannot respond to the existential challenge of climate change without completely changing the way that the transportation system is conceived, designed, and operated. And that's really the premise behind Build Back Better. We'll talk about that in a little bit of detail, but the policy structure behind the transportation component of Build Back Better really focuses the US in a fundamentally different direction. In the past, if you think about transportation, it's a means to an end, more than an end in itself. It's typically been used for economic development, sometimes for quality of life, sometimes not. But there are two fundamentally different lenses that transportation projects are viewed through Build Back Better, equity and climate change. And I wanted to walk through those a little bit in turn, starting with equity. If you think about what we've done in the past, the past 60 or 70 years post-war in particular, the interstate system with the viaducts that we've built, the elevated highways we've built through cities, redlining, segregating, and crippling neighborhoods within cities. We've divided communities. We have built transit service around particular needs as opposed to a system-wide approach. An equity lens on transportation leads you to very different decision-making than you have today. And it's important as a conceptual backdrop to this to think about how federalism applies to transportation. There's this common misconception that it's a Washington-driven process, that policy happens in Washington, it trickles down. The reality since colonial times is that project decisions are made at the local level and innovation is at the local level and it bubbles up. And if you don't accept that premise of how transportation project selection is made, you're never going to change how it actually works. So when you think about an equity lens, it's in individual communities, it's thinking about redressing some of the inequities of the past, it's taking things like transit deserts and making a priority, connecting people with opportunities. It's taking issues like local hiring, which was prohibited in transit projects. And in the Obama administration on a pilot basis, local hiring was used in transit projects and mainstreaming that. Job training and skills training is part of those projects. So you're getting a two-fer, essentially out of those projects. And finally on the equity side, real as MBE and minority business and disadvantaged business programs, as opposed to the check the box process that frankly you see in a lot of places right now, which means equity ownership by minority and disadvantaged businesses. So that leads you at the local level to a very different set of project decisions looking through the equity lens. Likewise, with climate change, there is no way, as I mentioned, to tackle the problem without completely rethinking our transportation system. And it starts in the short-term with electrification. There are other long-term options, for example, of fuel cells, especially for locomotives and other uses. But in the short-term electrification is where we're going. And it's fleets, public and private, it's charging facilities, it's tax policies, not just tax credits for electric vehicle acquisition, but things like accelerated depreciation for fleet charging facilities, which are actually the long pole in the tent for electrifying. It's making sure that the public sector fleets, for example, and private sector fleets, are thought of as distributed energy sources, not just electric vehicles, but essentially their own micro grids that can augment the grid when necessary. In addition to electrification, active transportation is a critical part of the transportation system. And that's an all-encompassing term, everything from sidewalks and trails to micro mobility, things like bikes, electric bikes, scooters, that actually are more than just first and last mile transportation, but provide, in a majority of cases, a viable alternative to the single occupancy vehicle. Climate change response and transportation also means resiliency, building a more resilient system. You can look at storm events and Hurricane Sandy is still the high water mark, so to speak, of that in some ways, but more resilient transportation systems are essential if we're going to thrive in the future. And it's not just surface transportation. So briefly on the aviation side, in the short term, the electrification, for example, of training aircraft is happening today and 10 years from now, that will be the majority of the fleet. For regional airliners and mainline service over the longer term, hybrid and other power sources will be viable as the energy density increases. But also in the short term, the electrification of just the airside ground support, the tugs, the buses, all the other portions of the aviation system can be done and we shouldn't leave that out as part of the larger package. Finally, maritime, which is really important because pound for pound, the maritime sector is some of the biggest polluters on earth, burning bunker fuel and burning that port side in historically minority and disadvantaged neighborhoods. Think of a megawatt class power plant burning essentially sludge, high sulfur fuel in communities that already have a disproportionate impact. So things like shore powering, running off electric power while ported, electric power for all the handling equipment on the maritime section is really important as well. So those two lenses, equity and climate change are key for where we're going forward here. So how do we prepare for it? And some of you may be involved as we speak, translating some of the policy process into legislation but think about the preparation at the local and state level where again, the project decisions are made. The project mix is being decided right now. This kind of high low mix on the low end, it may be stormwater management retrofits and augmented transit service at the high end. It's the more transformative longer projects that are typically physical infrastructure projects that take years to actually deliver. That pipeline is being filled at the local and state level now, the kind of conversations that should be happening right now are about the low end of the mix. Can technology for example, make an immediate impact on climate change with software and other technologies that can be implemented right now. The goods movement part of it needs to be intermodal. And again, those decisions are made at the local and state level. This is very unusual for the transportation system because everyone has to get out of their comfort zone on this. It means working with the Parks and Recreation Department. It means working with your local school districts on their fleets. It means working with the water and wastewater agencies. These are things that are not typically done in transportation, but will be driven by the mayors, the county commissioners and the governors that can make those decisions. You should also think about preparation in terms of the existing by America requirements that overlay transportation funding at the federal level and the by American proposal that President Biden has rolled out, which goes much further in building an ecosystem of American manufacturing as part of it. So those process changes at the local and state level are a required adjunct to actually having a successful program. I wanted to also briefly mention some of the policy and process changes that really have to happen. And this is at the local, state and federal level combined. It's a whole government approach in the vertical sense of government. First of all, NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act really requires a rethink if equity and climate change are your primary goals. The purpose and need statement of a NEPA document typically talks about moving people faster from one place to another. It does not typically talk about reducing impacts on communities in a restorative sense, fixing some of the problems of the past. It typically does not talk about emissions reductions in a localized sense. So the purpose and need statement of NEPA is now a climate impact statement. And the transportation reality of that is that if whatever you write into the purpose and need you can pay for with federal funding. And I say that having delivered projects all over the country where if you build into the purpose and need restoration of a stream valley, restoration of a portion of the Chesapeake Bay, it can actually be an eligible project cost. It really requires a rethinking of what NEPA means and how we do it. NEPA should also be an equity impact statement in the sense that you are required by case law to look at disparate impacts of a proposed transportation project. Let's flip that around in a positive sense. Think about how that equity impact statement portion of NEPA could actually restore communities and be used for that. Again, it's eligible as a project cost if you build it into the purpose and need statement. So we have been rigid and really following kind of defensive medicine in the NEPA process and just trying to be litigation proof. We should be much more innovative in what we can do. The second policy and process change that is essential for responding to climate change in particular is rethinking the right of way. This is partly a philosophical change. It's partly regulatory and partly statutory. So if you think about the right of way model that we follow today for our roads and especially our highways, it's an ownership model. A state DOT owns that right of way in their opinion. It can only be used for other highway uses. It's okay to add a lane. It's okay to add an interchange. But if you wanna talk about solar power in the interchanges, if you wanna talk about using the right of way for HVDC transmission, high voltage DC transmission, which is going to be essential for our renewable energy program. If you talk about fiber in the right of way, those are typically the answer is no and you have to get to yes. If you move from an ownership philosophy of right of way to a stewardship model, and stewardship model is the highest and best use almost in a real estate sense. How can you best use that precious resource that's public right of way in the case of highways, that's private right of way in the case of class one railroads that are running right into the center of every major city in America with essentially a conduit for high voltage DC. And interestingly, if you look on the renewables front, the regions where renewables are generated as opposed to the load where the consumption is needed and you draw lines for high voltage DC, they tend to actually parallel and in some cases exactly duplicate our interstate system. So the point is that's a resource that we really should be using in a stewardship model right away to respond to climate change with renewables transmission and renewables generation. And you should look for some of these elements in a build back better package. Don't be shocked if you see them. I mentioned that there's some regulatory underbrush and other parts that have to be cleaned out. There's a prohibition on charging facilities on national highway system and interstates. This goes back to the founding of the interstate days when gas stations were afraid that they would put gas pumps at rest areas and they would be competition. It's 23111A, but that has to be eliminated if you're gonna have charging facilities at rest areas, for example, for trucks, megawatt class charging facilities where drivers can sync their required rest time with a charging facility. And range anxiety goes away when you have at least the security blanket of charging facilities along the way. So as we measure our progress here, as you all know, the national climate assessment NCA-5 started in January of 2020, we're in the next cycle of national climate assessment. In the past, transportation has been a portion of that but it's been a little bit of a laggard. And frankly, not a lot of depth and not a lot of, not the level of analysis that we really should have. If you look at what mayors are doing around the country on climate change in transportation, the next national climate assessment should really be more detailed and show some of the changes that we're making. And we need to similarly have a kind of scorecard for equity, which there is no national equivalent for of the national climate assessment. So just to sum up briefly, think about those two policy lenses, climate change and equity, they're going to be central to both the formula programs and the discretionary programs. Think about how local choices actually drive how the system changes and how quickly it changes, not federal policy, but federal policy encouraging local choices that are different. And then think about both the NEPA process and higher and better use of our right-of-way, which is actually a pretty precious resource for our climate change goals. So Dan, that's a brief walk around of what you're likely to see and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thanks, John, that was an excellent presentation. I do have a question for you and maybe this is, and I'm sort of wary at the time and I don't want to keep people past four o'clock, but transportation in some ways is maybe the most democratic of the sectors we've talked about today. We all interact with transportation many times a day in different modes depending on where we live. It also seems to me to be one where there's a lot of near-term excitement and a lot of things are changing. The fleets that are out on the road are changing. We're seeing, we're in traffic, for instance, and we see that delivery trucks are advertising the fact that they're not gasoline or fire or fuel anymore. And we're noticing Tesla's and other brands of electric vehicles. We got a question that I think is kind of interesting and it's about what the fact that transportation is relatively democratized and there are so many individual owners and actors that are involved in transportation. What does that mean for the ability to reduce emissions compared to something like the industrial sector where there are many fewer owners, there are many fewer operators of these big facilities. But in transportation, there's millions and millions and millions of sort of nodes in the system. What does that mean for sort of maybe where behavior comes into play and what does that mean for our ability to actually achieve the emissions reductions sort of on a household scale or a business scale? It's a great question because in transportation, it is literally millions of individual decisions that are made. And by and large, those are rational decisions based on how quickly they wanna get to where people wanna get to where they're going, what it costs them to do that. And part of how you change that are the incentives and disincentives. There's no pricing by and large for surface transportation if you're driving yourself. The costs of your vehicle, your insurance, everything else are not apparent. They're not unfolding before you on the dashboard like they are in other parts of the system. We have to price the system to reflect the actual cost of it or something approaching the cost of it. That means things like congestion pricing. Should you really be able to drive into the center of Manhattan anytime you want to without paying any price at all? If you believe that, then you understand why we have what we have in Manhattan today. So pricing is part of it. The other part is we have to get to public transportation as a more viable alternative in most of the country. It is in some of our core cities, it is not in other parts of the country. And that requires the virtuous cycle of better service, more predictable service, pricing that reflects the kind of discount for continued use and the like. We've never really worked on that. I will tell you as a former state DOT secretary in Maryland looking at capacity between say Baltimore and New York. I could add air capacity at BWI Marshall Airport and it was 90% federal money. I could add highway capacity and it was 80% federal money. If I wanted better high-speed rail service, Amtrak service or commuter rail service, by formula, it's 0% federal money. So if you wonder why we have the system we have today, follow the money. Well, thank you for that. And once again, great presentation. I switched up my audio again. Hopefully it's a little bit better. I have a nice microphone, it's just not working today. So sorry about that. You, however, John, sounded great. And we really appreciate you joining us today to help us understand transportation sector emissions. And we also just couldn't have done today, not only without John's participation, but also without Christina's and D-Packs and Liz's and Julio's presentations. Really sort of excellent rundown over the last two hours of what emissions look like across these five different sectors.  As a reminder, we're getting, we have lots of questions and we didn't get to all of them today, but we'll do our best to follow up with our individual question askers. There were a couple of common questions, though, that I can address here. And that is the most popular one is yes, what you just heard and some cases saw will be posted online. You can visit us, www.yesi.org to watch the entire webinar that we did today, but you can also watch the individual segments. They're gonna be broken out and then we'll also be able to download slides and some of these that we'll provide as well in the coming days. So all of this will be available. We'll also be releasing, I think on Tuesday, a condensed version, some of the highlights from the five presentations is as the latest episode of our new podcast, The Climate Conversation. So when you're online and you're signing up for Climate Change Solutions, the newsletter, be sure to sign up to start subscribing, I should say, to our podcast. While I do a couple of thank yous, I just wanna call attention to what's on the screen right now. We always do our best to improve and we read every bit of feedback that you send us if you have a few moments to take our survey today to help us understand what you thought of the second installment of Congressional Climate Camp and our offerings in general. I already know that the audio on my pen wasn't the best today, but you can still say that if you'd like in the survey. But in terms of content, please let us know and we'll do our best to incorporate that feedback into our future offerings. While you're doing that, let me just say thank you again to Christina, Deepak, Liz, Julio, and John for their wonderful presentations. Let me also thank everyone at EESI who was able to, or who played a part in putting on today's Congressional Climate Camp, Dan O'Brien, Sidney O'Shaughnessy, Amber Todorov, Anna McGinn, Omri LaPorte, as well as our five fabulous interns, Celine Hamza, Jocelyn, Kimmy, and Rachel.  In many ways, I have the smallest role in providing it. So thanks to them and everyone at EESI for making this possible. We will go ahead and end it there. Apologies for running a couple minutes late, but I think it was well worth it. We learned an awful lot, not just about sort of the importance of thinking big and thinking about climate changes and the economy-wide challenge that needs to be addressed, but also understanding the differences between the different sectors and thinking about sort of how we recognize the differences in those sectors, but also use that information to come up with policy responses that make sense and feed up to the big picture so that when we're dealing with things economy-wide, we can do so in an optimal way. We'll go ahead and end it there. Thank you for joining us for Congressional Climate Camp number two. There are still two more sessions. The one in March will be all about past policy initiatives as well as current attitudes about climate change. The one in April will be all about win-wins. So things that we can do in the near term to provide mitigation and adaptation benefits. There is a briefing next Friday about energy efficiency that I'm very, very excited about. There's one after that we're doing with our friends at the Business Council for Sustainable Energy about their just released 2020 Factbook. So we have lots of stuff coming up. I think we have a briefing every week for like the next six or seven weeks. So a ton of programming coming up and of course it's all available if you visit us online, www.esa.org and never forget, you have to sign up for climate change solutions if you haven't already. It's the greatest way to stay up to date. I hope everyone has a happy rest of your Friday and a happy weekend. And we will go ahead and end it there. And until next time, we'll see you. Well, that was awkward. Until next time, be well and stay safe. Thanks so much.