Industrial Technology Innovation Advisory Committee Fifth Meeting – Text Version

SIMONE HILL-LEE: So good afternoon, everyone.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Go ahead, Simone.

SIMONE HILL-LEE: Good afternoon, everyone. Just as a reminder, this Zoom call, including all audio and images of participants and presentation materials, may be recorded, saved, edited, distributed, used internally, posted on DOE's website, or otherwise made publicly available. If you continue to access this call and provide such audio or image content, you consent to such use by or on behalf of DOE and the government for government purposes and acknowledge that you will not inspect or approve or be compensated for such use. Thank you.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Simone, and good afternoon to everyone, to all of our members and to anyone joining us today for today's meeting of the Industrial Technology Innovation Advisory Committee. I'm Zach Pritchard. I'm a Technology Manager in DOE's Industrial Efficiency and Decarbonization Office, and I'm the Designated Federal Officer for the Committee. I'm joined today by Celina Harris, who is also a Technology Manager in IEDO and who is our Alternate Designated Federal Officer. Before we dive into the meeting, I'm going to go over a couple of housekeeping and administrative items. Today's open meeting of the Industrial Technology Innovation Advisory Committee is being held in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and other applicable statutes and regulations. For today's meeting, the general chat has been disabled. And the audience is not able to unmute or turn on their cameras. For members on today's call, please reserve use of the presenter’s chat only for technical issues. All substantive topics need to be discussed orally for the benefit of the audience. The procedure to offer oral comments for this meeting was described in the Federal Register notice. Since we did not receive any requests to offer oral comments, we'll remove the public comment period from today's agenda.

That said, the Committee wants to hear from you. And we welcome your comments. You can submit written statements to ITIAC@ee.doe.gov, and you can register to provide oral comments at future meetings when those are announced. I also want to note that we're continually seeking new member nominations. You can submit those also to that email address, ITIAC@ee.doe.gov, and include the nominee's name, resume, biography, and any letters of support. Today's meeting is the first meeting where the Committee will conduct votes. So members, we're going to be conducting votes using the raise hand function in Zoom.

I'll read out the votes for the record for people who are in the audience or who review the recording later. When the time comes for the first vote, I'm going to walk that one through step by step, and then hopefully we'll be able to speed up on future votes once everybody is comfortable with the process. Also, a note for our members. We'll take a couple breaks during today's meeting when it makes sense. But if you need to step away at any other point, please drop a note in the chat since we're going to be conducting a lot of votes today. It'll just help the process go more smoothly if we know not to expect votes from you while you're away from your computer.

And so with that, I'm going to quickly go over the members who I see in attendance today. I'll see here we have Sunday Abraham; Cathy Choi; Subodh Das; Betsy Dutrow; Neal Elliott; Anna Fendley; Comas Haynes; Sharon Nolen, our chair; Joe Powell; Abigail Regitsky; Jeffrey Rissman, our vice chair; Sridhar Seetharaman, Jolene Sheil, and Sasha Stashwick. Thanks to all of our members for being here today. And with that, I will hand it over to our chair, Sharon.

SHARON NOLEN: Hello. I'd like to welcome everyone to the meeting today. So we had a decision since our last meeting that we would try to go ahead and put out a preliminary report prior to the administration change that is happening next week. I want to thank everyone who submitted recommendations and provided comments. I think it's turned out to be a very good document. I hope others agree, but we'll be voting on each recommendation. So we'll see what everyone thinks.

I want to particularly recognize the vice chair, Jeff. He's done a great job really consolidating all the recommendations and putting it in this form that we're going to see the final version of today. So thank you, Jeff. The process we're going to use as we go through this is that I will call for each recommendation. Jeff will read the recommendation. He is not going to read the rationale for the recommendations. That is included in the document but does not need to be read aloud. After he reads it, I will open the floor to questions or comments.

If you agree and don't have anything substantive to add, I would ask that we not take the time to do that. We really want to limit the discussion time to questions or comments or any concerns that you have. We do have 30 recommendations to get through. Each one has to be voted on individually, and so we will want to keep our agenda running smoothly as much as possible. That said, if there's concerns, we do not want to gloss over those. So with that, Jeff, let me just ask quickly, anything else to add from your perspective or I think we can get started.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I think we can get started. Sounds good.

SHARON NOLEN: OK. So I believe the plan is, Jeff, that you're going to share your screen. Correct? So Jeff is going to be sharing his screen. And he has agreed that if there are changes to be made, he will do live editing of that. And so we'll just work through each recommendation one at a time then. So as soon as we see his screen, we'll go ahead and start with the first recommendation.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: OK, pulling it up now. OK, let's try. Please let me know if you all can see the document.

SHARON NOLEN: Yes, I can see it.

SUBODH DAS: I can see it.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: So I'm going to jump ahead to―so the recommendations are in categories. The first
category is overarching DOE strategy and budget. Within that there are subcategories. Budget requests is the first of those. Recommendation one. In future budget requests, DOE should prioritize increases for the Industrial Efficiency and Decarbonization Office, IEDO; the Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technologies Office, AMMTO; the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, OCED; and the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, MESC.

SHARON NOLEN: So let me ask if there are any questions, comments, concerns about that recommendation. Please just raise your hand if you would. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and call for a vote on that. And Zach, are you going to walk us through the voting at this point?

ZACH PRITCHARD: I will do that. Thanks, Sharon. So firstly, a majority of the total Committee membership is required to approve a recommendation. Since the Committee has 18 members, the requirement for approval is 10 yeas, 10 approving votes. Only members who are in attendance here today are able to vote. For each recommendation, the question for consideration is going to be, do you approve this recommendation to be included in the Committee's preliminary report? So we'll move on to voting here. We'll start with the yeas. Sorry. Yes.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Zach, as the person sharing my screen, I don't see my react button anymore. I do have the…

SUBODH DAS: [INAUDIBLE] board, I think, that's what I heard.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Or I can type it in the chat, but Zoom doesn't seem to show a react to the screen sharer, a react button.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Simone, do you know if there's a way he can turn that on?

SIMONE HILL-LEE: Yeah. I think Jeff, what you have to do is just adjust your view. So somewhere there should be a little view icon, and you want to go out of full. You don't want to be in full screen.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I'm not. I'm sharing only the Microsoft Word app.

SIMONE HILL-LEE: So it doesn't.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I pulled a menu of buttons down from the top. There's no react button. 

SIMONE HILL-LEE: There's no react button. OK.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I assume everyone else still has one, though.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Yeah, that's OK. What we'll do, Jeff, is when I call for the vote, if you can orally vote, and everyone else will vote using the raise hand function.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: OK. 

ZACH PRITCHARD: Is that OK?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: That's fine. Orally, or I can type in the chat either way. 

ZACH PRITCHARD: That's fine.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: So I guess Zach, if we support the recommendation, we do thumbs up. If we don't support, do we need to react, or we can just stay quiet?

ZACH PRITCHARD: So what we'll do is, I will go through, and I'll call for the yeas―so if you approve the measure. And so we'll do that now. We'll start with the yeas. If you vote to approve the measure, please use the raise hand function in Zoom to indicate your vote. So everyone who's voting yes, you go down to the react button. That's a little heart. Click on that, and there will be a button that says raise hand. You can do that.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: And I vote to approve. OK. Thank you.

SUBODH DAS: Same here. I vote to approve. I don't see my button so…

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: I don't see a button. All I see is medium hidden.

SHARON NOLEN: So the reactions on my screen is not a heart. It's a little happy face with a plus beside it. And if you click on that, then there is a hand raise just above it.

SUBODH DAS: I don't seem to see, but I vote, yes. I vote, yes.

CELINA HARRIS: On the heart and not the arrows pointing up next to the heart to get the raise hand as an option.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: Oh, OK. Now I get it.

ZACH PRITCHARD: So, [INAUDIBLE] are you able to find it? Subodh, you don't see a react button? 

SUBODH DAS: No, I don't see it. So I just say verbally yes like Jeff.

ZACH PRITCHARD: OK, that's fine. So I will then basically go through. I'll record the votes and read out orally who I'm seeing who's voting, yes. So I am noting a yea from Cathy, from Neal, from Betsy, from Abigail, from Sharon, from Jolene, from Anna, from Comas, from Sunday, from Sasha, from Joe, from Sridhar, and we heard one verbally from Jeff and from Subodh.

So in the case where everyone did not vote, yes, well, so I will basically go in, and we'll ask Simone to lower everyone's hands. And in the case where everyone did not vote, yes, we would then do a vote on disapproving the measure, and anyone could vote no. And we would have the option to abstain from voting or to vote present. So that's mainly relevant if you have a conflict of interest. But if there's some other reason you don't want to vote, then you could not vote.
So that's all of the members who are present voted to approve that. That's 14 yeas. So this is approved. 

SHARON NOLEN: With that, we'll move to recommendation number two.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Very good. Recommendation two. Some offices fund technologies across multiple sectors and should receive budget increases specifically to support an increased focus on technologies and programs important for industrial decarbonization. These include the Advanced Research Projects Agency ‒ Energy, ARPA-E; the Loan Programs Office, LPO; the Office of Technology Transitions, OTT; and the Bioenergy Technologies Office, BETO. The Energy Information Administration, EIA, should receive a budget increase to support improved industrial data collection and publication.

SHARON NOLEN: Let me ask, are there any questions, concerns about this recommendation? Please raise your hand, or just speak up. It's fine.

SUBODH DAS: I just had one question here. I don't see Advanced Manufacturing Office, AMO. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: That was already in recommendation one above.

SUBODH DAS: Oh yeah. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: I have a question. If you would support some of these but not the others, there's quite a diversity of institutions here.

SHARON NOLEN: Can you be more specific? I guess I'm wondering, do you have a concern? 

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: I have a hard time crunching ARPA-E together with EIA necessarily. You're voting for all of those, right?

SHARON NOLEN: Yes. But if there is a concern about a particular one, a potential, there's the potential to edit it by taking out something. So if there's something you have a concern about that you don't think should be there, that is certainly open for discussion.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: I just find it difficult. EIA, I consider them looking at studies and analyzing stuff. Other ones are actual technology offices.

SHARON NOLEN: So what I think I hear you saying is, you don't have a problem with any of these. I don't feel like they…

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: No. I'm not saying that. I may have a problem with some of them, but I don't have a problem with other ones.

SHARON NOLEN: But part of the issue, I think, is you're saying, EIA should be in a separate recommendation. Is that what I'm hearing?

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: Yes.

SHARON NOLEN: And then, in addition to that, do you have a concern about some of the ones mentioned, or are there omissions that should be there?

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: No. I think they should be there as far as the vote goes. But if I myself vote, I would support some of them more than others. But that's up to me. But I do think I have a problem with EIA being bunched with all the other ones.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: So we do have a recommendation for improved data collection. This line was put here because it's under budget requests. And so logically it made sense to group all the budget request stuff together. But there is another recommendation. We could in theory move this sentence, too, if we wanted to have a budget thing outside the budget request area.

SHARON NOLEN: The other possibility, it seems to me, is we could say, rather than just fund technologies, fund technologies and related concerns or something like that. Before we start making changes, though, can I just ask, are there other questions, concerns? Do people want to support what we're hearing from? I think that was Sridhar. It was hard for me to tell for sure who that was. OK. Jeff, do you have a suggested edit there?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: One possibility would be to say, an increased focus on technologies, programs, and data collection and publication important for industrial decarbonization here in the area I'm selecting. SHARON NOLEN: I'm seeing a thumbs up on that. Sridhar, it's hard for me to say who's doing what. But Sridhar, how do you feel about that? Let me ask you specifically.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: Yeah. I mean, I think that would be better. It's OK. In the interest of things, we can move ahead. I still don't like it because it feels like you're putting everything under the kitchen sink in there, but, in my particular opinion, some of these offices are more efficient than others, and it doesn't allow us to differentiate that. But that's fine. I think that leads us into a quagmire, perhaps.

SUBODH DAS: And also, it doesn't say how much increase. All it says that it will increase. The extent of increase is still not recommended. So I think from language-wise, I think we're OK as long as we steadily increase and not specify by how much for each organization.

SHARON NOLEN: The other thing I would like to add is, per some of the emails that have gone out, this is a preliminary report. We still plan to publish a longer, more detailed report in the fall. And so, Sridhar, I think we could certainly have additional discussion about the various offices. And that might be something that we would add additional detail to on this recommendation.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: I mean, as long as giving a thumbs up on this recommendation doesn't mean that I feel that every one of these offices are doing a good job.

SHARON NOLEN: Any other questions, comments, before we move to a vote? We'll call for a vote on recommendation number two. So, Zach.

ZACH PRITCHARD: I'll start with you… 

SHARON NOLEN: Yeah, go ahead.

ZACH PRITCHARD: So please go ahead and raise your hand if you would like to vote to approve this recommendation.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote to approve. 

SUBODH DAS: I also vote to approve.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Subodh. And maybe the easier way for me to do this is to check and see. I am seeing then approval from everyone except Sridhar.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: I thought that I approved, but… 

ZACH PRITCHARD: I'm not seeing your hand raised.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: Oh, maybe I did thumbs up. That's not what you want.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Yeah. Sorry. There's no record of a thumbs up. It's fleeting, so I can't find it. 

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: Sorry.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you. All right, so then I'm noting yeas from Sunday, from Cathy, from Betsy, from Neal, from Anna, from Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Sridhar, Jolene and Sasha. So that is everyone present. Thank you. I think we can move on to the next vote.

SHARON NOLEN: Recommendation number three.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Recommendation three. DOE should consider which subsectors have the greatest energy use and emissions when prioritizing support and crafting research, development, demonstration, and deployment RDD&D programs. The EIA Annual Energy Outlook provides data on which subsectors are the largest energy consumers today and future energy demand projections.

SHARON NOLEN: Are there questions, comments, concerns on this one?

SUBODH DAS: I have one comment. I think we discussed that quite a bit during our in-person meeting in Washington, D.C., and I think Sridhar also expressed opinion. We are focusing everything on energy, which is fine, but there are other interests like national security or jobs or economy. So I'm slightly uncomfortable saying that the total decision should be made just on greenhouse gases without regard to national security, like cobalt, nickel, or jobs, or the economic impact of the jobs, especially if there's a tariff coming in, everything will become more expensive.

So I have that conversation. I do not know how to incorporate that, but I just wanted to mention the way I felt about the recommendation.

SHARON NOLEN: Other comments from anyone?

ANNA FENDLEY: Sharon, I have my hand up. I don't if that's the best way to do it or not. This is Anna. I was actually going to raise a very similar concern. And for the purposes of this preliminary report, perhaps this language is fine because it said, should consider not should make the decision based on. But I do think that there are just many other factors that should go into the decision-making on prioritizing support and RD&D like national security, economic impact, industries that are larger versus smaller across the country and competitiveness, another key factor for us in the mandate of the Committee. So I'll just leave it there. I don't have an edit. Like I said, maybe this is just something we can further discuss in the final report.

SHARON NOLEN: I mean, I do think we can further discuss things. But at the same time, if there's concerns that we can address, I think we should. I think the intent of this one was more to prioritize the subsectors. And so I wonder if there's a rewording just to say, when they're working on industrial emissions to prioritize in the order of the ones having greatest use, energy use and emissions. Neal, let me go ahead and call on you.

NEAL ELLIOTT: This is going to sound like drafting legislative language, but focus on energy and other attributes as determined by the Secretary, including workforce competitiveness, national security.

SUBODH DAS: And the jobs.

NEAL ELLIOTT: And jobs. Well, workforce, I said.

SUBODH DAS: No, workforce means that training of or skill of workforce. Job means how many people will have to employ or layoff because of―you know what I'm talking about.

NEAL ELLIOTT: I'm happy to accept instead of workforce talk about employment or work. 

SUBODH DAS: Yes.

SHARON NOLEN: Jeff is well, OK.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Employment, jobs are the same.

SUBODH DAS: I would say a national economy and jobs. I mean, that's probably…

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I've proposed an edit on screen. DOE should also consider impacts on national security, employment, the U.S. economy, and industrial competitiveness.

NEAL ELLIOTT: Jeff, I might suggest saying on other topics, including other topics as determined by the Secretary.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I'm a little nervous about leaving the door so wide open in case they might want to consider topics the Committee would wish that they didn't consider.

NEAL ELLIOTT: Well, you can say other topics as suggested by the ITIAC.

SUBODH DAS: I like the way it is. It is specific enough, but not so general that―I mean, anyhow. I like the way it has been written in red ink.

SHARON NOLEN: Before we make a decision, let me go ahead and hear Betsy's comment. Betsy, it looks like you just put your hand down.

BETSY DUTROW: Well, I was just going to say, I know I had put a proposal in, and it's not accepted, which is fine. But there are other factors that we may not be able to anticipate that would be reasons that DOE would want to consider. So sometimes it's hard for a group like us to think about everything in the future. But there may be other things that will impact why they should look at other sectors like availability of basic human needs or other things. I mean, national security and employment and economy are things that people normally look at but just even size or growth in an industry in the future.

I think there are industries that we can't even predict that are going to be important in the future. So that's all I wanted to say.

SUBODH DAS: And like data centers, I mean.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Energy use may correlate with industrial size.

SHARON NOLEN: So I think I'm hearing some sentiment for say, keeping your edit Jeff, but saying maybe consider impacts, such as national security. So let me ask, any objections to that new wording that we have adding that one sentence? Anything else on this recommendation? Zach, we'll call for a vote.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Let's have the yeas or yeas probably. Sorry. Please raise your hand if you'd like to vote to approve this recommendation.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote to approve.

SUBODH DAS: I Subodh, support vote to approve as well.

ZACH PRITCHARD: I am seeing all of the other members vote approvingly. So that is yeas from Sunday, Cathy, Betsy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, Sasha and so that is all members present. That passes.

SHARON NOLEN: Thank you. Recommendation number four. Yeah, go ahead, Jeff. Sorry. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Sure. Going on to recommendation four. This is under Funding Opportunity Processes, a different subcategory within the first category. DOE should create an open dialogue on what is making it hard for companies to respond to Funding Opportunity Announcements, FOAs, and to implement DOE funding. One way to do this is to expand the use of requests for information, RFIs, to solicit technological solution provider feedback and to create a clear process to inform companies that submitted comments about how the agency has incorporated their feedback.

Additionally, DOE should tailor funding opportunities to the needs of solution providers by leaning towards greater flexibility in funding opportunity design. Rather than articulating a defined prescriptive set of technological parameters, DOE should articulate the specific problem it is seeking to address and welcome a wider range of solution providers to apply for funding.

SHARON NOLEN: Zach.

ZACH PRITCHARD: I'm going to suggest a change here that Celina just caught that we didn't see earlier. But Funding Opportunity Announcements do not exist in the federal government anymore. It's changed to a different acronym but maybe a generic term like just funding opportunities.

SUBODH DAS: Oh, OK. I had a comment on this recommendation. Based upon my experience of applying for funds and getting funds, normally most of the Funding Opportunity Announcements are done in a more established media like DOE website or DOE listserv. While it misses the vast majority of the social media, especially LinkedIn, I have not seen any DOE announcement for funding opportunity LinkedIn. And unless you are piped in DOE system, most people just miss it. So I will suggest that just one word change, open dialogue, including professional social media.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: It may be unclear what we're suggesting. One way to word it might be, DOE should make announcements of funding opportunities more widely available online or including on social media or…

SUBODH DAS: Yes. That would take care of my needs. I mean, I have found that many times, even though I'm registered on Listserv, I don't see the announcement. And somebody calls me and say, well, I didn't see in the link anyhow. I like what you're suggesting, Jeff, and that will take care of my interest.

SHARON NOLEN: Other questions, concerns? Anyone challenging the additions there? We'll go to vote. Oh, I'm sorry Sridhar, I'm sorry. Did you guys raise your hand because you're voting, or did you have something to say?

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: I was voting.

SHARON NOLEN: Oh, sorry. You were just too fast. I thought… 

ZACH PRITCHARD: Anticipating the vote.

SHARON NOLEN: Yeah, sorry. Go ahead.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Please raise your hand if you vote to approve this recommendation. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote to approve.

SUBODH DAS: I, Subodh, vote to approve.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Subodh. Thank you, Jeff. And I believe all of our other members are also voting in the affirmative. And so that's yeas from Sunday, Cathy, Subodh, Betsy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha. Thank you. That passes.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Thank you. I'll move on to recommendation five. Under the improving availability of industrial energy-related data subcategory. DOE should improve its collection and reporting of energy- related industrial sector data to support program prioritization and strategic planning, both inside and outside of DOE. Specifically, DOE should improve EIA's Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey by conducting it more frequently, reporting data with a shorter delay, and disaggregating more fuel types, industrial end uses, and manufacturing subsectors.

DOE should begin providing regularly updated unit-level data on industrial equipment type, location, energy consumption, operating hours, and temperature, building on work done by researchers at two national laboratories. DOE should also create an industry annual technology baseline, like the existing electricity and transportation ATBs that includes data on the capital costs and energy efficiencies of both conventional and clean industrial technologies such as boilers, heat pumps, furnaces, kilns, thermal batteries, et cetera.

SHARON NOLEN: Questions, concerns on recommendation number 5? We'll go ahead and call for a vote.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thanks.

SUBODH DAS: I vote, yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Subodh. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote to approve.

ZACH PRITCHARD: OK. Thank you, Jeff. I am also seeing raised hands from all of the other members who are present. So that is yeas from Sunday, Cathy, Subodh, Betsy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha. We can move on to the next one.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Very good. We're into the second large category: cross-cutting technologies and opportunities. The first subcategory is energy efficiency, which has one recommendation, number 6. DOE should continue and expand its support for industrial energy efficiency technologies. Examples of key energy-efficient manufacturing technologies include waste heat recovery, net shape manufacturing, variable frequency drives, high-temperature heat pumps, membranes for chemical separations, and product design alterations that enable the use of fewer or lower energy manufacturing steps.

DOE should continue to support and expand technical assistance for industrial efficiency and decarbonization, such as the Better Plants Program, which provides valuable assistance to participating companies. Additionally, the Secretary should designate additional types of industrial equipment, such as industrial boilers, furnaces, kilns, precalciner, distillation columns, chemical reactors, heaters, dryers, et cetera, as covered equipment using his or her authority under 42 USC Section 6312.

Then DOE should issue minimum energy performance standards and test procedures for each type of equipment so designated. Standard-setting bodies, such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the International Organization for Standardization, and ASTM International have developed standards for various types of industrial equipment. DOE should work with standard-setting organizations to write standards or incorporate existing standards into DOE's rules where appropriate.

SHARON NOLEN: Neal, it looks like you have your hand up.

NEAL ELLIOTT: I do. Thank you. I just wanted to note the statute that is cited there includes actually three things that DOE can do. It can do standards. It can do test procedures. It can also develop labeling. And I would encourage us to including labeling in there, because there may be some products for which standards may not be appropriate, but that the department may be able to propose a label.

ZACH PRITCHARD: OK. Thank you. Other questions or comments?

CATHY CHOI: I just have a question. Since―and this is Cathy Choi―we're talking about standards, test procedures, and labeling, and then the last sentence says, incorporate these existing standards into DOE rules. I was curious what rules meant.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: It meant standards, test procedures, and labeling. 

CATHY CHOI: OK. Thank you.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Should I change it to say that? 

CATHY CHOI: It clarifies it for me.

SHARON NOLEN: I agree, Cathy. Any other questions, comments? Any concerns about any of the editing that you see here? I do just want to add, I've been able to fix my view so I can see when people raise their hands. So if people want to do that, I can now see that. So I've fixed it on my side. With that, we'll go ahead and call for a vote.

ZACH PRITCHARD: All right. Thank you. Let's have the hands for the yeas. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

SUBODH DAS: I, Subodh, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff and Subodh. And I am also seeing hands for everyone except Sridhar. So that is…

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: I apologize. I was just late.

ZACH PRITCHARD: OK. No worries. So then that is all of the members who are currently present. Yeas from Sunday, Cathy, Subodh, Betsy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha. So that vote passes, and we can move to the next recommendation.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Thank you. The next subcategory, circular economy and material efficiency, has two recommendations under it. The first one, recommendation seven. DOE should continue and expand its support for technologies that allow products to be produced with less material. Additionally, DOE should publish high-quality technical guidance on how to design products for longevity and repairability.

SUBODH DAS: I have a comment. SHARON NOLEN: Go ahead, Subodh.

SUBODH DAS: On this very important recommendation says, allow products to be produced with less materials. There's a lot of emphasis, at least where I sit, on domestic raw materials as opposed to―so the emphasis of what I see industry doing is use less materials obviously, but also use domestic materials and recyclable materials. So to lower the carbon footprint and lower the dependence on importation and also increase the recycling content.

So I don't know how to say it succinctly, but those three things are of great importance to industry right now―domestic, recyclability, and domestic recyclability and less materials.

SHARON NOLEN: Go ahead. Jeff. Are you going to talk about―some of that I think is in the next recommendation.

SUBODH DAS: Oh, OK. I didn't see that.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: So the next recommendation does cover the development of recycling technologies and specifically markets for recycled materials, which would imply the use of those materials in products. It doesn't mention domestic sourcing of materials, but we did add national security to an earlier recommendations which touches on that in a way.

SUBODH DAS: It's indirect way. I mean, almost every project that I'm involved in on industrial basis, the question is asked that, are the raw materials, are they imported? Are the domestic, are they recycled? Are they coming from recycled product? What is the recycled content? Those have taken a major twist in the whole way. Projects are being evaluated right now for either private funding or for corporate their own internal fundings.

So national security does include, in a broad sense, domestic, but I would prefer to use the word domestic and recycled product to be more specific.

SHARON NOLEN: Jeff's added some words.

SUBODH DAS: So let me see that. A greater share of recycled materials, materials available. Yeah, that would take care of my suggestion, Jeff. Thank you.

SHARON NOLEN: Other comments, concerns, Cathy?

CATHY CHOI: Yes, I'm with the change that was just made or the modification that was just made. I'm not sure if I completely support the recycled materials part because it comes out strongly in recommendation eight. And the reason I bring that up is when you use less materials, the design and the technologies, even for how to design with less material is not necessarily the same as for recycled materials.

So this is supporting what DOE should support from technologies and development of technologies. I don't think it's necessarily consistent, less materials and recycled materials.

SHARON NOLEN: So do you have any concern about the materials available domestically? 

CATHY CHOI: No. I think that's a great add.

SHARON NOLEN: So I guess what Cathy is proposing is we do cover something about recyclability in recommendation eight. Would you have a problem taking it out of number seven, considering that it is mentioned in recommendation eight?

SUBODH DAS: Or other compromise I may suggest is, you have the with less material, say, with recycled materials. That should take care of Cathy's suggestion.

CATHY CHOI: Actually, I think if we want to talk about recyclability, let's talk about making it stronger in recommendation eight. Seven is about using less material. That's a different type of way of designing. 

SUBODH DAS: I'm in agreement. And I like the changes and modification and second modification that Cathy suggests. I'm OK with the way it reads right now.

SHARON NOLEN: And we'll look at that again in recommendation eight about recycled materials. So hold that thought. Any other comments, questions from anyone? We'll go to vote.

ZACH PRITCHARD: All right. Let's have the hands for folks voting to approve this recommendation. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

SUBODH DAS: I, Subodh, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Subodh. I am seeing hands from all of the members who are online right now. So that is yeas from Sunday, Cathy, Subodh, Betsy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha. That's 14 yeas. So this recommendation is approved.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Very good. Recommendation eight. DOE should continue and expand its support for technologies that facilitate the remanufacturing of products, reuse of parts and components, and recycling of materials. DOE should encourage the development of energy-saving recycling technologies, including mechanical and molecular approaches and markets for recycled materials. DOE should require that claims about recycling technologies are clear, transparent, and accountable with third-party certifications.

SHARON NOLEN: Questions, comments about this one, and particularly about the recycled content that we were just discussing?

SUBODH DAS: The only comment I will have, Sharon, is that there is a difference between recyclability and recycled content in case of aluminum. It's a very high recycled content, very poor recyclability. And so I want to make a distinction that just because some components have high recycled content, does not necessarily mean they are being recycled. So I don't know how to articulate that. But I gave an example that there's a difference between recyclability and recycled content.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I think that we cover each in that technologies to improve recycling will improve recyclability, whereas markets for recycled materials could increase the recycled content. They are separate things, and we cover them separately.

SUBODH DAS: I mean, if you think it covers what I'm suggesting, I'm OK with that. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I think it does.

SUBODH DAS: OK.

SHARON NOLEN: Anyone else have any concern or question? We'll go to the vote, Zach.

ZACH PRITCHARD: We'll start the vote on recommendation eight. Please raise your hand if you'd like to vote to approve this recommendation.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes. 

SUBODH DAS: I, Subodh, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Subodh. And I am also seeing hands from all of our other members who are online. So that is approval from Sunday, Cathy, Subodh, Betsy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha. That's 14 yeas. So this is approved. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Very good. Recommendation nine is in a new subcategory on direct electrification. DOE should prioritize support for direct electrification of industrial heating where it is technically feasible―-two technologies that can help overcome the cost gap between electricity and fossil fuels, and therefore are particularly important to commercialize are high-temperature industrial heat pumps and industrial thermal batteries. DOE should include industrial use of thermal batteries in electric-grid-related research and programs, such as work by the Office of Electricity and ARPA-E's Grid Optimization Competition.

SHARON NOLEN: I guess―and I've read this before. This didn't occur to me before, but when we talk
about the cost gap between electricity and fossil fuels, should we say between electricity and on-site combustion of fossil fuels? I feel like that's not completely clear there.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: How about fossil-fuel combustion? 

SHARON NOLEN: That's fine. Because I mean, electricity…

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I can do on-site if we want on-site. I guess electricity could be from fossil-fuel combustion.

SHARON NOLEN: That's what I was thinking and why I thought it was confusing. Any other questions or concerns on this one? We'll go ahead and vote.

ZACH PRITCHARD: So for recommendation nine, please raise your hand if you would like to vote to approve this recommendation for inclusion.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes. 

SUBODH DAS: I, Subodh, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Subodh. I am seeing hands from everyone. Oh yes, everyone who is online. So that is approval from Sunday, Cathy, Betsy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha. It's 14 yeas, and is enough to approve.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Very good. The next subcategory is on hydrogen, clean hydrogen. Recommendation 10. DOE should foster RDD&D and support demand-side technologies and incentives that motivate the use of clean hydrogen where it offers the lowest levelized cost of carbon emissions mitigation relative to alternative approaches. Applications where hydrogen may be the best fit include, one, a replacement for fossil-derived hydrogen in applications where hydrogen is already used today, such as in the chemicals and refining industries. Two, a feedstock that enables the production of additional types of chemicals; e.g., methanol, olefins, aromatics from nonfossil inputs. Three, a means of chemically reducing iron ore to metallic iron in the production of primary steel. Four, an indirect means of electrifying fuel-centric process heating needs where direct electrification is technically infeasible. And five, as a clean energy storage mode for resilience in delivering electricity (e.g., via fuel cells and process heating needs). DOE should support development of hydrogen infrastructure (e.g. LPO financing of hydrogen pipelines and storage if the hydrogen serves these high-value end uses).

SHARON NOLEN: So I thought I sent in a comment on this and maybe I didn't. But should we mention anywhere in here about the hydrogen hubs?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Mention what about them?

SHARON NOLEN: Well, part of the development of the infrastructure. I thought there was some overlap here with the hydrogen hubs, but it's not something I'm completely familiar with. So if that's not right, that's fine. I just wanted to at least ask the question.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Hydrogen hubs in my―I believe that they're not overly focused on end uses. They're focused on production and transmission and supporting the development, but they aren't―one of the key things about this recommendation is trying to identify the highest value end uses where we should direct our hydrogen.

SHARON NOLEN: I'm going to call on the others before we make any decisions. Neal, I think you were next.

NEAL ELLIOTT: Let me unmute myself. The one thing I would note there, just as a clarification in sub bullet five there, you say process heating needs, and do we want to―this is a question. Do we want to say process heating needs through the combustion of direct combustion of hydrogen?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I can.

SHARON NOLEN: Are these intended to be in priority order, Jeff?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Not exactly. They're almost. I would actually put the reduction of iron ore as number two and the feedstock as number three if we were to put them in priority order.

SHARON NOLEN: I guess what I'm thinking is, in my opinion, it seems like directly combusting hydrogen for process heat should be low on the list.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Yes.

JOE POWELL: I disagree with that. In the chemical sectors, there's a lot of off gas that the best solution is to do CCS with hydrogen and then replumb back into the furnaces that are being used today. But I would agree that hydrogen can also be a storage vector in addition to the thermal batteries. And so you do have the ability to use it to smooth out variable renewable energy in addition to its potential use as a replacement for natural gas firing. So it's a ubiquitous vector that can be used in either mode.

SHARON NOLEN: We'll go ahead and hear from all the comments. Cathy.

CATHY CHOI: I raised my hand just as a comment for your hydrogen hub comment or when you brought up the topic. Hydrogen hubs are also looking for offtake. The initial is hydrogen transportation creation, but it is looking for offtake. So if this isn't support of offtake from the hydrogen hubs, we can add that as a rationale. I think that would be appropriate. The second is I support the combustion of hydrogen to be added within this recommendation.

SHARON NOLEN: OK, Comas. Oh, Jeff, did you have a question?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I'm thinking about how to add the hydrogen hubs and the fact that they will support offtake to the rationale sub-bullet.

SHARON NOLEN: I guess I'm thinking along the lines of, work should be coordinated with the hydrogen hubs and then say something about where the overlap is. Does that help?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Yeah.

COMAS HAYNES: And I'm sorry. Can you all hear me now?

SHARON NOLEN: Yes. But hold on just a second, Comas. I think we're resolving something. Sorry about that. I think Jeff has that now. So Comas, go ahead. Thank you.

COMAS HAYNES: Actually, it's a couple of things, maybe two or three. But I know we have to be expedient. One is, I'm a little reluctant to explicitly bring out hydrogen hubs on this recommendation. I just think it maybe brings a programmatic piece in that I don't know how much value there. I mean, we all know hydrogen hubs is a huge endeavor and everything. I have a bit of a concern about specifically referencing the hydrogen hub program as a part of this recommendation. Without it's mentioned, it's kind of programmatically clean.

It's saying DOE and what it should do. If that ties into the mission of the hydrogen hub, then great. But it doesn't unnecessarily couple it. If we don't have hydrogen hubs in there, it's a win-win to me. If someone sees a direct connect, they would obviously make that connection, but it doesn't force it, for lack of a better way of saying it, to be associated with a hydrogen hub. That's just my comment. I really don't think we ought to include hydrogen hub, maybe if it was in a rationale statement, but as a recommendation, it to me, it might bring in a bit of a programmatic overlap or so.

And then a couple quick edits, one on combustion. I would probably go ahead and say, low NOx combustion, which is possible, but some people are concerned that if you combust hydrogen, you'll get thermal NOx formation. But we are talking low NOx combustion of hydrogen, which can happen. And the last thing is that I'm trying to be careful that we don't seem too prescriptive at this stage, even about the rank order.

I get it that some of us may have certain sequencing that we think about, but I'm trying to make it where we're giving what we consider to be example key benefits of hydrogen, but not trying to seem very prescriptive on what those areas are, even with one through five. I think I'm OK with one through five. But I'm trying to make sure that within our editing, we don't make it seem like this is the exhaustive list. And I know that the phrase starts off by saying maybe, which does give it some alleviation of that, but I still think if we're not careful, it can seem very prescriptive that these are the five areas. And even this is the order of the five areas where hydrogen is of value. And I think we want to be careful about that.

SHARON NOLEN: Let's go ahead and hear from Sunday, and then Comas, we're going to come back to your comments. So Sunday, go ahead, please.

SUNDAY ABRAHAM: I was going to make the same comment as Comas with respect to NOx, but I also have one additional comment with respect to hydrogen pipeline. As it is today, there are no pipelines for hydrogen transportation. There has to be a fundamental study that is done by universities, maybe along with national labs, to develop the pipeline standard for hydrogen transportation. So I'm wondering whether we should make a comment in that regard?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Let me respond to this one. The original version of this draft did have in here regulatory framework for hydrogen transportation. And Zach pointed out that that's not a DOE function. I believe that's handled in a different agency, possibly the Department of Transportation. So it was struck for being out of scope.

SUNDAY ABRAHAM: OK got it.

SHARON NOLEN: Comas, did you have something else?

COMAS HAYNES: No, no, no. And I saw the low NOx combustion piece. So I think it's maybe a comment. At this point, to put in low NOx combustion, I think you moved out hydrogen hubs from the recommendation and we have maybe before we give those five. So I think I'm good.

SHARON NOLEN: So I want to say, I'm the one that brought up the hydrogen hubs. But in my opinion, it was more of a question. Should it be included? So if there are people who think it should not, I personally don't have a problem taking it out. So let me just ask. I think Cathy maybe had some support for it. Cathy, do you have any concerns about deleting that?

CATHY CHOI: I think having it with it, I don't feel super strongly. So let me preface it by that. There is so much attention to the hydrogen hubs. I don't think DOE's technology work needs to be hooked to the hydrogen hubs, but because offtake is a huge part of it, DOE's work helping to support their offtake efforts, I think would be beneficial for everyone.

SHARON NOLEN: And maybe…

COMAS HAYNES: I would agree with that. I'm sorry. I just I do definitely agree. Offtake is huge. And so I think maybe if there's a way to include it qualitatively, that's fine. I just know that the hydrogen hub, there are people with―there's some concerns and appreciation for the hub right now. It's a mixed bag right now. But certainly offtake, I think everybody would quote unquote, everybody would agree with that.

That's an area of attention.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: So how about DOE should continue and expand its support for hydrogen offtake? 

COMAS HAYNES: Yes. I think that's a clean statement.

SHARON NOLEN: OK. I'm good with that. Sridhar.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: I just want to go back a little bit to Sunday's point. Jeff and Zach, I do know that FECM does work on pipelines for co-use of hydrogen and natural gas and things like that―at least they did when I was at DOE. So I agree about tankers and things like that. But as far as pipeline material and stuff goes, I think, and storage and transportation, DOE does that or has done that in the past.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: We have work on pipelines and storage here. The thing that was struck was setting the regulatory framework.

COMAS HAYNES: For regulatory. OK. That's fine. Sorry. My fault. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: No problem.

SHARON NOLEN: Any other comments on this one? We'll go ahead and vote.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Let's go ahead and vote on recommendation 10. Those wishing to approve this recommendation, please raise your hand.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes. 

SUBODH DAS: I, Subodh, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff and Subodh. And I am seeing raised hands from everyone else as well. So that is approval from Sunday, Cathy, Subodh, Betsy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha. And that's 14 yeas. So that is approved. I think also Subodh is planning on stepping away now or soon. So Subodh I think will be away for the next couple of votes, just for the record.

SUBODH DAS: I'll try to stay as long as I can. 

ZACH PRITCHARD: OK. Thank you.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Recommendation 11, a new subcategory on carbon capture, utilization, and storage. DOE should prioritize industrial projects that take a right-sizing approach for their carbon capture needs and consider carbon capture as one technology amongst a suite of potential solutions. DOE should prioritize funding projects where carbon capture is most needed by requiring applicants to describe how they have considered other technology options and indicate why these options are not feasible for the project. DOE should require that supported projects store carbon underground or via mineralization.

SHARON NOLEN: Questions, comments on this one? Joe.

JOE POWELL: It really seems highly negative. We're not using these comments for electrification or other sides of thing. There's also CO2 utilization. So do we really want to say that every carbon-capture project has to store it and can't utilize it? So I don't see the point of this recommendation other than looking punitive.

SHARON NOLEN: Comas.

COMAS HAYNES: Maybe a little softer than that, but I think I understand the point. I think my edit would be, if we keep this recommendation, can we possibly say, where it says not feasible, can we say something like less advantageous?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Here are less advantageous. 

COMAS HAYNES: That would be my recommendation. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: That does soften it.

SHARON NOLEN: Neal.

NEAL ELLIOTT: So just a frame that ACEEE has been using when we talk about this sort of category of projects, we say beneficial use or geologic sequestration. Those are the words we use. So beneficial use would get to the point that Joe is trying to touch on.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: The rationale bullet does mention something about this. It says, although there are leakage and seismicity concerns to be addressed with underground storage, it remains a more secure option than the use of captured carbon end products such as urea-based fertilizers, carbonated drinks, or plastics, since most products do not store the CO2 over sufficient timescales. This was the rationale behind recommending underground or mineralization.

NEAL ELLIOTT: I think the question I would pose is, there are, for example, the use in production of long- lived plastic materials. We've seen several folks who've been doing that. So there are beneficial uses that do sequester on long-term basis and can actually feed into a circular economy. I certainly agree with you on the examples you used in the rationale. Again, to Cathy's point, I don't want to foreclose options that may appear in the future.

CATHY CHOI: Thanks, Cathy. I think everyone else captured it. Maybe the one suggestion I have is less advantageous. Really, what we're looking for are folks to particularly outside of DOE when they submit projects in my view is, are they thinking about how this is going to improve the greenhouse gas footprint? So if they can, with carbon capture, prove how their system is going to be able to help us meet our goals, that to me is more of the requirement. And that might fit the less advantageous.

I don't think it's less advantageous. I think it's advantageous, even if you have carbon capture with other things in your system. And that's something that DOE can prioritize. So I understand the essence of this. It may be, it could drive away other really good ideas that DOE may want to pursue.

JOE POWELL: And I don't know if you―I raised my hand, but I have further comments about this. This is
Joe Powell. I mean, you can capture CO2 off of bioethanol plants and be fully sustainable. That's something we wanted to encourage. And this goes flat out against that. That's an industrial process. So there are also other industries with substantial infrastructure investment where it's a preferred economic play because of that capital investment to do the capture and the storage.

So I just don't see that there's so many things wrong with the wording of this. We just finished a nice 684- page report from the National Academies on carbon CO2 capture and utilization. Direct air capture hubs are part of that negative emissions. That's going to be an industrial process, and you need that for the final bit of the economy in order to decarbonize. So you'll be doing direct air capture and storage as well.

So I just don't see that this is worded correctly to be looking at biogenic and direct air capture CO2 and storage and utilization and the products which we're trying to encourage development in, at least from the National Academies point of view.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: So here's one potential edit. I mean, the first sentence, I think doesn't go against what you're saying, using a right-sizing approach and considering it as one option amongst a suite of options. The second sentence is probably the one that was counter to your example. So what about the current edit? DOE should prioritize funding projects where carbon capture is the most advantageous solution.

JOE POWELL: Well, that's can be quite controversial in terms of your scenario and perspective and of economics. And again, doesn't that go for all technologies we're looking at? Why are we singling that out for carbon capture amongst everything else we've talked about so far today?

SASHA STASHWICK: Jeff, it also strikes me that some of the affirmative specific recommendation is actually a bit buried within the rationale. Like, I'm just wondering if perhaps we could pull up―like we say, niches where carbon capture may be most competitive include that. That seems to be an affirmative statement of places where the Committee wants to actually recommend to DOE that they focus their research, support other types of investments. I'm just wondering if we may want to pull some of that up into the main recommendation.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: That's an idea. So, Joe, you're right that maybe let's try deleting sentence two entirely. And what if we replace it with this sentence from the comments so that it's more unique to carbon capture? We're saying something meaningful and just where it's most advantageous. The new sentences niches where carbon capture may be most competitive include addressing carbon dioxide, CO2 emissions from the calcination of limestone to form clinker, and industrial processes that generate high-purity streams of CO2.

JOE POWELL: And decarbonization of existing assets.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: That assets is pretty broad. Any type of assets higher priority…

JOE POWELL: Specifically in chemicals and refining where you have that type of complexity that make it more problematic for some of the other approaches that we've talked about. We could specifically say the chemicals and refining sector, because when you look at the breakdowns, that's where you see the CCS coming into being recommended.

SHARON NOLEN: We do have several other people that want to make comments. So let me go through those as before we finalize this. Anna, go ahead.

ANNA FENDLEY: Yeah, thanks. I think Joe's actually covered a lot of my concern here. I think the way this originally was being so prescriptive and limiting is actually at a disadvantage to us. I will say, I don't love this edit. I mean, I like removing the second sentence. I think that needs to come out. The third sentence is slightly better with the edit, although to me it would be better for us to remain more general and just cite utilization generically.

That being said, decarbonizing existing assets, existing facilities, will go beyond chemicals and refining. So we could limit ourselves with this language or not. But I think this is better. But I do just want to say, I don't think we should be treating carbon capture, utilization, and storage differently from other technologies on the requirements for a company to decide to deploy this when it's all beneficial.

SHARON NOLEN: OK. Thank you for that.

JOE POWELL: And niches has kind of a negative connotation as well. There's double-digit percent penetration in most scenarios. Opportunities instead of niches.

SHARON NOLEN: So Jeff, what I'm wanting to do here is to go ahead and hear from everyone, but I think there's some possibility we may want to defer this until the longer report when we have more discussion time. So can you just hold off on additional edits for right now, and let's just hear from everyone?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Yes.

SHARON NOLEN: OK. So Sunday, go ahead.

SUNDAY ABRAHAM: I just want to suggest, just like Anna is saying, I would suggest that we delete the third sentence there that says, DOE should require that supported projects are stored carbon underground. I think we should just take that whole sentence out. That's my suggestion.

SHARON NOLEN: I'm sorry. I'm having a little bit of a hard time hearing you.

SUNDAY ABRAHAM: Oh, I'm suggesting that the third sentence, DOE should require that supported carbon underground should be taken out entirely.

SHARON NOLEN: OK. All right. Somehow, I heard the first sentence, and it didn't make sense to me. Did you have anything else, Sunday?

SUNDAY ABRAHAM: No. That's about it. Thank you. 

SHARON NOLEN: OK. Abigail.

ABIGAIL REGITSKY: Thanks, Sharon. So, I think maybe part of where all the concerns are coming from is that this recommendation got like really tried to consolidate separate recommendations that were in this section. So I'm responsible for much of the language of this recommendation, but it lived within the context of other recommendations. And so I think maybe where people are having issues is like starting the recommendation with this right-sizing sentence gives an immediate oh, this is negative. Whereas I think my intention was to have the first piece be more about focusing CCUS innovation, development for the places where it would make the most impact.

And so like for example, and if we want to be less specific in like the niches sentence that got added from the rationale, the way that I had worded it is focused near-term CCUS innovation, development, support for industrial subsectors where other decarbonization solutions such as electrification, clean hydrogen, or alternative production processes are far from commercialization, not possible or leave residual emissions. So I'll put that back out there in case that wording feels better for folks.

And to also say that in response to, I think maybe it was Joe who mentioned things about direct air capture and all of those pieces, my intention when I was writing the specific words that ended up in this recommendation was very specific to industrial point, like point-source carbon capture for the industrial sector. And it was not my intention to include direct air capture or CDR as part of this and not at all my intention to say like, those are not things that DOE should be looking in at all.

So it may also be helpful to put some clarifying language to say like, we are only talking about point- source carbon capture on industrial facilities, and we're not necessarily making a comment on other forms of carbon management in this particular recommendation. Whether that's something that the Committee wants to comment on, we probably would need to have a broader conversation, I'm assuming. But just to make that clarification as well.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Before we go on, I think it's pretty clear that people have objected to every sentence in this, and there's differing views on how to resolve it. We are short on time. I think we may need to defer to the next report.

SHARON NOLEN: I'm certainly leaning that way. So my suggestion would be, let's go ahead and call for a vote. And in my opinion, if you want to vote no on this, really what you're saying is, let's defer carbon capture utilization and storage till the fall report. So we're not going to just get rid of it. It just doesn't belong in this report because we need more conversation on this. So I saw everybody put their hand down. So Zach, let's call for a vote on this.

ZACH PRITCHARD: All right. Thanks, Sharon. So for recommendation 11, please raise your hand if you would like to approve this recommendation as it is currently written for approval in the preliminary report. I'm seeing one yea from Sunday, one from Abigail.

SUBODH DAS: I say no.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote no.

ZACH PRITCHARD: So Sunday and Abigail are our yeas. Let's lower those hands. And please raise your hand if you would like to vote against inclusion of this recommendation in the preliminary report? And I've noted Jeff and Subodh have already registered those. So I am seeing Cathy, Neal, and Sharon, Jolene, Betsy, Sasha, Comas, Joe, and Sridhar.
So that is two yeas, 12 nays. This recommendation is not passed for inclusion in the preliminary report. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Moving on.

SHARON NOLEN: Thank you.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Thank you. Recommendation 12. This is a different subtopic. It's on non-CO2 greenhouse gases. DOE should support technologies that cut industrial sources of nitrous oxide, N2O, emissions, primarily, nitric and adipic acid manufacturing, such as through thermal or catalytic decomposition of the N2O4. Similarly, DOE should support research and commercialization of climate-safe alternatives to common fluorinated gases, F-gases, used today as refrigerants, propellants, and electrical insulators, including hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs; perfluorocarbons, PFCs; and sulfur hexafluoride, SF6.

Hydrofluoroolefin, HFOs, are one possible option that would benefit from RDD&D to achieve cost reductions.

SHARON NOLEN: Questions, comments, on this one? We'll go ahead and vote then.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Please raise your hand if you would like to vote to approve inclusion of this recommendation in the preliminary report.

SUBODH DAS: I approve. Subodh Das approves. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Subodh. Thank you, Jeff. And I am seeing hands from all of the other Committee members who are online. So that is approval from Sunday, Cathy, Subodh, Betsy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha. So this recommendation is approved with 14 votes. Sharon, I might suggest at this point, this might be a good breaking point. And I know we just had two recommendations with very long discussions, but we're actually doing pretty well on time. So I think we're good for a 15-minute break.

SHARON NOLEN: It's funny, Zach. I was just texting you. I thought it was time for a break. So perfect. OK, so you're saying 15 minutes?

ZACH PRITCHARD: I mean, we could go a little longer if you want.

SHARON NOLEN: No, no, I think 15 is good. So that puts us back at 1:38. And based on―I just wanted to echo what Zach said I had in my mind. How long we had to do this, and we're definitely ahead of schedule. So I appreciate everybody's cooperation. I think we've made some good edits. And so enjoy your 15-minute break and we'll get back at 1:38. Thank you.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Thank you.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you. We'll see everyone at 1:38.

COMAS HAYNES: Carbon capture. And we know that we're tabling that in essence. And I think what might help us to be efficient as far as resuming that conversation was, I'm just going to give my― one of the sentiments I had was that on the one hand, it seemed like, at least in initial phrasing, the recommendation seemed to be saying, don't take it for granted that carbon capture is always the way to go. And then the other extreme I was hearing was, don't take it for granted that carbon capture is not the way to go.

It's like to me, I was hearing two extremes that were of two ends of the spectrum, I'll put it that way, that were trying to balance each other. So maybe if that could even be in a footnote somewhere as far as where we continue again, that was a point of reference for me. It just seemed like, again, part of the concern was that it was too punitive was I think, the word that was used by Joe. And on the other hand, I think initially it was the intent was to say it's not necessarily the way to go.
And so maybe the phrasing could―as we look at the phrase, I think it's going to be a thing of phrasing. And I think maybe if we have that point of reflection, that'll help us to be efficient when we resume that conversation later on.

SHARON NOLEN: And some of that may have been things getting combined.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I think we'll have an opportunity in the coming weeks and months to discuss carefully with all interested Committee members and hash out language that altogether that reflects our intent very well. So we'll be sure to make some opportunity to do that in future days.

COMAS HAYNES: Thank you.

SHARON NOLEN: Thank you, Comas. So, Zach, do we need to do a poll to make sure we have a quorum back? Because I guess it's hard to tell if everyone's back or not.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Yeah. That's a good point. So maybe can folks just raise their hands now to indicate that they are back on the computer, can hear my voice? I am not seeing raised hands from―OK, there's Sridhar, Abigail, Betsy, Cathy, are you all here? Betsy, I see. Abigail, Cathy, are you back? OK, there's Abigail and Cathy. OK, great. And I saw Subodh was on camera. I think we're good there. Thank you.

Sasha did let me know that she was going to have to step away from 1:30 to 2:30, so she has dropped off the call. But otherwise, we have the same group as we had before the break.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: All right, well, let's begin again. Going on to the industrial subsectors category, within which there are some subcategories for specific sectors. If everyone's ready, I'll begin with the chemicals recommendation 13. DOE should establish a center of excellence for chemicals technology development and scale-up. It should leverage artificial intelligence and machine learning, process modeling via digital twins, and bench cold flow and targeted pilot facilities to examine scale-up of complex, multiphase reaction and separation systems.

It should also address polluting or harmful chemicals (e.g., per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS; bisphenols; phthalates; brominated flame retardants; dioxins). Additionally, DOE should continue and expand work with the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, AIChE; Rapid Advancement in Process Intensification Program, RAPID Institute; and the Electrified Processes for Industry without Carbon, EPIXC Institute to solve design challenges in scaling up chemicals industry process equipment that makes use of low-cost electricity.

To date, the industry has not commercialized electrified reactors and separation equipment at scales exceeding 10 megawatts, which are needed for economic scale-up.

SHARON NOLEN: Thank you.

ZACH PRITCHARD: I just wanted to note because this recommendation specifically mentions EPIXC which Sridhar is the CEO of. We have asked him to recuse himself from discussion or voting on this particular recommendation. And there's one more later, I think, recommendation 17, that will be the same situation.

SHARON NOLEN: Questions, comments from anyone? Anna.

ANNA FENDLEY: Yeah, I had a question about as we look through all the recommendations, why this one gives more of a how of the work, notably in the second sentence, leveraging AI and machine learning. To me, that's somewhat inappropriate for us to have in there. Because it gets pretty prescriptive on the how, but I wanted to raise it and see if the authors if I'm missing something there.

SHARON NOLEN: I think that may have been, I think, Joe, you may have authored that. 

JOE POWELL: We can delete those words.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: So is the rest OK? It should employ process modeling.

NEAL ELLIOTT: I would prefer we not drop all of those words because I think one of the challenges I see is there is a bias toward hardware solutions and a disincentivization of software ICT solutions, and in particular, in the chemical engineering industry, where multivariate optimization of chemical plants is a huge efficiency opportunity.

SHARON NOLEN: Neal, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I wonder if a different way to handle that is not to delete the words, but change the word “should.” So, "consider" instead of "it should," maybe something, "consider including artificial intelligence and machine learning, et cetera."

NEAL ELLIOTT: That would be fine with me. I just don't want to lose the smart manufacturing ICT. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Or it should use a variety of approaches such as…

BETSY DUTROW: Or a more neutral term. You could just do that too.

SHARON NOLEN: I think we want to get rid of, "it should."

NEAL ELLIOTT: "May."

JEFFREY RISSMAN: It may use a range of approaches, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, et cetera.

SHARON NOLEN: I don't really like the word, “may.” Can we say, “consider a range of approaches such as?”

JEFFREY RISSMAN: “It should consider?” 

SHARON NOLEN: No, just "consider a range."

CATHY CHOI: Sorry. Can I jump in here for just a―and I know I'm behind.

SHARON NOLEN: That's OK.

CATHY CHOI: I think Anna makes a good point that we say this specifically in recommendation number two to not articulate have any articulating parameters when we do funding. But at the same time, Neal has a good point. We want to enable the industry to be more using techniques that take them beyond where we are today. So can we just say that? We don't have to cite the technologies.

And that's really where DOE and the collaboration and partnership with industry to help them get to the next level because they in general―I don't want to include everyone in a gross generalization, but for the whole industry to move forward using new techniques to get to the end form faster and more efficiently and more cost effectively is a huge benefit.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Something like this where we don't say what the techniques are. I'm keeping the words that are the goal here, which is not a prescriptive technique.

CATHY CHOI: To enable faster, more cost-effective and efficient and optimized solutions for the industry. That was a lot of words. Sorry. That was the essence in too many words.

SHARON NOLEN: I wonder if you could maybe take out the word, “examine,” and put “enable” in some of that there? But I'll let you edit, Jeff.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I have “enable” here. Did you want to remove this whole bit and just say, “to enable faster and more efficient?”

SHARON NOLEN: No. What I was suggesting is, take out just the word, “examine,” and say, “to enable scale-up of blah, blah, blah with faster and more efficient solutions for the industry.” Something like that. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Enables scale-up of complex multiphase reaction systems with faster and more efficient solutions for the industry.

SHARON NOLEN: I'm seeing at least one thumbs-up on that, but we still have some comments, so let's leave it at that now, and we'll see what others have to say. So, Comas.

COMAS HAYNES: Yes, this is actually it's specific to this, but it's also beyond this as far as context on timeline. So as far as these recommendations that we're making, I'm trying to make sure that I understand what the timelines that we think are viable timelines for the DOE to implement them; line up with some of the references that we make. In particular, what I mean is the RAPID and EPIXC their manufacturing institutes―so that's already distinctive―at the same time, they're projects.

So what I'm really going with this is―and that's why I say it's beyond this recommendation―I want to make sure that if we make a recommendation, knowing the right context, that as far as its implementation, it wouldn't be a situation where by the time it gets implemented or during its implementation, something that we reference doesn't go away, basically because it was a project as opposed to a program. Now, having said that, if we're talking about recommendations that we would like for them to look at doing in the next couple or few years, EPIXC is young and healthy. RAPID has had a lot of longevity.

I don't really have that concern necessarily, but I do want to make sure in general that when we pinpoint even very strategic projects, which I think we categorize manufacturing institutes to be because they're projects, that in principle they have a start time and end time. And I just want to make sure that quote unquote, "at some critical point of implementing these recommendations, these references that we're making are no longer there." And it's kind of obsolete for that reason. And that's throughout the whole document actually. I just bring it up at this point.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Thank you. It is good to name specific things we want to see continue, even if there's a risk of them not continuing. If it was a time-bounded project that we know for sure isn't going to continue beyond a certain date, that would be relevant.

SHARON NOLEN: Joe.

JOE POWELL: To finish that first sentence, I could just say leveraging advanced digital and physical techniques.

SHARON NOLEN: So would you take out the second sentence if you did that?

JOE POWELL: Yeah. And using for scale-up. So you could just get digital in there as a simplified way of saying what we just deleted to enable scale-up of multiphase.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: So I changed “new techniques” to “digital and physical techniques.” 

JOE POWELL: “To enable scale-up of…”

JEFFREY RISSMAN: “Of complex, multiphase reaction and separation systems with faster and more efficient solutions for the industry.”

JOE POWELL: Yeah. And I guess we can leave that last clause in. It's probably understood. Then I wrote this one. I see it's a little bit more detailed than a lot of our recommendations. And so I don't know if we want to include all of those specifics below. I'll let those of you who are used to dealing with these recommendations as to whether this is too much detail or is adding value.

SHARON NOLEN: So one question I do have is, where we see “should,” can you just highlight that Jeff on the third line so everybody can see where we're looking?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: You mean, this “should”? 

SHARON NOLEN: No. Above that. The third line. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: This “should”?

SHARON NOLEN: Right there. Yes. So I think Anna brought up the question of it being too prescriptive by saying include these things, but we've changed the wording enough. I want to ask Anna, do you still have concerns about―I think you had concerns about “should.” Can you speak to that?

ANNA FENDLEY: I do have concerns about “should.” And here we say “should use both digital and physical” where I know you don't like “may,” Sharon, but I would push for something slightly less prescriptive to also help this live well over time.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I've changed it to “may.”

SHARON NOLEN: OK. Well, change it to “DOE”, then, because it may use. I feel like it doesn't sound right there.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: OK, I'll put it here. “DOE may use digital,” et cetera. I guess it was referring to the Center of Excellence.

SHARON NOLEN: OK, well, however you want to say it, but it is not clear there. So if you want to say Center of Excellence, you can say it. I was confused as to what it was in that sentence.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Oh, it's not capitalized.

SHARON NOLEN: I don't see any more hands raised. Does anyone have any last comments or questions on this one? We'll go ahead and vote then.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Let's go ahead and get hands raised for anyone who would like to vote to approve the inclusion of recommendation 13 in the report.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. And let's see. Subodh, are you here? Oh, we can't hear you. I see you physically raising your hand, though.

SUBODH DAS: OK, I say yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: OK. Thank you. So in that case, we have votes and approval from all members on the call except for Sridhar, who is noted in the chat that he is abstaining from this vote. So I believe that is 11 votes to approve, which is enough. So this recommendation is included. Thank you.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Thank you. Recommendation [INAUDIBLE].

SUBODH DAS: Jeff, before you go to the next one, I have to take off in 5 minutes. I'd like to take maybe 30 seconds of the time and make a comment that I mentioned to you. If this is appropriate time, if you give me less than a minute, I'd like to do that.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Please go ahead.

SUBODH DAS: I'd like to also be noted here that there are other sectors, specifically aluminum has not been included because of the time constraints. And they will be considered for the full report.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Yes. And also as noted, the omission of any particular technology or subsector does not necessarily indicate a lack of importance by the committee since there were time constraints involved in drafting.

SUBODH DAS: Just in my case, to the satisfaction of my stakeholders, just say, that I submitted it, but I was late or time-constrained, and you will be considered at the time in the fall for the full report. If you can include that, that will be great for me. Thank you.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Noted for the record.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Subodh and Jeff. And I also just want to correct. I think I miscounted or misstated. There were 12 votes of approval on recommendation 13. Those are from Sunday, Cathy, Subodh, Betsy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Abigail, Jeff, and Jolene; and Sridhar abstained from that vote. So thank you.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Moving on now. Thank you. To cement and concrete recommendation 14. DOE should support the design and scale-up of technologies that increase the efficiency of cement plants and increase the purity of the CO2 streams they produce, facilitating carbon capture. Electrified calciner allow more efficient use of energy, including variable renewable energy, while also producing pure CO2 streams from limestone calcination. Oxy-firing of natural gas is another approach that enables more efficient CO2 capture from concentrated streams.

SHARON NOLEN: Any questions or comments on that? Oh, I'm sorry, Sridhar, I missed that for a second.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: I would support this. But I just think this electrified calcium allows a lot more efficient use of energy while producing more pure CO2 streams. Do we just want to give the recommendation? Because in some cases, you had a justification separated from the recommendation. And in this case, it seems like they're muddled together.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: We could put these two sentences into a rationale sub-bullet.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: Yeah, that would be my only recommendation, because there might be other rationales here as well. Like, we don't mention clay and things like that?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: There are other technologies in the cement industry that hold promise. Yes. 

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: So I would suggest putting that under an example of rationale, or just remove it because it's not comprehensive.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Well, we certainly could use the words, for example. We could also move it to rationale if we want.

SHARON NOLEN: I will just point out, not every recommendation has a rationale. So it would not be the only one that doesn't have a rationale. But if anyone has a preference, I think either way is fine.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I think including an example noted as an example in the recommendation is OK. It's not too long.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: I mean, you could also add something around lime-based clay calcination because it allows for lower temperatures as well, and it doesn't produce CO2 as such. I don't know if there's a cement expert, but it's not my expertise. I'm just saying a little bit I know about it.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: It might be difficult to author a really smooth sentence right now without… 

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: Just leave it like that, then. We can go for the bigger report. Just remind me that we should expand on it a bit in the bigger report.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Sure.

SHARON NOLEN: So do we have any other comments or questions on this one? OK, Zach, I think we're ready to vote.

ZACH PRITCHARD: So let's go ahead and have a show of hands for anyone who would like to vote to approve recommendation 14.

SUBODH DAS: I approve. Subodh Das. 

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Subodh. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. I am otherwise seeing hands from everyone else, I think. Let's see here. Sorry. So I'm just I'm seeing in hands―I'm just wondering if we lost somebody here. Sorry.

I just might need to do this one manually. Sorry about that. We have Jeff. We have Subodh. I also see Neal, Sharon, Joe, Anna, oh I bet we have lost Betsy. Betsy said she was going to drop off at 2:00. That's my missing vote. So we have approval then from Sunday, from Cathy, from Subodh, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, and Jolene. So that is 12 votes and is enough to approve the recommendation. Thanks.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Thank you. Next up is iron and steel, recommendation 15. DOE should continue and expand its support for the following key approaches that hold promise for producing clean primary iron and steel. One, technologies to reduce the cost of hydrogen direct reduced iron, H2-DRI steelmaking, including the production of electrolytic H2 and the energy efficiency, capital costs, and maintenance costs of H2-DRI technology. Two, iron ore beneficiation. Increasing the ore's iron content and smelting to process lower-grade ores for use in DRI steelmaking. Three, molten-oxide electrolysis of iron ore. Four, aqueous electrolysis of iron ore. Since these routes require electricity, DOE should conduct a study to map out and evaluate the economic viability of different solutions to meet the need for clean electricity 24/7 for the steel industry. This study should consider how grid electricity and on-site distributed energy, including a mixture of renewables and nuclear, could be optimally integrated with steel plants.

SHARON NOLEN: Comments, questions for iron and steel?

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: It gets done. This is Sridhar. And I would love Sunday's input here too, but I believe we had recommended also―and this might be somewhere else, Jeff. But better scrap utilization and scrap citations since about 70% of U.S. steel industry depends on scrap. I think that was a recommendation we had.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: There were recommendations on secondary. This is a primary steel recommendation. There were some on secondary steel, but they didn't get high enough grades in the grading space to advance. I think perhaps the abatement potential is lower because they are already lower emissions than primary steel routes.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: Any thoughts there, Sunday? Because the secondary steel still imports primary steel from abroad that is carbon-intensive, right?

SUNDAY ABRAHAM: That is correct. I believe that the scrap, although you can consider it secondary, in the USA, as we had said, 70% of steel that is produced is from recycled scrap. If you don't want it in this report at the end of the day, but it should be included in the general report in September. That is my recommendation.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: Because economically it's probably way bigger than the primary steel industry, the secondary steel industry or mini mills. Right?

NEAL ELLIOTT: Yeah.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: It is bigger economically. And it would make sense to have a separate recommendation for secondary steel to accompany this one that is about primary steel. Cathy. 

CATHY CHOI: This is a question out of ignorance of the iron and steel process. Are any one-through- fours a specific technology like H2-DRI, or is this recommendation suggesting technologies to enhance existing thing? I have a little bit of "forest from the weeds" or "forest from the trees."

SUNDAY ABRAHAM: This is a technology on its own and it's pivotal to transition into zero-CO2 emissions in the iron-ore steel industry.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: There are only a few options for zero emissions primary not secondary steelmaking. And we're listing pretty much all of them here with molten-oxide electrolysis, aqueous electrolysis, H2-DRI. So it was intended to be somewhat expansive.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: It's the only one you're not mentioning as point-source carbon capture, right?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: That's true because we had a different carbon capture recommendation. 

SHARON NOLEN: Go ahead, Sunday.

SUNDAY ABRAHAM: Sorry. I had my hand raised earlier. I think I've made my comments already. 

SHARON NOLEN: OK, Cathy. Oh, maybe she had too.

CATHY CHOI: I lowered my hand. Sorry. 

SHARON NOLEN: OK.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: So, Cathy, point, I would just say, H2-DRI is a method, and there's probably two technologies under it―major technologies that achieve it. So you could see it however. There's two commercial technologies, but H2-DRI is an approach.

SHARON NOLEN: So, Jeff, are any edits needed here? Or are we comfortable with what it says? 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I think it's OK or even a good thing that there are two H2-DRI approaches, because that means we're operating at less of a granular level here with our item one. And so I don't know if anyone is objecting, but I'm not hearing a need for an edit yet.

SHARON NOLEN: Anna.

ANNA FENDLEY: I actually was going to suggest a potential edit. And it's just on this carbon capture piece, which is, I agree, I think it's the major pathway that's not outlined here and for primary iron and steel. And since we took out the carbon capture bullet point or the recommendation in this interim report, I just wonder if folks would be amenable to adding point-source capture here as well.

SHARON NOLEN: I guess the one thing I'm not sure about that is―and it goes back to Joe's comment, maybe chemicals and refining. I feel like carbon capture is one of the technologies that they want to use.

So if it―I don't know. I'm struggling a little bit with putting it here and not there versus it being an overall recommendation.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I'm with Sharon on this. The technologies we list here are iron- and steel-specific technologies. And if we list carbon capture here, there'll be, why didn't we list it under chemicals? Why didn't we list it under pulp and paper?

CATHY CHOI: So that makes some sense. Maybe the question I really want to ask here is, since we could not reach agreement and punted on the carbon capture discussion, are we going to make a note of that in the report that we'll be planning to discuss carbon capture as an overarching technology for the final report? I just think it's important that we somehow note that it exists, and it's something that the committee is considering.

SHARON NOLEN: So I kind of like that idea because it was bothering me not to have it in there either. So one possibility would be at the beginning of the cross-cutting technologies and opportunities. Thank you, Jeff. We could add a sentence there that said something about due to time limitations. We'll go ahead and write something, Jeff, if you have in mind. I've learned Jeff's very good at wording things, so keep going. 

ZACH PRITCHARD: Jeff is a published author.

SHARON NOLEN: I know. There you go. Joe, you've got your hand up.

JOE POWELL: When you look at the DOE roadmaps, they talk about energy efficiency, low-carbon fuels and feedstocks, carbon capture and storage as their pillars. And we've got some of the pillars addressed here but not the big four that they're talking about. And so I'd almost be in favor of we've already got energy efficiency. And so making a comment here that is under consideration and just make a note that those recommendations will be coming out later. Not bury it back down in cross-cutting, which would tend to get lost given that the other pillars of the DOE decarbonization efforts are up at the top here.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: This is the pillars were energy efficiency. I don't know if circular economy and material efficiency was a pillar. Direct electrification was a pillar. Clean fuels was a pillar, and carbon capture was a pillar. So I think this is the section where we covered the pillars.

JOE POWELL: So let's go back and look at the carbon capture with 11 there. We took it out though, didn't we?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Correct.

JOE POWELL: And that's why having it now being missing, it looks like it's missing.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: That's what the purpose of this note was for. I think this is a good addition. Helping to note carbon capture specifically will be covered in the committee's full report. And it is under the section where we are considering the pillars. I think it may fit easier here than in the general introduction.

SHARON NOLEN: I like it. The one question I had is, is there anything else we want to mention here other than carbon capture? And I'm trying to pull up the roadmap right now to remember the four pillars.

ZACH PRITCHARD: You have the four pillars reflected. 

SHARON NOLEN: Thank you.

ZACH PRITCHARD: The material efficiency and circular economy was not a pillar in the roadmap.

NEAL ELLIOTT: It's considered a weak… 

ZACH PRITCHARD: Energy efficiency.

NEAL ELLIOTT: Thank you. Correct that. Thank you.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Any concerns about this sentence or any modifications to this sentence? Jeff, let's go back down to the―I think we were on―sorry. Now I've gotten confused.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Iron and steel.

SHARON NOLEN: Iron and steel. Thank you. OK. So Anna, thank you for bringing that up. I think that was a good addition. I appreciate that. Any other comments on this? OK with that, I think we're ready for a vote.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote, yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. And Subodh, are you still with us, or did Subodh drop off? Looks like Subodh finally had to drop off. But I am seeing hands from the other 10 members who are on the call. And so that is approval from Sunday, Cathy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, and Jolene. That is 11 votes and is enough for approval.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Very good. We'll do pulp and paper now. Recommendation 16. DOE should provide RDD&D assistance to companies to demonstrate how renewable energy can be incorporated into large-scale pulp and paper operations without adversely impacting costs and safety, focusing on technologies related to energy efficiency, electrification, thermal energy storage, and use of hydrogen.

DOE should also facilitate the sharing of best practices across research partners and private firms. 

SHARON NOLEN: Any comments or questions on that one? Hearing none, we'll vote.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. And let's have a show of hands for others who vote to approve. I'm seeing 10 other hands, so that is votes to approve from Sunday, Cathy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigael, Jeff, Sridhar, and Jolene. And that's 11 votes and is enough to approve. This next one, number 17, is another that specifically mentions EPIXC. So Sridhar will be recusing himself from discussion and vote on this one as well.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: This one is about food and beverage industry. Recommendation 17, DOE should work with the RAPID Institute and the EPIXC Institute to optimize direct electrical nonsteam heating versus use of traditional heat steam heat. This can reduce energy usage and costs but can affect food and beverage product quality due to changes in heat transfer rates and mechanisms.

SHARON NOLEN: Any comments or questions on this one? 

CATHY CHOI: I have a question. Cathy.

SHARON NOLEN: Go ahead, Cathy.

CATHY CHOI: Again, out of not being familiar, we were calling out―this is the second time calling out partners, specific partners and institutes particularly. Are these the only two or is this meant to be that specific?

SHARON NOLEN: Neal, are you going to answer the question or somebody else?

NEAL ELLIOTT: I think Cathy makes a good point. I know―excuse me. CESMII is also doing some work with the food products industry in the application of smart manufacturing for thermal process integration. So technically, I would say we might want to include CESMII in this list as well.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: What is says. Can you spell that for me?

NEAL ELLIOTT: C-E-S-M-I-I

ZACH PRITCHARD: That's right. And should we write it out?

NEAL ELLIOTT: Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute. And thank you to DOE legacy staff for coming up with that acronym.

SHARON NOLEN: Did we spell out RAPID and EPIXC before, because I think they're also acronyms, aren't they?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: They are. We may have defined them above. Here RAPID is defined here, and EPIXC is defined here. So we should only write them out on first usage.

SHARON NOLEN: I just couldn't remember if we'd already done that. Thank you, Jeff. OK. Comas. 

COMAS HAYNES: Yes. And I'm sorry. I'm going a bit upstream, but again, the same comment here, but I think it was also addressed earlier about we're calling out specific manufacturing institutes as long as we feel like they'll have the longevity/appropriateness to be called out, and they'll be there as I guess ongoing projects. I think that would be safe. But again, it's same mentioning of the same institutes that made me think of the same comment from earlier.

I do want to point out one other thing too very quickly, and I'm not watching time. I'm going upstream a little bit one recommendation. Please bear with me. I voted yes for recommendation 16. And I so liked it. My thought was, if we're going to make this recommendation for pulp and paper, the recommendation―actually we made for a number of other industries as well. So I'm trying to make sure, are we inadvertently prioritizing this particular industry, pulp and paper, to have much the same types of beneficial interventions that a number of these other industries, sectors could have as well, such as food and beverage? Because again, the phrasing of recommendation 16 is generically good phrasing that could be applied to other industries aside from just pulp and paper. And I want to make sure it's not looking like we're inadvertently excluding―I mean, being exclusive about saying pulp and paper with that type of recommendation.

SHARON NOLEN: I think that's a good question.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: The wording of recommendation 16 could be you could swap in a lot of industries for it. But this is an industrial subsectors list. So I think we need to name pulp and paper as we did in the already voted on rec. 16. If the feedback is the same type of language would be useful here in rec. 17, we could make a copy of this change pulp and paper and add it onto rec. 17.

Since we've named some useful partners, I don't think we should cut that, but I'm not against effectively copying a modified version of this language into 17 if you think that would be good.

COMAS HAYNES: Yes. It could be. Again, I just want to make sure that it's more than pulp and paper that would have much benefit from that type of intervention. And so food, and beverage and to be candid, I don't know what sector wouldn't benefit from that suite of interventions. That's just what comes to mind about recommendation 16. It seems inadvertently―it could be inadvertently exclusive despite its benefit across different sectors.

SHARON NOLEN: I think what I hear Comas saying is, if you took out pulp and paper, you could put it on any industry. You could also see it as cross-cutting, I suppose, because it's really around renewable energy. Well, other things too. I don't know.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I think we're limited in that we can't do big structural rearrangements at this meeting, I think. So we could consider some elevating this language to be an all-purpose thing in the final report. For this particular meeting, maybe we should just try to edit and approve the recommendations we have, which could include reusing some of this language in rec. 17 if we want.

SHARON NOLEN: Sorry. I'm OK with that. I do think that's something to think about in the final report. And I appreciate what you're saying about, we can only do so much today.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: Since you're discussing 16, and I'm not commenting on 17, just 16. There is a difference between paper and pulp to some extent because bio has a bigger opportunity. Biofuels versus other technologies. My suggestion would be leave it this way and then discuss it in the bigger report.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: That is fine by me. I don't think it's critical to copy this into 17, though, I'm not against it.

NEAL ELLIOTT: I suggest we leave it as is.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: OK. We can always try to make this more specific to pulp and paper in the final report and have this type of language at a higher level in the final report.

SHARON NOLEN: Any other…

NEAL ELLIOTT: I'm in agreement.

SHARON NOLEN: But good question, Comas. Thank you. And I think we can address some of these things we don't have time for today in the final report. Any last comments on this one, then? OK, I think we're ready for a vote.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Please raise your hands if you would like to vote to approve recommendation 17. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. And I am seeing nine hands, which is everyone except Sridhar who is noted in the chat that he is abstaining from this vote. So that is 10 votes to approve, which is enough.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Great. We're now in the next big section, Overcoming Barriers. And the first barrier to overcome is offtake of cleanly produced products. Recommendation 18. DOE should research specifications and standards for clean goods and materials, in coordination with other federal agencies, participate fully in ongoing multilateral and multi-stakeholder efforts to align standards and methodologies related to the emissions intensity of production, and work with both producers and consumers to promote long-term offtake agreements for the purchase of clean goods. DOE should also help industrial facilities develop clean hydrogen and zero-emission electricity and heat offtake agreements, perhaps supported by guaranteed offtake prices for clean heat as a service (e.g., via contract for difference). DOE itself can also procure clean goods and energy, aligning these efforts with existing procurement programs across governments (e.g., the federal Buy Clean Initiative, the Clean Energy Ministerial Industrial Deep Decarbonisation Initiative, and the private sector, e.g., the First Movers Coalition). For example, DOE should expand the hydrogen demand initiative to include to H2DI to include other clean commodities such as steel, cement, concrete, and chemicals.

SHARON NOLEN: Comments or questions on this one?

ANNA FENDLEY: I have a question. Overall, I support this recommendation but have a question on the words, “work with producers and consumers to promote long-term offtake agreements for the purchase of clean goods.” One of the three scoring areas from last week was the ease, I think it was like the ease of DOE to be able to implement. And I'd like to understand how easy this is and how would DOE implement this, what you have highlighted.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I think the remaining sentences in the recommendation proposed some things, some ways that DOE could do this.

ANNA FENDLEY: So is that easy? 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Well…

ANNA FENDLEY: Because that was when the scoring [INAUDIBLE] that I'm just bringing it back.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: DOE procuring clean goods seems relatively straightforward, particularly because there exists a federal Buy Clean Initiative that they can reference. Something like helping facilities create offtake agreements might be a little trickier, but perhaps they could produce model agreements or something that facilities could use as a template. We didn't want to get super granular here.

ANNA FENDLEY: And I'm not looking for the granularity. I think maybe it's the word “promoting” them. And maybe that is the term, because it's a long-term offtake agreements that fixated on that maybe a little bit too much. I understand that the DOE can procure clean goods, but when I initially read this, it felt like DOE would be able to facilitate these agreements. And I feel skeptical in that space.

SHARON NOLEN: Let's see if Neal has a comment on that. Or Neal, was there something else?

NEAL ELLIOTT: I was actually―Cathy just used the word I was going to suggest we substitute for "promote," which is "facilitate" long-term agreements. We've seen, for example, some of the Better Plants activities, as well as some of the other activities within DOE, have DOE play that facilitation role rather than being in the―they don't actually promote it, but they bring the stakeholders together and facilitate the agreement there. I feel comfortable with that. I think it's something that DOE has had a long history of success with, and so I would encourage us to leave that in.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: This is getting granular, but we could give an example. Things like that, if we wanted…

NEAL ELLIOTT: Maybe put that parenthetically.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: OK. Here, oops. So this shows that it isn't meant that DOE is like a direct negotiating party between the industrial facility and the energy supplier. It's giving examples that DOE is rather serving a convening role or producing a model agreement or something like that.

SHARON NOLEN: Cathy, does that address?

CATHY CHOI: Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Neal, Jeff, these modifications are more clear in my mind of how this could be approached. Thank you.

SHARON NOLEN: Any other questions, comments? OK. I think we're ready to vote.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Let's have a show of hands for members who would like to vote to approve recommendation 18.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Yes. And I am seeing all of the other members online have their hand raised. So that is yeses from Sunday, Cathy Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, and Jolene. And that will be, I think, 11 votes. And it is enough to approve.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Thank you. We're now in this new subcategory of electric grid recommendations. And there are four, no, five in this. There are five recommendations under electric grids. So if one of them that I read seems like it's missing something, it probably is in one of the other four. And you may have reviewed this document ahead of time, but recommendation 19. DOE should work with Congress and leaders at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, to support reforms to electricity market rules at the state, regional, or federal level that allow flexible, electrified technologies to access location and time-specific electricity pricing available in wholesale markets.

SHARON NOLEN: Any questions or concerns? I guess we're ready to vote.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Let's have hands for members voting to approve this recommendation for inclusion in the preliminary report.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. And I am seeing hands from the rest of the members who are online right now. So that is yeses from Sunday, Cathy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, and Jolene. That is 11 votes, and the recommendation is approved.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Great. On to recommendation 20. DOE should conduct a study on the electric grid infrastructure and upgrades needed for industrial electrification, as well as other sources of demand, such as electric vehicles and data centers that can serve as a resource to utilities, utility regulators, and industrial firms.

SHARON NOLEN: Any comments or questions on this? I think we're ready for a vote.

ZACH PRITCHARD: We'll have a show of hands for members voting to approve recommendation 20 for inclusion in the preliminary report.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. And I am seeing hands from all of the other members who are online. So that is an approval from Sunday, Cathy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, and Jolene. That is 11 votes, and your recommendation is approved.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Very good. Recommendation 21. DOE should expand its efforts to facilitate expansion of high-voltage transmission, as well as reconstructing of existing lines. DOE's efforts should include working with relevant agencies to streamline environmental review and permitting processes for transmission lines and exploring ways to streamline interconnection queue processes to facilitate rapid construction of clean generation that can be used for industrial facilities.

SHARON NOLEN: Any comments or questions?

ZACH PRITCHARD: I will just note that Sasha is back online with us. 

SHARON NOLEN: Very good.

CATHY CHOI: I have a question, actually more of a comment. And it was, through all these electrification recommendations, is there anything―and I read through them but it didn't quite hit me—that really helps support the industry behind the meter. Twenty does a little bit to 21 specifically or is more specific to transmission lines and permitting, but are there challenges with permitting behind the meter that can help industry with electrification?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: So good question. We have a direct electrification recommendation under cross- cutting, though it doesn't focus on permitting. It focuses on making sure there's cost-effective industrial electrified technology available. If it's permitting, like will your local utility company expand your panel and your industrial facility? We don't have a recommendation on that aspect of permitting.

CATHY CHOI: So this is specific to utility transmission in front of the meter?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: That's what this recommendation is right now. It is possible to add a sentence here. I do think 21 is where I would belong to say, DOE could also recommend ways to streamline behind-the- meter permitting of electricity capacity upgrades.

CATHY CHOI: I think it would be beneficial, but I'll leave it to the group.

SHARON NOLEN: Neal, do you want to go ahead and comment while Jeff's putting that in?

NEAL ELLIOTT: Yeah. No, the main thing I was just going to comment on this one. I think this is a nice aspiration, but it appears that DOE has limited statutory authority in this area. And we see Congress currently considering establishing such an authority through legislation. I think there just is the―I think we need to be cognizant that DOE's ability to do stuff in here is statutorily limited. I don't think we necessarily need to include that here. I just wanted to note that the benefit of the ITIAC.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I think for all of these, I think it's implied that DOE will act within its statutory authority to do what it can do.

SHARON NOLEN: Neal, I don't think I heard you saying, you thought it should be removed. Did you?

NEAL ELLIOTT: No.

SHARON NOLEN: That's OK. Any last comments or concerns on this one? I think we're ready to vote. 

ZACH PRITCHARD: So let's have a show of hands for anyone voting to approve recommendation 21. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. And I am seeing hands from all the other members online. So noting yeas from Sunday, Cathy Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha.

That is 12 votes, and the recommendation is approved.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Very good. Thank you. On to recommendation 22. DOE should direct its electricity and industry-related programs, national laboratories, and manufacturing institutes to pursue research, demonstration, and education about opportunities to optimize timing and utilization of electricity at industrial facilities. DOE should simultaneously encourage utilities and their regulators to implement smart-grid technologies that can co-optimize generation and grid operations with these large customers to increase utilization of existing generation, transmission, and distribution assets, reducing the need for grid investments.

SHARON NOLEN: Comments or questions. Seeing none, we're ready to vote.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Let's see hands for members voting to approve recommendation 22. 

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: Yes, Zach, this mentions manufacturing institutes. Is that OK?

ZACH PRITCHARD: Yeah, I think this is OK to you for you, since it is directing us to use all of our funding modalities. It's not very specific to manufacturing institutes or especially to EPIXC. Thank you, Jeff. And I am seeing hands from all the other members who are online. So that is yeas from Sunday, Cathy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha. That is 12 votes and enough to approve.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Thank you. So on to recommendation 23. DOE should support commercialization and deployment of clean firm generation (e.g., advanced nuclear, geothermal, fusion, long-duration energy storage at or co-located with industrial sites as an option to meet industry's increasing energy demands with clean, reliable power and/or heat). This should include focusing existing LPO financing tools on deploying clean firm generation at industrial sites, new and retrofit, exploring implications of co-located or behind-the-meter clean generation solutions for grid reliability, and further exploring use of low- temperature geothermal resources for industrial applications.

SHARON NOLEN: Neal already has his hand up. Go ahead, Neal. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: You're on mute, Neal.

NEAL ELLIOTT: Trying to be a good participant. One of the issues that has emerged in several states with relation to the co-location has been not just the impact on grid reliability, but also on pricing to nonco- located customers of the generation asset. And that's a…

SHARON NOLEN: Are you saying it's a negative for other customers? I'm not sure if I'm following.

NEAL ELLIOTT: Yes. It's a question about cost recovery of the fixed asset investments required for distribution and transmission, as well as some stranded customer benefits that accrue from system benefit charges.

So it's a significant concern within the group discussions. But I'm not sure. I think what Jeff put in there is exactly I think we should be saying, which is, DOE should just look at this question. I don't think there's a recommendation at this point with respect to the co-location question.

SHARON NOLEN: OK. Thank you. Sridhar.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: I just wanted to know the reason for, you have all these examples in the first sentence. Why do you need to say further exploring use of low-temperature geothermal at the end? I mean that's more important.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: It is listed.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: For some reason, it sounds I would interpret it as that's more important than the other things.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I think that this is just a drafting thing combining recommendations. It probably doesn't need to be listed twice.

SHARON NOLEN: Good callout. Any other comments? I think we're ready to vote. I'm sorry. As soon as I say vote, some people put their hands up, and I think I've closed questions too fast. Sorry about that.

You're good to go.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Let's go ahead and have a show of hands for anyone voting to approve recommendation 23.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. And I'm seeing hands from everyone else online as well. So that is yeas from Sunday, Cathy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha.

That is 12 votes, and the recommendation is approved. I will say at this point, Sharon, I wonder if it is time for another break. If you want to take another break. Since we're going into the home stretch here.

SHARON NOLEN: I think that would be good. Do we want to say 15 minutes again, or do you think we should limit it to 10? What are you thinking?

ZACH PRITCHARD: I think 15 minutes is fine. We're still doing very well on time.

SHARON NOLEN: OK. So 2:55 we'll be back, and we should be able to finish up. So we're doing a great job getting through these. Thank you.

SUNDAY ABRAHAM: I'm going to drop off at the top of the hour. But I will come back at 4:00 if you guys are still here.

SHARON NOLEN: OK. Thank you, Sunday. 

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thanks, Sunday.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Thank you. See you all back soon. 

ZACH PRITCHARD: Yep. See you everyone at 2:55.

SHARON NOLEN: So, Zach, I suggest―well, we still have one more minute, but when it hits 2:55, I suggest we do what we did earlier and just people can go ahead and raise your hands so we can make sure we have everyone back.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Yep. That sounds good to me. 

CATHY CHOI: You want us to raise our hand if we're back? 

SHARON NOLEN: Yes. Correct.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I'm back.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Oh, it looks like we might still be waiting on Joe Powell and Sridhar. 

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: No. I'm here.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Oh, OK. Thank you. All right then. It looks like we have everybody back.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Thank you all for your patience and efficiencies as we go through these. We'll go on to the next subcategory within the Overcoming Barriers category. The next subcategory there is Commercialization Support. It has four recommendations in it. Recommendation 24. ARPA-E should launch a dedicated program with funding and commercialization support for industrial technologies that could achieve large emissions reductions in the medium to long term, including alternative cement chemistries, alternative chemical and refinery feedstocks, and direct electrification of high-temperature heating of nonconductive materials, including electrification of cement kilns and chemical reactors. DOE should also expand the support available through its ceding critical advances for leading energy technologies with untapped potential scale-up program for innovative industrial decarbonization technologies.

SHARON NOLEN: Questions, concerns about that one. Oh, Comas.

COMAS HAYNES: Yes. I'm sorry, just sound check again. Can you all hear me? 

SHARON NOLEN: Yes.

COMAS HAYNES: OK, great. I'm just wondering if again, depending upon when we say when it starts to say, including and then it goes through that short list, so to speak, is including giving a connotation that those and only those or including giving a connotation of, "for example," or maybe we should put, "for example," in there. Otherwise, I think it's too prescriptive to only list those items.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I think these were selected because they are more challenging than, let's say, deployment of heat pumps or something that is more commercially ready and yet have good medium- to long-term potential. I believe that's why these were picked out as opposed to certain other things.

COMAS HAYNES: OK. Let me ask this. I know we're not reading rationales in your callout, Jeff, but the rationales will be a part of our publication tomorrow, of our dissemination tomorrow. It's going to be the rationales will be included. If they are, maybe it's worth it to put a one- or two-sentence statement in there for that reason. Like ARPA-E is for aggressive scenarios. And these are the ones that are considered to be the more aggressive and demanding scenarios. It might be not necessarily adding to the recommendation, but I think it at least deserves a one- or two-sentence rationale piece.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I don't know. There might be things you could do with heat pumps that are not fully ready. I'm reluctant to list them as a negative example. Maybe we don't need this part.

COMAS HAYNES: The heart of it is. I'm just trying to make sure―and I appreciate reminding or informing
some people that ARPA-E is meant for aggressive, demanding scenarios. I just want to make sure that if we're saying that these even with that qualification, they're saying, OK, these are the more demanding scenarios, I guess just double-checking that there isn't any other demanding scenario as well that's valuable that should be included in that list, if that list is quote unquote "the list."

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Well, we are clarifying its examples. I used that word in the new bullet. We definitely could add something to this list if we think ARPA-E in particular should support it. Do you have a technology in mind, Comas?

COMAS HAYNES: No. Not necessarily, not at this point. I just know that when it reads that way, it can be taken and be OK, this is the list that we're saying that ARPA-E should focus on. So I think it's a good list. I guess I'm just trying to make sure amongst the group that there isn't any other technology development that should also be included in the list.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Here's a way to soften that a bit. We could do, including, for example, alternative cement chemistries and so forth.

COMAS HAYNES: That's good. I like that.

SHARON NOLEN: Any concerns on that recommendation in general or on the rationale that Jeff has just added, questions? I think we're ready to vote then.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you. Let's have a show of hands on approval of recommendation 24. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. And I'm seeing hands from all of the other members who are online. So since Sunday has stepped away since we were previously voting, that leaves us with 11 approving votes from Sunday―or sorry, not from Sunday―from Cathy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha. Eleven votes is enough to approve the recommendation.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Thank you. Now, on to recommendation 25. DOE should create a fast-track program designed to help critical innovations rapidly advance along the commercialization pathway. This program should be technology-agnostic and milestone-based, provide dedicated technical and commercial support, and offer priority access to DOE resources, e.g., national laboratory facilities. The greatest gap a fast-track program could fill at this time as pilot-scale demonstrations for key technologies moving toward commercialization.

SHARON NOLEN: Questions, comments on this one? Seeing none, I think we can vote. 

ZACH PRITCHARD: Then, let's have a show of hands on approval of recommendation 25. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Yes. And I am seeing hands from everyone else who is online. So that is yea from Cathy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha. That is 11 votes, and the recommendation is approved.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Thank you. Recommendation 26. DOE should conduct a study that identifies how to achieve successful technology adoption by companies when large-scale deployment of that technology does not yet exist and may not exist for a long time. The study should identify ways to mitigate risks posed by global events, conflicts, inflation, recessions, and other geopolitical and macroeconomic factors. The study should also review gaps in needs between innovators obtaining public-private partnerships with OCED and LPO to determine how solutions can bridge valleys of death.

SHARON NOLEN: Comments or questions on number 26? Oh, Neal, go ahead.

NEAL ELLIOTT: Thanks, Sharon. My question relates to―again, this goes back to where Comas was going. We single out OCED and LPO. I would also note there are a number of programs that the Manufacturing Energy Supply Chain Office is also running that relate to technology adoption. So I didn't know if we wanted to just say something along the lines of other DOE offices or something like that.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Or I just put DOE in there, partnerships with DOE as opposed to naming offices.

NEAL ELLIOTT: That makes me feel better. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: OK.

SHARON NOLEN: Anything else? Oh, go ahead, Abigail.

ABIGAIL: Thanks. Just a comment. I think part of the emphasis on OCED and LPO and don't have any problems with MESC being added in there is the emphasis on the deployment programs of DOE. And so if we can retain some mention of that, this is like commercialization deployment specificity and not just like all DOE programs. I think that would be great.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: DOE deploy. This is…

SHARON NOLEN: Neal and Abigail, OK with that edit. I'm getting a thumbs-up. Anything else on this one? I think we're ready for the votes, Zach.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Let's have a show of hands on members voting to approve recommendation 26. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. And I am seeing hands from everyone else online. So that is an approval from Cathy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha. It's 11 votes. The recommendation is approved.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Very good. On to recommendation 27 under commercialization support. DOE should more flexibly use its existing loan and funding authorities to better support industrial projects. DOE should enhance LPO's ability to finance industrial decarbonization projects by making it practical for LPO to issue smaller-value loans and broadening its investment portfolio to include innovative industrial technologies with long-term return potential to attract private investors but that cannot be supported solely by the private sector today. DOE should streamline the application process and due diligence period within LPO to reduce costs, redundancies, and burden on the applicant. DOE should consider expanding the use of flexible funding mechanisms, such as partner intermediary agreements and other transaction authorities to increase market adoption for innovative solutions supporting industry and manufacturing.

SHARON NOLEN: Questions, comments? Seeing none, we're ready for the vote. 

ZACH PRITCHARD: Let's have a show of hands on approval of recommendation 27. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. And I am seeing hands from all the other members online. So that is approval from Cathy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha. That is 11 votes. The recommendation is approved.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Thank you. We're on to a new subcategory of barriers. This one is about Material Needs and Life Cycle Assessment. Recommendation 28. DOE should publish an assessment of the material needs to enable industrial decarbonization pathways, such as those identified in DOE's Pathways to Commercial Liftoff and Transformative Pathways reports and the availability of those materials. The study should also discuss the emissions intensity of specific domestic and imported industrial materials, using a methodology developed in cooperation with U.S. trading partners to ensure interoperability of approaches for determining emissions intensity.

SHARON NOLEN: Any comments or questions? We'll go ahead and vote then.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Let's have a show of hands on recommendation 28 if you approve the recommendation to be included in the preliminary report.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. And I am seeing hands from everyone else, so that is approval from Cathy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha. That is 11 votes, and the recommendation is approved.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Very good. We're on to the last main category: Workforce and Social Considerations. We have one under the Workforce Development subcategory, recommendation 29. DOE should increase efforts to complement existing workforce initiatives with decarbonization technical training modules (e.g., electrification technology and process heating curricula, energy efficiency practices, and manufacturing technician training). This includes continued support for programs operated by MESC, such as the Industrial Training and Assessment Centers, which leverage best practices in workforce development to train participants for in-demand clean energy and manufacturing jobs by providing hands-on technical assistance to small- and medium-sized manufacturers. Training should emphasize skills that are in demand by industrial firms and that support a transition to clean industrial energy sources and processes. When planning and developing training initiatives, DOE should formally partner with other agencies engaged in workforce training, particularly for skilled trades such as the U.S. Department of Labor's apprenticeship initiatives and the U.S. Department of Commerce's workforce development initiatives around semiconductor manufacturing.

SHARON NOLEN: Zach.

ZACH PRITCHARD: I will just note that Betsy has rejoined the meeting, and also that Comas has recused himself from discussion and voting on this recommendation.

SHARON NOLEN: Do we have any comments or questions on this one? We'll go ahead and vote. 

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you. Let's have a show of hands for members who would like to vote to approve inclusion of recommendation 29 in the report.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. So I am seeing nine hands. I know that Comas is abstaining from this vote. Abigail also does not have her hand raised. Abigail, are you planning to vote differently, or are you still here? OK. So I am noting votes of approval from Jeff, from Cathy, from Betsy, Neal, Anna, Sharon, Joe, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha.

Do not have a vote from―oh, and Abigail has raised her hand. Let me, I guess just confirm. Abigail, you're voting to approve this recommendation?

ABIGAIL: Yeah. Sorry about that. I don't know what happened with the issue.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Yep. No worries. Thank you. So that is 11 votes to approve with Abigail added in there. One abstention from Comas. And that is enough to approve the recommendation.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Very good. On to recommendation 30. Come under the Community Engagement subcategory. DOE should understand the impacts of projects it funds on local communities, including health benefits and risks. DOE should continue to require companies seeking public funding to develop and implement community benefit plans and to proactively address perceived or actual impacts by engaging with the local community.

SHARON NOLEN: Oh, Anna, go ahead.

ANNA FENDLEY: Yeah. Thanks, Sharon. There were just a couple of things I wanted to say here. And I'll do the easy one first, which is just I think when we sent this over, we included a footnote reference to the DOE webpage on community benefit plans. And I noticed throughout the report where we're citing two DOE sites that didn't seem to make it in. So I just hope that can happen because I think that's an important reference.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Sure.

SHARON NOLEN: The second thing is just, when we as a subcommittee talked about this and sent over recommendations, we had bifurcated worker issues and community issues. And it does not appear that the―we had somewhat of a duplicate recommendation for workers since we were bifurcating it, even though community benefit plans as DOE has implemented those really address both the community and engaging the workforce, thinking about impacts to the workforce, workforce training, health and safety on the job. So it would just be helpful to add that in here. And Jeff, in addition to that workforce bullet, I would suggest DOE should understand the impacts of projects it funds on local communities and adding the workforce there on the workforce and local communities, including economic and health benefits and risks.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: OK. On local communities, I think of a workforce as being a part of a community. Let me think, including well, let's do this part first. Economic and health benefits and risks and then impacts it funds on local workforce and community and other community members or…

ANNA FENDLEY: That's fine. I do think it's important to call out workforce and communities separately. I think there was a lot of confusion in the early implementation of community benefit. The community benefit plan provisions where they're called community, and the workforce piece was inadvertently left out for a lot of people. So being specific is important.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Yes. We're in plural. The projects it funds on local workforces and other community members, something like―OK. So how about how including economic and health benefits and risks. And then when engaging with the local community, I'm fine with it and workforce.

SHARON NOLEN: Jeff, I think you also need to change the heading where it says "community engagement."

JEFFREY RISSMAN: "And workforce engagement"? 

SHARON NOLEN: Yeah.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: OK.

SHARON NOLEN: OK. Anna, are you happy with that one now?

ANNA FENDLEY: Yeah. Thank you all for accommodating that. Hopefully that works for the rest of the Committee.

SHARON NOLEN: Neal.

NEAL ELLIOTT: Start picking up on the question that Anna sort of teased there was, one of the things we hear about the CBPs was confusion on the part of applicants as to what was expected in their community benefit plans and how they should be implemented. And I know DOE has been developing tools and resources to assist applicants in understanding and preparing their CBP filings. And I was wondering if we could add something along the lines of DOE should continue to provide resources and tools to applicants on development of and of community benefit plans.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: We should continue to provide tools and resources to help applicants develop community benefit plans.

SHARON NOLEN: OK. Any questions, concerns about either the recommendation itself or the edits that have been made? I think we're ready to vote.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: And this 31 reference, we're voting with the understanding that we will fill in the appropriate citation to the DOE website page here.

NEAL ELLIOTT: Caroline put it in chat for you, Jeff. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Oh, OK. Well we may…

SHARON NOLEN: You can add it later. But it's available to you in the chat.

ZACH PRITCHARD: There might be some cleaning up of the citation later. So let's have a show of hands…

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Like this, and we'll clean up the citation 31 later. 

SHARON NOLEN: Yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Let's have a show of hands on members voting to approve inclusion of recommendation 30 in the report.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. And I am seeing hands raised from everyone else who is online. So that is approval from Cathy, Betsy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigail, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha. And that is 12 votes, which is enough to approve that recommendation.

SHARON NOLEN: Fantastic. So I just want to pause here and thank everyone for working through this. We've got 29 recommendations that I think we can feel very good about. It's been a good discussion to get us to this point. So we do have one more thing we need to do, though. But I just wanted to recognize what we've done so far. So we have also included a list of publications as reference material. And so we did confer with Zach before this. We do not need to go through these in detail, but we did want to vote on this as a whole.

And so we do want to ask if anyone has any concerns about anything that is included here. And so we're just going to vote on it as a whole. Betsy.

ZACH PRITCHARD: And sorry. If I can just add that. We'll vote on adoption of the report overall as a whole. So maybe we'd split up discussion if there is any between the publications, the introduction and the conclusion. But all of those aspects will be voted on as part of the report as a whole.

SHARON NOLEN: But are you saying we need to vote on them separately and then the report as a whole?

ZACH PRITCHARD: No, no. So we don't have to vote on them separately, but maybe it's easier to discuss them.

SHARON NOLEN: OK. So that's what we'll do. We'll talk about these first. Betsy.

BETSY DUTROW: So I had a comment about the controlled that agriculture and the references to plant factories. I think they came from something I sent in. At least that's my guess. I recognize them. We don't really talk about this in the report, so it seems out of place. But there's a reason they were referenced and that's to request the DOE be more anticipatory in the research or the programs that it has. And we've always had―a certain economist that's worked with us has made points that over time, you will have industries come and go, and there will be those that step in place of others.

And I think we touch on it in some recommendations, but it's not super clear. This one was that the recommendation was related to that thinking, but also thinking a little bit about as climate change progresses and we have a harder time producing food, there are certain types of indoor growing environments that are rivaling manufacturing plants. A tomato plant, I've been told by a utility, is equal to a steel mill in one locality. And so I think we've got to think, do we keep this, or do we provide more context to it? That's all. And if you think it's useful this way, I guess that's fine as long as it's―otherwise, it's just sort of there. So that's my comment.

SHARON NOLEN: And I'm just looking at the paragraph that's at the top of the recommended publications. It does say, this is more information on the topics covered in this document.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: True. Now we have three subsections―aluminum, data centers, and controlled environment agriculture―where people sent in valuable documents that I would prefer not to cut but that don't have recommendations higher up. I think it's fine for us to recommend publications on relevant topics like aluminum and controlled environment agriculture, but I do think we should edit this text a bit. 

SHARON NOLEN: Maybe just leave it, but add and other relevant topics.

BETSY DUTROW: Or areas where we believe DOE should be focusing attention. At least tell them go read this stuff, right?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Yeah.

SHARON NOLEN: It looks good.

BETSY DUTROW: Some are trends, some are―anyway, that's all I had. I mean, just don't let them get lost in the list. That's all.

SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: This is Sridhar. I agree with Betsy. And I think those items should be there because even though they may not be in DOE's crosshairs at the moment, the DOE is probably one of the few agencies that has the research power to national labs and the research budget to address them and the technical tools. So I would support it being there.

SHARON NOLEN: Neal.

NEAL ELLIOTT: Just note that the CEA was discussed in some of the recommendations that did not score. And I know in my case, I didn't score them highly because DOE is not actively involved in them currently. But that I think could very well change in the near future.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: We may want more on CEA in the year-end report.

SHARON NOLEN: I was just going to remind everybody, we are not throwing away any recommendations that did not make it into the preliminary report. We'll be continuing to evaluate those for our report for the fall. Other comments on the publications.

NEAL ELLIOTT: I mean, do we want to say that some of these references apply to recommendations that will be addressed in the final report?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Let's not presuppose―I don't want to commit us to what will be in the final report in a publication now.

SHARON NOLEN: I agree, Jeff.

NEAL ELLIOTT: That's fine.

SHARON NOLEN: Anything else? So, Zach, I understood you to say we don't need to vote on this, but we do need to look at the introduction and the conclusion before we vote on the complete report. Correct? 

ZACH PRITCHARD: Yes.

SHARON NOLEN: OK, so just because I think it's more logical, let's go back up to the introduction. And I do appreciate―and I'm not sure exactly who, either Caroline or Zach or maybe both of them did give me some material to work with. And I've edited it some quite a bit. And so this is where we are on the introduction. So I think we'll just give people an opportunity to look through this and see if they have any comments on it.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Do you need me to read it aloud, Zach or anyone? Or is accessibility OK for people to sight-read it?

ZACH PRITCHARD: I don't think that we have to read it all out loud. I would maybe scroll down a little bit because this first part is just outlining parts in the Committee.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Let's see if we can fit it all in at once. Because it's just that―OK this is the whole thing on screen all at once.

SHARON NOLEN: So that first part down through where it―if you start it to advance such benefits above that, it's really boilerplate just about our committee itself. And so really the part that has been really prepared for this report is starting it to advance such benefits.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: The last two paragraphs here I can zoom in on them if people are content to not have some of the stuff about the Committee establishment on screen.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Maybe for simplicity, Jeff, just go ahead and read those two paragraphs. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: OK. To advance such benefits, the ITIAC has generated its first set of recommendations for DOE in this preliminary report. The ITIAC aimed to create transparency on the Committee's ongoing work before submitting a more detailed report to the Secretary of Energy and Congress, expected in fall 2025. These recommendations should not be considered exhaustive given the expansiveness of the industrial sector, but ones that the committee considers as the highest priority for DOE in the near term.

While the recommendations are not expected to change substantially, the Committee expects these recommendations may be modified and/or expanded in its full report. Additional recommendations may be included. In addition to the preliminary set of recommendations, the Committee has compiled a list of publications in this document, including existing publications from DOE that provide more detail on specific topic areas and should be helpful to those seeking additional information about topics relevant to the committee's work.

Ensuring near- and long-term competitiveness of U.S. industry requires continued technological innovation, as well as supportive policies and workforce considerations. Although many efforts are already underway in these areas, DOE has a unique role in overseeing or coordinating action to streamline these activities for maximum benefit to the country. This initial list of recommendations is intended to emphasize the successes and benefits of DOE's current efforts in these areas, create momentum, and highlight urgency for action.

SHARON NOLEN: Any suggested changes, comments? Not seeing any raised hands. So Jeff, I think the other thing you need to do then is go down to the very bottom to the conclusion.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I'll read this one too. Conclusion. The ITIAC recognizes that many research, development, demonstration, and deployment efforts are already underway across U.S. industry to address topics prioritized in this brief. The Committee has provided these recommendations to highlight opportunities for DOE to accelerate the pace of innovation and action. The ITIAC encourages DOE to lead, convene, organize, educate, and provide oversight to support clean industry in the United States. This work is urgently needed.

Decisions being made today are determining investments that will set the course of U.S. industry for decades. DOE, in coordination with others, must act without delay to ensure we remain at the forefront of clean, globally competitive industry.

SHARON NOLEN: Any suggestions, comments on this part? Neal. 

JEFFREY RISSMAN: You're on mute.

NEAL ELLIOTT: Apologies. Do we want to add in the sentence that begins, "the ITIAC urges DOE to," and after the word, "to," to add, "continue to lead."?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: It's fine with me, I think.

SHARON NOLEN: And I guess not everyone has seen. But Zach did provide recommendations that Jeff has incorporated because many of the things we're suggesting DOE is doing, but we're stressing that it should―it's important, and it should continue. So there's not very much like out-of-the-blue stuff DOE isn't doing. It's more confirming what they are doing. So I think given that it's perfectly appropriate to say “continue.” Any anyone else? Any other comments? With that, I believe we have covered the full report. Zach, is there anything we've missed?

ZACH PRITCHARD: No. I don't believe so. And I see that Subodh is also back. 

SUBODH DAS: Yeah, I'm back.

SHARON NOLEN: So I think the next step here is to vote on the report as it currently stands, which is the 29 recommendations as edited. We'll take out that one on carbon capture. But we need to have a vote to say that we approve the report, understanding that it is going to be issued. And Zach, I think it'd be good for the full Committee for you to explain. As I understand it, it's going to go on our website almost immediately. Can you just talk through what's going to happen with the report?

ZACH PRITCHARD: Yeah, that's correct. So once this is adopted and approved by the committee, it will be an official committee document. Will be published on the Committee webpage. And I believe we have an e-blast scheduled to go out to all of our [INAUDIBLE] mailing list to let them know about this report and to link it. So it'll be out there for folks to see and will be preserved as an official output of the Committee. 

SHARON NOLEN: And it'll also go to the Secretary of Energy. OK, Neal.

NEAL ELLIOTT: Just a question for Zach. Are there plans to coordinate the announcement of this with tomorrow's release of the Transformative Pathways report?

ZACH PRITCHARD: I don't believe that there is going to be particular coordination there, since the exact date of release of that report has not been certain so far. So I believe they'll have separate announcements at this point.

NEAL ELLIOTT: I got a notification that the planned announcement was for now scheduled for 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

ZACH PRITCHARD: OK.

SUBODH DAS: Jeff, since I missed last hour, were you able to include the sentence that I suggested on other industrial part because I had to leave right away, I do not know if we're able to do that or not. I just wanted to ask a question.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I believe we added something in response to, where was it? We added something, I thought.

SUBODH DAS: In the beginning of the Industrial Sectors, I think.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I know we have this. Given space limitations and the breadth of technologies involved across the industrial sector and especially in its diverse subsectors, the omission of any particular technology or subsector does not necessarily indicate a lack of importance by the Committee.

SUBODH DAS: I would have hoped that because there's a lot of interest in my stakeholders. Aluminum and I did write a report which was obviously time-constrained. If you can mention that including aluminum. So when the press release comes tomorrow, I get a call from all the people that I've engaged. At least I'll say that it was considerable be included later on. I mean, that's my favor to ask so that I can maintain my working relationship with them.

NEAL ELLIOTT: Is this also a place, Jeff, that we could address back Betsy's question about controlled environment agriculture?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Yeah.

SHARON NOLEN: I do like putting in more than just one example.

NEAL ELLIOTT: Oh yeah. I like that. I like that. And maybe a data center, I don't know.

SHARON NOLEN: I don't know if we want to put data centers because we had a lot of discussion early on whether that was really within our boundaries or not. So I propose leaving it with those two unless… 

SUBODH DAS: Yeah. No, I'm perfectly OK with that. I don't want to be the sole sore thumb there. So it's nice. Thanks for doing that, Jeff. I appreciate it. That will help me a lot.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Absolutely.

SHARON NOLEN: Any last comments before we call on a vote then for about the report in general? OK, Zach, I think we're ready to approve the report.

SUBODH DAS: Before we do that, can we also say that this is the interim report. So full report in fall? I'm just trying to…

ZACH PRITCHARD: Yeah. That's described in the introduction. 

SUBODH DAS: OK. Good. All right, I missed it. OK, good. Thanks.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: We discussed it quite a bit here in a number of sentences. 

SUBODH DAS: OK. Now I see that. I missed it when I was away for an hour.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: That's OK.

SHARON NOLEN: All right. So Zach, I think we're ready for the vote.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Great. Let's have a show of hands for members voting to approve adoption of the report as a whole.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I, Jeff, vote yes. 

SUBODH DAS: I vote yes, Subodh.

ZACH PRITCHARD: Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Subodh. And I am seeing hands from everyone else who is on the call. So that is approval from Cathy, Subodh, Betsy, Neal, Anna, Comas, Sharon, Joe, Abigael, Jeff, Sridhar, Jolene, and Sasha. That is 13 votes, and the report as a whole is approved.

SUBODH DAS: What's the next? This will be given to the secretary and then it will go through our website and also some other social media exposure, right? I got an email from somebody from your department saying that it will go through a what the person calls, social media blast or something.

SHARON NOLEN: I think they were talking about the other report that DOE is putting out. 

SUBODH DAS: Oh, OK. I see.

ZACH PRITCHARD: But we are sending out an email announcing this as well. 

SUBODH DAS: OK. All right.

SHARON NOLEN: All right. I just want to thank everyone again. I think we can feel good about the report that we're putting out. And I think the other advantage is it has started to narrow in on some things that we need to include in the full report because, I think, we had some gaps in this one. We saw some places where we didn't fully define things. So I think it's been a very good exercise to really help accelerate our efforts for the full report. I'll call on you in a minute, Neal. But before I do, I just want to ask Jeff. Jeff's been really carrying a heavy load here. Jeff, do you have other comments you want to make?

JEFFREY RISSMAN: I just wanted to congratulate all of the Committee members on all of your hard work and putting together great recommendations. We included as much as we could while reflecting needs for brevity and focus. And we'll try to expand in the next report. But I feel good about this preliminary report we're coming out with. I think the process of doing it will mean that the next report, like Sharon said, is going to be a stronger, better report for it. And I just want to thank you all for everything you've done. I'm very appreciative of all of you.

SUBODH DAS: You've done a great job, Jeff, for all of you on behalf of us. 

BETSY DUTROW: Thank you, Jeff.

SUBODH DAS: You go.

COMAS HAYNES: Great job. Sharon and Jeff and Zach, thank you.

SHARON NOLEN: Thank you. And I'd also like to recognize―thank you, Betsy. I'd like to recognize the DOE staff, too. I think Jeff, or I'm sorry Zach, provided really valuable comments. Celina did, Caroline really has helped us a lot with pulling it together, so it's been very good. Neal overlooked you a minute ago, so did you have something else you want to add?

NEAL ELLIOTT: No. I just wanted to also acknowledge, Sharon, your leadership on this. I think it's a really important. The co-chairs here really put in a Herculean effort between the first of the year and where we are today. So thank you so much. I am very proud of what we've been able to accomplish.

SUBODH DAS: Yeah, I agree. 

SHARON NOLEN: Thank you so much.

SUBODH DAS: What's the next step? We meet again sometime later this year or…

NEAL ELLIOTT: Not so long.

SHARON NOLEN: So we have a meeting. I don't know the date. It's the last week of March, maybe I think.

ZACH PRITCHARD: It's April 1st and 2nd. 

SHARON NOLEN: Oh, OK. Thank you.

ZACH PRITCHARD: And that will be an in-person meeting here in Washington, D.C., at the lovely Forrestal building again, most likely.

SHARON NOLEN: I would say before that, though, Jeff and Zach and I do meet on a regular basis. So I think we probably need to put our heads together and think about next steps. And so I don't know exactly what that means right now, but I think you should expect to see more communications from us between now and the April meeting because I think this has given us some sort of a roadmap for where we need to go. I think we can highlight that and be moving forward. So look for communications between now and then about next steps.

NEAL ELLIOTT: Should we be thinking about reconvening our subcommittees to begin to build on this? 

SHARON NOLEN: That is part of what I'm thinking. I guess my thought is, maybe let the three of us meet and get back with some more direction before you do that. But at the same time, if somebody thinks, man, I really want to add something. I mean, go ahead and be working because we can pull that in. So that's my thought.

JEFFREY RISSMAN: Those categories of recommendations in this preliminary report reflect the main categories of our original outline, which matched our subcommittee designations. Except DOE work and gaps became overall strategy and budget matters and was moved to the front. Just highlighting that there was that thread of continuity between subcommittees and outline and what we…

[end audio]