Below is a transcription of Day 2 of the Industrial Technology Innovation Advisory Committee's First Meeting, which was held on March 22, 2024, by the U.S. Department of Energy. See Day 1.
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: OK. good morning, everybody. Before we get started, there will be a brief notice that the meeting is being recorded.
SPEAKER: The 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.
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: All right. Thank you. And a couple of housekeeping items before we get started: Consistent with Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements, this meeting is open to the public to stream online. The meeting recording, minutes, and transcript, along with all presentations and written material provided to the members will be posted to DOE's ITIAC web page. As described in the federal register notice, members of the public must register in advance to provide oral statements. Since we did not receive any requests to present an oral statement, the public comment period today will be removed from the agenda.
That said, you can still submit written comments to the committee by emailing itiac@ee.doe.gov with the subject line referencing the first committee meeting. I will mention again for folks in the room today, the room microphones are sensitive, so let's keep rustling and whispering to a minimum. And the other thing that will help with that is making sure to turn your microphone on when you're talking.
Please, if you remember, say your name before you start speaking because, unfortunately, the camera angle does not catch everyone on the committee. So, with that, I will hand it over to Sharon to get things started.
SHARON NOLEN: All right. Good morning, everyone. I'd like to welcome the committee members back, and in particular, I want to welcome Joe Powell, one of our committee members who was unable to join us yesterday. But he is on the line with us, so welcome, Joe. And then I'd like to say thank you to all the DOE presenters from yesterday. As everyone knows, we got a lot of information, and I think it was clear that DOE is doing good work and that DOE also appreciates the value of this committee. So, I think that was really good to hear.
So, I'm just going to have a few comments, a very brief summary of what we saw yesterday. It's very difficult to consolidate all of that into a few comments, but I just wanted to share a few high-level—a few comments, high-level summary from yesterday. So, we saw a lot of information about why decarbonization of industry is critical. It's roughly one-third of the country's emissions, so it's a big piece that cannot be ignored.
We got a really good overview of what the Department of Energy is doing in this space both within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office as well as other related offices. That is one thing I think that's really interesting about this committee. Even though our home office is EERE, we are expected to look at industry issues across DOE. And I think that's a really good thing.
I think we also saw positive calibration—collaboration—sorry—across the spectrum from early research and development through deployment. And then finally, accelerating adoption of new technologies, one of the, I guess, phrases that I thought was interesting yesterday is thinking about how we address technical risk and then project risk and, finally, market risk. We know that the solutions are very costly. We also know we don't have all the answers.
It was interesting to me the first time I'd really seen a number of what private industry might be expected to contribute. So, that was something like $700 billion–$1.1 trillion for eight industrial sectors. We know that DOE, one of their missions is to have a competitive industry within the U.S. And so, that's something that is going to take a lot of work to try to figure out how do we do this and keep industry competitive.
Another comment that stood out to me is that something like 60% of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions will come from technologies that are not net positive. So, you know, this is not something that's going to be easy for industry to adopt. There were a lot of good comments and questions in Mural. I don't know if everyone's had a chance to read all of those, but that will be summarized after this meeting, and so, you know, that those will not be lost. They'll be organized and provided in a different format later. Or you're certainly welcome to look at all the Murial comments anytime online as well.
So, another thing heard yesterday: Several people mentioned that we're at an inflection point. I think that's certainly true. If you look at CO2 emissions in the atmosphere, it's accelerating very quickly. We see a lot of evidence of the acceleration of climate change. We see that the government has taken the step of allocating more money than we've ever had in the past to address this problem.
And another comment that I thought was particularly thought provoking was: We need to put a few eggs in the right baskets. So, I think that's something that's going to require everyone's best judgment and insight to try to figure out, where do we concentrate our efforts because we know it's a big problem. We probably can't pursue every possible option. We need to figure out which ones are really worth further look.
So, that's my summary from yesterday.
For today, as I mentioned at the end of the day yesterday, this is when we really get started on the committee work. And so you heard yesterday that one of the things we're expected to do is provide a report to Congress. So, I hope by the end of today, we'll have a plan for how we're going to do that. I did have one question yesterday about what kind of assistance is available to help us, so I'm going to ask Zach if he'll address that question.
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: Yeah, absolutely. Thanks, Sharon. So, the committee has committee staff available to them. That's me as the designated federal officer. That is also many of the people who have helped make this meeting happen. So, we have federal employees who will help facilitate between you all and DOE as you have questions that you need answers to and want more information. We also have contractor support that will be available to the committee.
So, you will, yourselves, not have to write every single word, if that's something that you don't want to do. So, there is absolutely … There are resources available. And I would just suggest that it is up to the committee to ask for the things that they need.
SHARON NOLEN: Yeah. And in addition to that assistance, you know, this meeting yesterday was very prescribed where DOE we really took the initiative to show us all the things they thought they should show us. But in future meetings, it will be up to us to say, “What information do we need?” And so that's something else to think about. So, I think Zach's comment about that we need to ask for what we need, that can cover assistance, information, probably lots of things.
So, the plan for today is … Zach gave just a very quick summary of what our committee is all about yesterday. He's going to go in a little bit more detail. So, we'll have that presentation first thing. But then, after that, we'll open it up and really start planning. And so, Zach, I'll turn it over to you to do that. Oh, I'm sorry. One last thing: I did think raising the tent cards worked well yesterday. And we'll try that again, although it's a little bit difficult to see those on the back rows or behind the main table, so you may have to help us with that. OK. Thank you.
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: Wave them in the air.
[CHUCKLING]
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: All right. I will take over the screen share here. All right. So, thanks, Sharon. As mentioned, we're going to go into a little more depth in what Congress asked the committee to do when it was created. In the folders in front of you, there is material, the full unabridged text to support all of this.
And in my slides, there will be references to that text. But you'll have … So, maybe do this first, and then I'll go over what you have in your folder. Fundamentally, like Sharon said, the goal for today is to understand what the committee is working towards and how you're going to get there. So, in my slides, I have a summary of your duties, the DOE program that you're meant to offer feedback to, the unabridged list of technology focus areas for the committee, the request for you to develop a strategic plan, and the request for you to develop reports.
We also then in the afternoon have … Sorry, not in the afternoon. After this first section, we have a series of draft material that Sharon asked us to prepare that we can use as kind of strawman for feedback just depending on how the committee wants to proceed with figuring these questions out. There is a separate Murial board for today. So, really appreciate everybody's engagement with that yesterday. There were a lot of good comments there.
So, I believe we re-upped that email to you if you click on that link. Similar to yesterday, well, maybe more so than yesterday, there's a lot of structure to it. So, you can work within that structure if you find that useful. You can also just drop things wherever and we will find them and put them in the right place. So, I mentioned yesterday the legislation that led to creation of the committee. The key documents here to understand what the committee does is the committee charter.
So, this is in DOE, how we created the committee. And that is in your folder. The scope of the committee, as defined in the charter, mainly points to the legislation. So, those are going to be the key things that we're referencing over this slide deck. So, there are two sections of legislation here, 17-113 and 17-114. And like I said, there will be references on the slides that kind of point you to where you might want to look in there if you want to get the full unabridged context.
OK. So, at a high level, requirements that are set out for the committee are that you need, at least, two times a year at the call of the chair, those meetings. So, this is our first meeting. This counts as one for the year. Those meetings can be in person like today. They can be virtual meetings but essentially a majority of the meeting, a quorum—sorry—a majority of the committee. A quorum must meet together at least twice a year.
The purpose of the committee is set out in the legislation is to advise the secretary of energy on the industrial emissions reduction technology development program. And we will talk about exactly how that is defined in a second. With regard to that program, you're asked to propose missions and goals. You're asked to advise on technologies within focus areas. And again, we will talk about those focus areas in a minute.
And in particular for those technologies, you're asked to identify and evaluate technologies that are being developed in the private sector, to identify gaps in the private sector or other federal agencies and make recommendations to DOE to close those gaps, to survey and analyze barriers to adoption of those technologies, and to recommend technology screening criteria that can help encourage adoption of the technology by the private sector. So, as DOE thinks about what to focus on, how can we ensure—well—encourage that those technologies will be useful and adopted by the private sector?
All of these kind of technology—this technology-level analysis that you work on will be fed into a strategic plan for the program and will also go into reports on your findings and your evaluation of DOE's work in this space. So, to talk in a little more detail about the some of the things I just mentioned, what exactly is this industrial emissions reduction technology development program?
We are interpreting this as all of the things that we showed you yesterday, right? So, all of DOE's work in the industrial decarbonization space. So, the specific description, the legislation is a cross-cutting industrial emissions reduction technology development program of research development, demonstration, and commercial application to advance innovative technologies. So, just call attention to the full kind of spectrum of the innovation pipeline that's being mentioned there.
And for those technologies, in addition to the emissions reductions piece, there's an emphasis on technological and economic competitiveness of U.S. industry and manufacturing. And in particular, there's also a call out for viability of technology exports. I see that Sue has her card.
SUE: Yeah. Apologies for interrupting, but I just don't want to lose the thread on this. And again, apologies/ I'm going to go maybe a little bit down in the weeds. But this thing about developing a strategic plan … I guess it would help me to understand the difference between what we would do as a strategic plan versus what Avi's already doing for his strategic plan for IEDO. How do we balance that?
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: I am happy to have Avi's input on that question since he's here. But one thing I'll say: There is a later slide that describes what the strategic plan should include. In general, the committee is encouraged to use whatever existing resources are available. So, I think, for one thing, as a starting point, you can work with what DOE is already doing and recommend changes to that. There is also, I would say, I think, a lot of flexibility available to the committee to decide how to interpret these things and where to focus.
AVI SCHULTZ: Yeah. I would echo what Zach just said. I mean, I think also some of the complication here, right, is that the timing of all of this, obviously, the statutory language that was set up creating this committee was written before IEDO existed and was created within DOE. I would suggest—humbly suggest to you that if you are satisfied with the strategy that you're seeing from IEDO and DOE, you know, there's a role for the committee to indicate that and indicate that there's no need for you to replicate that work.
I obviously don't mean to suggest if you do see gaps in that strategy, please do. And if you feel that it would be valuable to have your own, you know, written strategy, I certainly don't want to discourage that in any way. But I think as Zach is saying, it's within your scope to decide what would be additive and worth the time of this committee.
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: The other thing that we will talk about ought to be—
SHARON NOLEN: Neal?
ZACH PRITCHARD: Oh, I'm—yeah—looking past that thing, but let me just quickly say before—
NEAL ELLIOTT: [INAUDIBLE]
ZACH PRITCHARD: The other thing that we will talk about as we scope out the work is that, I think, it's certainly is an option that the strategic plan doesn't have to be its own standalone, huge production but can be part of the report and evaluation and can essentially reference the other work that the committee has to do. Sorry. Go ahead, Neal.
NEAL ELLIOTT: So, maybe to give a little color, and I think I've had this conversation with Avi … I was involved with the congressional offices and staff that actually drafted the statutory language in the Energy Act. And maybe a couple of things in terms of congressional intent that may be useful to guide this committee: When the Energy Act was drafted in 2020, we were in a situation where we were concerned on the Hill that the industrial programs at DOE could potentially be under threat in a future adversarial administration. And the intent here was to be able to bridge between administrations so that if you had a hostile administration, they could not basically shut the programs down. And our Congress indicated that they needed some entity to confirm that the Department is doing what was within that congressional intent. So, I think that's a important framing here that it's not necessarily—and I think to Avi's comment—it's not necessarily where DOE and their work is today, but where it could be in the future.
So, we have an opportunity. And I view this, and I don't know how general council views this … The audience for this committee is not DOE alone. It is also the Congress, which actually passed the Energy Act and was signed into law. So, we have an opportunity to speak to Congress on whether directions at DOE are consistent with what in our best judgment represents the best interest of the U.S. So, I don't know if that's helpful for anybody but just gave you a little context.
I did want to make another comment unrelated to that, and that's as we think about this looking at the information yesterday, which was as somebody who's consumed this over the last whatever many years on a regular basis, I'm sure it's overwhelming to get it all at once. I would note there are a couple of things, a couple of activities at DOE that are not currently reflected in here that I think may have material impacts on the success of the efforts of DOE. One of those is the infrastructure issues associated, and we've already addressed the idea of electric adequacy for some of these issues, whether they're direct or through hydrogen on a secondary basis. The other, I think, it is also being cognizant of who are the consumers of the products that U.S. industry produces. And I know from some of the work we've been doing recently, for example, with BTO, General Services Administration, EPA, and others on products and market pull, I think those could be very important. So, just thinking in terms of DOE, thinking about what are the relationships this committee needs to be cognizant of activities in transportation as a consumer of products, of buildings as a consumer of products, and then various infrastructure offices, in particular Office of Electricity and the Grid Deployment Office.
As we attempt to address electric adequacy, one of the questions that, I think, is being discussed in the policy community now we're back to this is prioritization of things like electricity or hydrogen availability or batteries for that matter, how do you decide who gets those products? And that's a decision DOE needs to make, but it's a decision that it needs to inform Congress and the administration in making those decisions. Thank you.
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: Thanks, Neal. So, I think, just talking about some of those topics is a good transition to the specific technology focus areas that I've called out in our legislation. This is the high-level condensed version that I showed yesterday. But to put up the full text, which is your printed out material as well, just to reference this.
And as I go through, I think something to keep in mind is actually that when the Secretary appointed all of you to the committee, there was a real consideration that the committee reflected all of these focus areas. And so while it is a somewhat overwhelming list, the committee actually has the expertise to cover this whole space.
So, I will not read every word, but we'll just point out. So, there's a very long list focused on industrial production processes. And that includes calling out specific industries like we discussed yesterday, metals, cement, glass, pulp, and paper ceramics. There's a call out specifically for process heating and technologies to decarbonize process heat—call out the chemicals industry, and in particular sustainable chemistry. Smart manufacturing, digital manufacturing, data analytics, et cetera.
There is a call out for thinking about sustainability and minimizing negative environmental impacts in manufacturing. And this includes some circular economy aspects here, as well as energy efficiency. So, moving down to the other high-level areas, alternative materials that produce fewer emissions during production. So, life cycle emissions focus and specifically calling out building materials, lightweight materials, and critical materials, liquid and gaseous fuels, heavy-duty transportation, carbon capture. There is a bit of a blank check here that DOE can add to the list. We at this point have not added to the list of things that we're asking before. On one of the later slides, you'll see that you also are given—the committee is given the power to add and remove things from this list as well. And then finally, there's a call out for high-performance computing and modeling that cuts across all of those other areas that were just mentioned. So, how those can be used to advance technologies across that spectrum. I see Subodh has his hand up.
SUBODH DAS: Yeah. I had a question on these five key sectors that were selected and discussed, cement and concrete and iron and steel, food beverage, chemicals, and forest products. So, my question is that list pretty set in, quote unquote, "concrete" to reflect the realities of what's happening in American manufacturing industries, especially in the metal sector? So, they're two questions. First, can they be amended or changed or added? For example, year ago, you only had cement, and now we added cement, concrete, and asphalt to reflect the reality on the ground. And then you had chemicals, now added chemicals and fuel. So, I have similar thoughts reflected of what's happening metal industry, and I just wanted to know if there is a way to discuss that, or mandate, or add it, or supplement it to reflect what's happening in the U.S.?
ZACH PRITCHARD: So, the committee has authority to change this list however they see fit. And that is something that can be discussed later today as we talk about where the committee wants to focus their work.
SUBODH DAS: OK. Thank you.
ZACH PRITCHARD: So, to talk specifically about the strategic plan, one thing I will note is that there is actually not a time frame specified for when the committee needs to deliver this strategic plan unlike some of the other deliverables. Yeah, that's all I'll know there.
So, the purpose of the strategic plan to set forth the plan for achieving the goals of the program. So, we mentioned what those specific the Industrial Emissions Reduction Technology Program what the goals were of that program. And there are a few specific things that are called out to be included in the strategic plan.
So, near and long-term qualitative and quantitative objectives for all of those focus areas that we just talked about, I think, two obvious points. And the question earlier, this is something that we are absolutely doing with our current strategic plans and something that we prioritize in our determining technology priorities. Yeah. So, within that, research, development, demonstration, commercial, application objectives, time frames for achieving those objectives, the role of the federal government, investment by the federal government as compared to the private sector, public and private costs of achieving those objectives and the economic and employment impact on the U.S. There's a mention again of global cost-competitiveness. And also, like I mentioned earlier, the directive to leverage existing roadmaps. So, again, one of the important, I think, points we wanted to get across yesterday was not to absorb every single piece of information but to reassure you that you are not starting from nothing. There's already a lot of material out there.
CATHY CHOI: If I were to succinctly say what the goal of the program is, it's the 85% reduction by 2035.
ZACH PRITCHARD: So, that is specifically, I think, for—I don't know if you're referencing the thing you're looking at. That is for—
CATHY CHOI: The Earthshot.
ZACH PRITCHARD: —the Earthshot, specifically. I would—oh, this is going to be annoying.
CATHY CHOI: I think I would say Neal gave a very good context on purpose, but I just want to make sure I understand.
ZACH PRITCHARD: So, I would suggest that this is what the legislation has set out as the high-level goal of the program.
CATHY CHOI: This right here?
ZACH PRITCHARD: Yes.
CATHY CHOI: OK.
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: Three goals.
CATHY CHOI: OK.
NEAL ELLIOTT: If I can add to Cathy. Again, remember the legislation was written in a very specific time and in response to what were perceived as very specific concerns and issues at that time, which was deindustrialization of the U.S. economy, supply chain disruptions due to international trading issues, and economic dislocations that were occurring as a result of the manufacturing sector and the failure of supply chains.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Thanks. The other, I would say, primary deliverable from the committee is a report, and, in fact, a series of reports, although, they are spaced out over three years. So, the legislation, to Neal's point about this being written at a very specific time, has a deadline of the end of 2022 for this report. So, apologies to everyone. You have already blown that deadline.
But that was as a nature of the process of creating the committee that it took an extended period. So, I think a topic for discussion today will be the timeline for producing the report. After the first report is completed, the legislation asks that the committee produce a report every three years. And on the same general topic each time. The report goes first to the Secretary of Energy and then is delivered to Congress. So, two main areas that are the focus of the report advising on technologies. So, this is similar to a lot of the things that we already talked about around those technology focus areas. I'll, I guess, just point out the last bullet on this that says recommend changes to focus areas if necessary. So, this is your authorization and encouragement to think about if those are the right priorities for the committee.
And then the committee is also asked to evaluate DOE's work in those areas. So, the progress specifically with regard to the strategic plan is called out but also just general progress in R&D activities and against the goals that DOE has laid out.
So, yeah. That is the last slide of this overview material. So, we can pause here. I'll turn it back over to Sharon. I will maybe note, I think Joe and Avi and I are here to answer questions you have for us. But absolutely as we have already seen some, a lot of this is up to the committee to decide how you want to proceed. And so, I am happy to answer questions on what I understand to be the legal scope of what the committee can do. But beyond that, it's up to the committee to decide where they want to focus.
ERIC MASANET: Thanks, Zach. A quick question regarding the scope: So, there's a lot of focus on technologies. Clearly, that's right there in the committee title. I'm wondering about particularly demand reduction is something we discussed yesterday as being an important wedge that's probably not nearly fully tapped in the U.S. And that might ripple into things like building standards, design practices, knowledge sharing, and so forth. I'm guessing those are within the purview of the committee, if we decide. So, they're not necessarily technology oriented, but they're a lever that could lead to substantial reductions and maybe enabled by technologies but not technology deployment per se.
JEFFREY RISSMAN: Maybe Zach, I can quickly say something about that. I think that's an important point, Eric. And I'll say that in DOE, I think we have a fairly broad understanding of what we mean when we talk about technologies. And, I think, that has to do—excuse me—obviously, both with development of technologies, but implementation of technologies is when we talk about how DOE works and how we scope our programs implementation of technologies and analysis that we can provide to inform how technologies are implemented in a wide variety of markets is something we regularly consider, I would say, within scope of technology development in DOE.
SHARON NOLEN: All right. One more question. Betsy?
BETSY DUTROW: Betsy Dutrow. Thank you, Sharon. Given that Neal has given history and the fact that we have all of these new things like the Inflation Reduction Act and the things that it's brought on to the federal government's plate, there are a lot of things that … Subodh made the point [inaudible]. Well, there's reasons why that's in there now, and why it's popped up. So, I think we need to think broadly as a group about what all of those policies and changes are bringing, and we need to anticipate that and what we think about in this group.
AKSHAY SAHNI: This is Akshay Sahni. And thanks Sharon for a great overview. And to start the day one of the things you said in the morning was we need to find the right eggs for the right baskets. I'll rephrase that in this country with the policy support that we have, with the technology might that we have, we can do anything, but we can't do everything. So, we need to find those select few technologies that can have the economic impact and make us economically competitive as a country, and then that will actually make the world a better place as well because we can set those standards. So, as we look across technologies that ask for the Congress, if you look at it as not just technology improvement but making us more economically competitive. So, we need to have that lens as we go through the subcommittees and frame what we need to do going forward.
SHARON NOLEN: So, at this point, we have a couple of different things we could do, and I'd like to get some input from the committee. So, it was my intent to not start with a blank slate, possibly. And so I have worked with Zach and Joe, in particular, to develop a draft for what the report might look like. And so, I guess, I'd like to pause here and say, would you like to see the draft, or are there things you want to start before you see that?
BETSY DUTROW: You're talking about this outline?
SHARON NOLEN: Yes. OK. What's in your materials. OK. Sorry. Draft outline. I'm sorry, I should have said that. OK. Any objections to starting there? Akshay.
AKSHAY SAHNI: Well, it's not an objection. What does good look like for us after 2 years? I think it'll be good to get everyone's perspective of those who want to share that this draft report is good, but what is the vision of success for this illustrious group that we have here?
SHARON NOLEN: Jeff?
JEFFREY RISSMAN: Yeah, similar to Akshay's comment, I guess. So, I did look at the outline. And then within each section, let's just say chemicals. DOE has a lift-off report about technologies that can decarbonize chemicals. And we don't want to rewrite that report. It's a quality report. And similar for other sections. So, I guess, the question is: We saw this stuff yesterday about the different programs, and then there are specific projects within each program that will fund. So, what's useful here? Would it be to provide guidelines that help DOE with selecting which technologies in each program? Which chemicals technologies should be chosen as opposed to which other chemical technologies? Or we also saw the relative budgeting sizes of different offices and programs. Can we suggest reallocating between those? Let's scale up [INAUDIBLE] Office A and down Office B, or is that too high level?
SHARON NOLEN: Can you answer that Zach or Avi?
AVI: I mean, I think yes. I think it's up to you. That doesn't strike me as outside of the scope. It's up to you all if that's something you think would be useful for you to cover.
SHARON NOLEN: Eric?
ERIC MASANET: Eric Masanet. Just quickly to play on Akshay's suggestion, I think it would be very helpful. I would humbly suggest that as we go into this process, we think about a rubric. So, are we looking for maybe technologies that have X megatons of potential savings that could be deployed by a certain time frame where the U.S. is uniquely poised to accelerate its competitiveness that fill strategic gaps in existing programs. I think if we approach it that way, we think about what we want to achieve, then we can maybe—we'll be better equipped to decide on where to place our eggs, and it'll be very strategic in that way. And I think a lot of that is probably implied in the outline that's already there. But I think we could do a ourselves and the DOE and the nation a lot of good if we strategically think upfront about what kind of opportunities are we really searching for and how do we measure those so that our recommendations are very, very sharply focused.
SHARON NOLEN: I think that's a good comment. One other comment I'd make is when I've looked at the committee, and I think about we're going to prepare a report for Congress, what I don't want to happen is a report that we just send to Congress, and it just goes on a shelf somewhere and isn't used. So, I don't know if anyone has any insight about how to make it where it is more meaningful and where we see that it really gets attention. Sue?
SUE CLARK: Well, apologies for jumping in before some of my other colleagues, but I want to follow up on that point. So, first of all, my question is according to the charter that we see here, we report to the Secretary of Energy, but you keep talking about a report to Congress. So, can you guys help me understand it better?
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: Well, I will say strictly speaking, the legislation your report goes to the Secretary of Energy, and then the Secretary sends it to Congress. So, your report, as the committee approves it, will end up with Congress. There is a 60-day window in there where it is only with DOE before it goes to Congress.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. All right. that helps. Thank you. Anna?
ANNA FENDLEY: I was very last. Sorry. It's hard to. But I do want to build on your point and maybe something that Neal raised. I think that there's a real opportunity to try and consolidate some durable political coalitions around this agenda. And, I think, there's—I'm sure we'll get into the weeds on the different technologies. But, I think, alongside that if we can hold as an objective the idea that we can as a group identify like here are the 10 things, the eight things, the five things that are these mega opportunities. And even if we get 75% of them right, we can have this transformational impact and to really tell that story. I see it in your outline the imperative and opportunity for industrial decarbonization but that could mean like two paragraphs or a page or it could mean like a real focal point. And I think just that storytelling from the perspective of the political support for this agenda I think is a real opportunity for us.
SHARON NOLEN: Just before we get to more questions, I'd like to just comment on the draft agenda or draft outline. That really is parallel to the industrial decarbonization roadmap that DOE has developed. So, as we talked Joe and Zach and I we felt like there was a lot of good work that had gone into that. I think I, at least, saw some nods around the room when we talked about it. And so, that was part of the idea is to not reinvent the wheel but be able to just have a document that would be parallel to a document that was already developed. So, I don't know if you recognize that, but I just wanted to let everyone know that's what it is.
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: And I think I'll also just mention to a point that's been brought up a couple of times. It is deliberately high level enough that you can imagine how all of those items could be in here somewhere, but it doesn't call everything out specifically. So, that's for you all to figure out how to make that happen. And to Sasha's point, what should be two paragraphs and what should be two pages and what should be a chapter and so on.
SHARON NOLEN: So, Abigail?
ABIGAIL REGITSKY: Yeah, on the kind of comment again on where the report is going as a DOE document but then going to Congress. And I think I put this in the Murial yesterday as a question of how much we want to include that is more currently under DOE authority that DOE has the ability to change in order to improve on the things that we may find and get at the goals that we're looking for versus what DOE cannot do right now because of limitations that Congress would have to act on.
And I believe that it would make sense to include both those things in the report and be very clear when we're talking about one thing versus another. And I think having that piece on the things that would be helpful for Congress to give DOE the authority to do would be a good action call to Congress so that this doesn't just sit on the shelf.
But I don't know if others have thoughts on including both of those things or not. And I think funding is a key part of that as well, which, I mean, it sounds like from one of the slides you showed Zach funding was called out specifically.
And I think that doesn't necessarily mean just within the existing pots of money where do we shift but potentially saying, actually, there needs to be more money in this pot. And that's more of a Congress than a DOE kind of ask.
SHARON NOLEN: Makes a lot of sense to me, and I saw several nods and thumbs up around the room.
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: I believe Neal is probably [INAUDIBLE].
SHARON NOLEN: Neal. Sorry, it's very hard to—
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: Yeah, I'm trying to keep closer track.
SHARON NOLEN: Thank you. OK. Neal.
NEAL ELLIOTT: I want to follow up on Akshay's comment and concur with him. And it goes back to the comment about the number of eggs, or the number of baskets and the number of eggs. Into the point that Sasha and Abigail were just making earlier, I see there are two audiences here.
I see there's a audience within DOE, and then there is this congressional audience as well. So, I think there are two things that I would suggest in terms of the outcomes that Akshay was asking for. The first is what are the priorities? What does this committee think are the priorities? And that's an allocations question for DOE, where do you allocate finite effort?
The second, which is going explicitly to what Abigail said, is what are the statutory limitations that DOE currently faces in terms of being able to act in certain areas? And that can be framed without being advocacy in saying that. Let me give you a specific example is when we've been thinking about for many years is the idea of: Are there standards—as I think Jeff raised this yesterday—are there standards for industrial equipment or processes that could take place that DOE could enact? And, I think, our reading and our colleagues at Earthjustice reading this. And I think Office of General Counsel has also ruled on this that those are outside current statutory authority for DOE. Are they good things, potentially? Yes, they are good things. But that would be one of those places where in essence DOE would have to expand efforts beyond what the existing statutory authority and congressional intent guides them in.
So, those are the two things, prioritization of resources and where are the limitations, and where are the restrictions that limit DOE's ability to accomplish the goals set out in the visionary documents. Anna?
ANNA FENDLEY: It's OK. Thank you. This is a really good conversation, and I'm going to try to shape my remarks a little differently than I planned around these last few speakers. I think we're on a really good track here thinking about the report and the way we need to advise DOE and advise Congress. I wanted to make sure that I said I think it's important that we don't get bogged down in this technology versus that technology. And really, this is about how DOE is going to be able to or not be able to accomplish the goals set out. So, I mean, I think Neal just laid out two great buckets. The friendly amendment I would make is—or maybe more specific way of how DOE is not able to do this is what are the practices or policies within the various DOE programs that are working really well or are not working? I mean, we heard from so many different offices yesterday, and each one is a little different. And I know that they're talking to each other, but how much are they really talking to each other? And I think that there's some cross-pollination that may be important for us to take a look at.
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: I think we saw the Joe Powell might have raised his hand online. Joe, did you have a question?
JOE POWELL: Yes. I was wondering how much we are going to align with the industrial decarbonization roadmap, which had refining as one of the categories. So, in terms of ease of use, were we going to try to align with their five categories and lumping, or are we going to open it up to a different set of the industrial sectors?
SHARON NOLEN: I think what we've heard is we have a lot of latitude in how we choose to do that.
JOE POWELL: OK. So, that's still a discussion point. And is refining still in scope? Or when do we start to discuss the “what,” I guess? Or, we're on the “how,” I guess, now.
SHARON NOLEN: I'm sorry. I didn't understand the last part of what you said.
JOE POWELL: Yeah. Is petroleum refining in scope as well? Or, I guess, right now we're discussing how we're going about it, and then later, we'll decide the actual categories and the what.
SHARON NOLEN: Yes, I think that's correct. So, more general thoughts of how we're going to approach this, and then we will delve into specifics as well.
JOE POWELL: All righty. Thank you.
SHARON NOLEN: And I think there's no reason to think we could not include petroleum refining. OK. Let's see. Sue?
SUE CLARK: Yeah, thanks. I brought this up yesterday, and I'll just bring it up one more time. This problem is so big that I don't think DOE we can necessarily do it all by itself. And so there are these opportunities out of the Department of Commerce, for example, which really thinks about this in terms of economic development and how to enable industry to move forward. We did say yesterday that we wanted to keep the focus on DOE, and I agree with that. It's a big problem. But at the same time, just a gentle reminder that we might want to consider how we facilitate the whole of government and not just DOE.
SHARON NOLEN: Guess my reaction to that. Although, I'd be interested to hear what Zach and Avi have to say. But I don't know. Do we have the knowledge or the authority to look beyond DOE? That seems not that it's not something that would be useful, but is it within our scope?
AVI: I mean, I would say that the scope is to advise the Secretary of Energy. So, obviously, more of a focus that would imply on DOE activities and others. I think the extent to which DOE engages and interacts with other agencies, I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be in scope of this report. And while we, obviously, can send it up the agenda of this meeting, I don't see any reason why in future meetings we can't facilitate conversations with other agencies as well.
SHARON NOLEN: Thank you, Avi.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
JOE POWELL: Quick reaction.
SHARON NOLEN: Sorry.
JOE POWELL: It's OK. If you look at sort of the perspective of the roadmap, it is what does the country need to do to decarbonize the industrial sector? And certainly, we're leaning into technology and innovation, which is the purview of DOE. But this committee has that opportunity to make those recommendations and use the perspective of the goal. And I think to Akshay's comment, to where are we trying to get? And that is net zero by 2050. And with that driving force, what does the industrial sector look like? What do we need to get there? And the audience can then … We think in very big terms, big scale, big perspective of this report. It can provide that foundation that is not just limited to DOE. The country needs to do certain things to get there. Of course, there's a certain perspective that we start with. But giving that goal in mind of recommendations that come out of that can make a difference in the future in legislative language, in appropriations, in all types of things. So, I think that's keep the goal in mind to start with.
SHARON NOLEN: Thank you, Joe. Shridhar, I think had a comment.
SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: I don't know. I think my mic is not working. Thanks. So, in terms of these eggs in the basket, to me, it seems like the biggest unprecedented opportunity. And maybe risk is all these enormous opportunities you have in [inaudible] and LPO that we haven't had maybe for a long time before. And the risk of investing in the wrong thing there is enormous as opposed to a multitopic for or something like that. To me, it'll be really interesting to understand better how those decisions are made based on why are we selecting certain projects versus others. And also, how are we tracking the progress of those because those are one-time investments. We can't make those again. And as a taxpayer, I would be really keen to track how is that mapping on to the roadmap. Is it performing the way it should? It requires a certain level of scrutiny that I think is beyond any other project. So, to me, that's an important point.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Betsy?
BETSY DUTROW: I think we've touched on the edges of this, and I think this is just one thought that I bring from my perspective in working with industry. And industry says certain things, and it does other things. So, that, I think, is where Abigail and Joe and everyone else is gone that we need to figure out.
All this great research we can justify it, show them the best information, but what needs to happen beyond that to get this adopted is really what concerns me. So, I'm supportive of ideas in this report that get to those points, getting it adopted. There's no point in doing any of this if nobody's going to use it.
SPEAKER: Yes. [INAUDIBLE] I'm picking up on … I'm responding out of a couple of things. I am looking at the outline. And she's not the only one that said it, but I'm going to pick up on what Anna said about the cross-pollination feature. And I think one of the things that seems like to me that's a very ripe opportunity for us as a committee to process in this is to help to advise, if I can use that word rightly, the allocation and distribution of—I'm not even going to say resources. I'm going to say maybe intensity. And I say that because, again, we talked about leverage. That's another metaphor we've been using. And to me, I think there's … Even when I look at the outline, I see the different sectors. But I think we need to add to that—yes—address these different sectors independently. But look to see how they feed into one another, especially those propagating effects of technology development. I'll give you an example. Yesterday, we heard two shots—two of the shots: one Joe gave about the heat shot; another was on chemical and fuels. And when I listened to heat, I think I heard three areas. And one of them seemed like it could be very well fed into by what was being done in the chemical fuels shot, like alternative, clean fuels. And that was actually one of the three call outs for heat. So, I think we really have to be very deliberate and not to say again, it's not already being done. I know there's cross talk. But I think maybe with an objective set of eyes really as a committee try to look for opportunities where we can say, “OK. Where should we prioritize?” And, by the way, there is good redundancy. It's good to see some redundancy to a certain extent. But, of course, there can be bad redundancy as well. And so I think as we look at the different areas and we say that OK in this particular topic, actually, we might want to pay even. We might advise even more attention to be placed there because if you address this issue in this industrial sector, it could readily be adapted to address to other sectors that are having similar challenges. So, we look for those propagating effects. And based upon that, we still give each area an independent review. But we also try to give some counsel or make sure we're informed. Maybe we're not as informed as we should be about the level of crosstalk that's already happening. But I do think that these can't be independent silos that we just, in full parallel, assess and call out independent of each other. There's too much cross-pollination propagating effects that I think we miss out on if we don't look at it.
SHARON NOLEN: Thank you. Abigail?
ABIGAIL REGITSKY: Two things: First, just a reaction to Sridhar's comment, which I really like that idea of getting a better understanding of probably not just even like the big-dollar programs that are existing now but the IEDO ones that have been going for a while and just having an understanding of the existing industrial decarb roadmap, the pathways to commercial lift-off repot, first of all, how those two things fit together or not. This isn't something that I've taken a deep dive on. I don't know if it already has been done, but there are overlapping technologies, overlapping abatement potentials. Do they match? Do they not? Why not if not? But then also having if those are some of the roadmaps that exist now through DOE analysis, then how has the funding and projects actually map across both of those things, and is that one way where we could start identifying gaps? And then the second different point: Not to add scope creep to all of this, but I think one of the lines in the strategic plan includes making sure that these technologies are globally cost-competitive, including in developing economies. And so, not that I think we need to spend a whole bunch of words in the strategic plan or report on this, but I think it would make sense to add something that is not just U.S. focused and U.S.-centric, especially because the emissions in the industrial sector are expected to grow much more in other places. And I think part of the goal here is to be able to take the technologies that we're developing here domestically and leverage that to help the rest of the world decarbonize as well. And I just think having that part of the perspective will be important to have. And there's a lot of interest that's on the climate trade front politically as well, so I think there's a lot of salience there.
SHARON NOLEN: Akshay?
AKSHAY SAHNI: Akshay Sahni. I think Abigail stole some of my thunder, but the point that she made at the very end and some of the points that we heard from Sridhar, from Comas, from Neal, and back there, Subodh. And many if you point us towards that we want to see economic competitiveness of our industry in the U.S. in a decarbonized society. We want to maintain and grow our market share over the next 10, 15, 20 years where industries are going to look very, very different. So, I think the outline that you have here is spot on. I may suggest that there are many crosscutting things between the different sections here. We could potentially have another bullet, another subject line on how do we make the U.S. industry more economically competitive in a decarbonized world. So, that will be crosscutting across all of these initiatives. It captures, I think, a lot of the thoughts in terms of global cost competitiveness and how do we allocate resources. You want to allocate resources where you can make the industry more economically competitive. It's not about growing the pie, giving more money, more funds, but being really laser focused on where we can make our industry more economically competitive in a decarbonized society.
SHARON NOLEN: Cathy.
CATHY CHOI: Thank you. Cathy Choi. I personally thought I understood the level of abstraction from the report, and I keep going back and forth. So, I'm going to make a suggestion, and it doesn't follow this draft outline. Because I keep going back to—and let me preface this by saying the reason I went to the 85% by 2035 is because this is very technically technology oriented. But after reading and rereading, the slide that you had of what our committee's purpose is, is it possible to have the outline pretty much around research, development, demonstration, commercial application, how it impacts technology, economic competitiveness how it impacts industrial technology exports, and emissions reduction?
That seems to—if we frame the report outline around our purpose, then—I'll just pick an example what Abigail was saying, technology is a global. It may be organic because most companies are global. Or if it's not organic because a specific technology may not go global, we can say what that gap is. That's just purely as an example. If we structure it around essentially the bold that you have on here. That. So, that's just a suggestion for [INAUDIBLE].
SHARON NOLEN: OK. I think what we're going to do is kind of try to wrap up these general questions, and then we'll come back to your suggestion Cathy about how we're going to move forward. But let's go ahead. And Jeff has his tick card raised. Let's hear what he has to say. But it looks like maybe we're starting to slow down a little bit on comments.
JEFFREY RISSMAN: I liked Abigail's comment on ensuring the technology benefit is rolled out widely even beyond the U.S., which is important for addressing climate change and also American technological leadership if we're the ones creating the technology and licensing it globally instead of letting it be created elsewhere. So, then, I'm thinking about what is the intersection there with that goal and what and then DOE is doing. Because if you're a firm in some country you need two things. You need intellectual property and you need financing in order to create the technology there. And I don't think DOE would be financing firms elsewhere. So, it's about probably IP licensing. Would we want a section in the report on something like IP licensing having term—if a National Lab helps to develop technology, if it's developed with DOE funding, the companies have to license it on fair and reasonable terms to various entities. Something to help technology diffusion.
SHARON NOLEN: Sridhar?
SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: Thanks. I don't know if this is out of scope or not, so I'd love to know that. But the amount of workforce that we would be employing as a result of decarbonization. So, it seems to me more often than not there is a reduction. If you go from a blast furnace to equivalent amount of electric arc furnaces, there's going to be less people employed. If you go from, say, combustion vehicles to EVs, the same thing. So, do we need to address that in terms of what's the consequence on the workforce as you decarbonize, and you need to just grow it in order to keep up with that.
SHARON NOLEN: Arun.
ARUN MAJUMDAR: Yeah, can you hear me?
SHARON NOLEN: Yes.
ARUN MAJUMDAR: Great. First of all, I'm sorry I missed the latter part of the meeting yesterday. Great discussion this morning. I would just request that, I think, there was a comment made about how is DOE doing internally. And I think it would be worth for this committee to address that. There are lots of pockets of excellence within DOE. But whether they're coordinating or not is something that the Secretary might want to know that as well as the Congress. In this whole scheme of decarbonization and emissions reduction, DOE plays a role, but it's an enabling role. There's a lot of other people industry. And many of you are from the industry. And so the question one may ask is, is the DOE providing this convening role of not only funding enabling technology to enable the whole multiple sectors, but also providing some kind of convening to create the community and the ecosystem for the United States to be successful? And, I think, working back from what does success look like for the United States, working back to see what is the role of DOE? DOE doesn't play all the role. Is it catalyzing industrial innovation in the business sector? Is its money, the funding that it provides catalyzes private sector investment into this because it has helped de-risk something? I think it might be worth asking, “What is the role of DOE?” and whether it is doing its job and whether it's internally coordinating so that one plus one is greater than two within the DOE. So, I just offer those comments, which might be helpful both for the Secretary and Congress.
SHARON NOLEN: Thank you. Did you have a comment?
ANNA FENDLEY: Yeah. This is Anna for the transcript. It was just a really short and I think this is now reflected in—what is this thing called?—Murial. But I do think since our goal is about competitiveness, I mean, Sridhar made a really good point about workforce. I do think we need a part of the report that addresses social and economic issues that is just not reflected, at least, so far in the outline. But I know we're going to discuss that. So, that was the only thing added somewhere.
SHARON NOLEN: All right. any last comments? I'm going to suggest it might be good to take a break. So, let me see a show of hands whether you would have whether you have a 10-minute break, or I think Zach said, we can potentially take a 30-minute break and go downstairs and get coffee at Dunkin Donuts so 10 minute break is Dunkin donuts inside or outside inside the building Dunkin' Donuts. 30-minute break. Dunkin' Donuts.
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: 20.
SHARON NOLEN: 20.
CATHY CHOI: Split the difference.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. 20. All right. When we come back, we'll start talking about the report, how it's going to be organized, and how we're going to split into subcommittees to do that.
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: So, we will resume around 10:35. Thank you.
[BREAK]
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: All right. Thank you. We're back from break.
SHARON NOLEN: All right. I'm going to suggest that Zach pull up a couple of slides that we've looked at before. There's one purpose I believe. Can you share the slides?
ZACH PRITCHARD: Are you thinking of this one?
SHARON NOLEN: Yes.
ZACH PRITCHARD: OK. Oops. I'm not sharing my screen. That would help. OK.
SHARON NOLEN: So, I think we've had really good discussion before the break I want to thank everybody for being engaged and providing some really good thought provoking comments but I thought before we dive in again, maybe it's good now that we've had all that discussion just to go back and look at a couple of these slides.
So, here's are the on advice on technologies. And then the other slide—I'm trying to remember. So, can you go to the—sorry, thank you. Zach has—
ZACH PRITCHARD: I think there's—on the list Cathy was referring to.
SHARON NOLEN: Yeah, let's go to that slide. Thank you. OK. so before the break, Cathy made a suggestion that we might potentially structure the report with these categories. Just as a quick aside as we've looked at it, there may be overlap it seems like between technologies and emissions reduction. Although, I guess really the first one is more competitiveness. So, one thought that I'm opening up to suggestions here is we could take this as three major buckets, and then potentially take pieces of the draft outline that's in your packet and fold it into that if we want to respond in the report with these three major categories, or I'm open to other ideas for how we might structure this.
So, we have this as one proposal aligning with the decarbonization roadmap as another proposal, or there's some combination, or open to other ideas. So, let me ask for some feedback on that. Akshay?
AKSHAY SAHNI: Akshay Sahni. I think this—the elements here need to be incorporated in the final report, whether we incorporate your draft report here or parts of this in your draft report. One of those two would be viable. But also I'd like to add Anna had a point on the social impact. Even though it's not required here, I would suggest that along with economic competitiveness, we have a section on economic competitiveness and social impact.
SHARON NOLEN: I don't think either of those—unless I'm missing it—is called out in the draft outline that we provided, but those are good adds, I think.
AKSHAY SAHNI: Yes. Sorry. I'll check again. The economic competitiveness actually is in all of these. In the draft report, we call it out as a separate line item. It gives that additional focus, and then we add the social impact to it. It goes hand in hand.
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: One thing I'll just mention the way I'm understanding what you're saying is that so on this outline there are some subsections that are called out within the subsectors across Chapter 4 and 5 proposed here. There could be subsections for all of those that are economic competitiveness and social impacts.
AKSHAY SAHNI: Not quite. I'm saying that after 6, for example, or after 5, we have another section that is economic competitiveness and social impact. So, that will actually capture everything that we discuss in each of these from the economic perspective, as well as the social lens perspective. That's additional title.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Sasha, I think you [INAUDIBLE] next.
SASHA STASHWICK: Could you go back to the other slide that has the … So, I think that I'm aligned with the direction this recommendation is going, I think, from Cathy. I personally wouldn't want to see us just replicate the structure of a report that comes out of DOE. I think that we have a charge, an opportunity to do something different and complementary. So, I would like us to be focused on saying, if DOE can do these things enabled by Congress, here's what it would mean for climate, for competitiveness, for jobs and workforce, for non-CO2 pollution impacts, for cascading uptake of technologies and other economies and markets, and organize ourselves in that way. And then, additionally to say this could go even further if Congress could enable DOE to do the following things with additional—to Abigail's earlier point—with additional authorities or additional funding. I think that is the unique value-add that this group or this report could bring.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Neal?
NEAL ELLIOTT: [INAUDIBLE] come in and start picking up on what Sasha was just saying. I think the piece that we want to put somewhere in there is what are those—I don't want to call them factors for economic competitiveness. And those include workforce infrastructure integration, economic competitiveness, local community environmental impacts, and those kind of things. And so, maybe, as Akshay was saying, we talk about putting those contributing new section or contributing factors with infrastructure workforce criteria pollutant and local environmental impacts.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Sue?
SUE CLARK: Yeah. I want to echo something that Arun said before we broke. This is a real opportunity for us to advise the Secretary of Energy on how DOE across all of DOE is engaging in this. And you just look at the size of the investment when you take collectively things like the Energy Earthshots™ with everything going on in IEDO. We can't just assume that all this is going to be integrated together. And, I think, it behooves us to start to just dig into that, assess how DOE is doing, and then think about how we might be able to make suggestions to facilitate.
SHARON NOLEN: Eric?
ERIC MASANET: I just wanted to say … Eric Masanet. I just wanted to second, maybe third, the comments coming from Akshay and Neal in that I think at the meta level to me these categories can make sense. I think the challenge we have is unpacking these into discrete categories that are measurable like workforce, environmental justice, human health, energy community impacts, megaton savings domestically, gigaton savings globally. I think I'll just encourage us to think about how to unpack those soon because once we establish those dimensions, our job gets a bit easier. And they're all important things that we'll need to address, but I think they need to be more measurable and more discrete.
SHARON NOLEN: Sridhar?
SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: I just want to make a remark on point C that, I think, if you want to look at economic competitiveness, I don't think it's reasonable to decouple the power industry from the manufacturing industry. I mean, certainly, electrification and hydrogen is going to depend on the price and availability of power. And from the April meeting in Savannah, I'm sure that came up. But if you look at cases of success in Europe, it's largely been because of utilities working together with manufacturers to find common economic opportunities. You sell more electricity. You give more electricity availability. So, I think it would be unwise to completely decouple them. Our focus is on the manufacturing industries, but the scope to is pretty much dependent on the availability of power and not many people in industry necessarily believe that that's going to happen. So, it's just a point.
SHARON NOLEN: Thank you. Comas?
COMAS HAYNES: OK. Comas Haynes. I want to pick up since I understand this is an opportunity to frame the report, and we're given a chance to give a charge to the DOE about things that they could do. I want to pick up on something that I think Betsy stated. And that is about really getting a good feel for industrial receptivity or lack thereof. And I don't know if that's something DOE or anybody is already doing. But, of the cameras—and I'm not even saying this ingenuously—people want to put their best foot forward saying, they're all for it. They agree with climate change. And, I think, there's sincerity there, but when you really talk about truly adopting this, whatever way we can facilitate some candid, nonthreatening feedback from industry about what their real pain points are. Some would love to be the first adopter. Some can't at all see themselves being the first adopter. But if there's some kind of way that we could advise to really capture that in the best way possible, I think that goes a long way. Because, like Sasha said, we can do something differently here. And again, like I think Betsy and others have alluded to, we do want this to have effect as far as a real change. And, ultimately, it's got to be receptive to it, and we need to see what the bottlenecks or challenges are in that regard.
SHARON NOLEN: Thank you, Joe? On the line.
JOE POWELL: OK. online Joe. Yeah, we talked about adoption quite a bit at CERAWeek this week. And, yeah, a lot of these technologies are more expensive, and so it sort of becomes a policy and marketplace decision in terms of how to achieve the adoption. And so there are some certainly some interesting techno, economic, and policy issues that come into place about how do you really accommodate those and move forward.
But I think in terms of structure, understanding the time frame of what period of time we're making the recommendation on, and then going back to the industrial decarbonization roadmap, which was sort of a short term. It was a look at what are our emissions today, and how are we going to decarbonize them. But it didn't cover scope three, and it really didn't talk about what's happening in the future. And so rather than talk about petroleum refining and fuels, you can talk about future fuels, which can include hydrogen as a replacement for diesel and also the synthetic or e-fuels made from CO2 or biomass to replace aviation fuels and such. And that's just a huge footprint across this whole space. And in the future, that will be manufacturing. You have to make hydrogen unless we discover a lot of geologic hydrogen. And then similar for the synthetic fuels that will actually start to look like manufacturing going into the 2050s and such. So, question number one is: What is the scope of the scenario that we're looking at here? Are we going to full net zero in terms of what that looks like, or is it more of a shorter term outlook on what do you do about existing footprint, which the industrial decarbonization roadmap was around?
SHARON NOLEN: Abigail?
ABIGAIL REGITSKY: First, I just wanted to agree with suggestions from several folks on adding a section that covers more of some of the broader purpose pieces there and having that live on its own outside of the technology areas. And, I think, my initial reaction to this outline, which I think Zach you mentioned, there's also a question of these are all the things that maybe need to be in the report, but it's our decision of how many words we put in each section. So, I think 4 and 5 looks like a really big chunk when it's all written out in an outline because we need to cover all these sectors and crosscutting. But I think those are actually the areas where we do draw on the existing DOE reports and analysis the most. And it's more of our value-add as a committee is if there are gaps, then we say, look at this. This is a great start. Think about this. Or if we want to add focus areas and things, that's where we make those types of comments. But then these sections actually might be smaller text-wise in the actual report. And maybe even you put them together and the technology advice piece is like the overarching section than the sector specific than the crosscutting pieces. Small comment on crosscutting. I'm just potentially adding things there so that those also match up with what has been previously identified. So, some of that is in here like carbon capture. And now I see there's electrification of industrial heat in the Murial, but that's not currently in the crosscutting area. Efficiency doesn't show up there. So, one suggestion to just at what point we're going to think more about the specific subsections there? That there might be already an opportunity to match those up better rather than maybe what was congressionally directed. And then, I think the other place that probably is going to be maybe more of the meat of the report is the current section 6, which is, I think, what folks are getting at as well where we have the opportunity here again as like advising the Secretary as this report is going to Congress and having an outside from DOE perspective to both reinforce things that DOE is already doing that are good, that make sense. But then taking that deeper look at the coordination and where are there opportunities for improvement. So, I feel like section 6 and maybe the additional new section that talks more about competitiveness and workforce and social impacts, those may be are actually the meatier parts of the report.
SHARON NOLEN: All right. So,
SPEAKER: Eric.
SHARON NOLEN: Eric. Sorry.
ERIC MASANET: Eric Masanet. I'll try to be quick. In the spirit of Abigail's suggestions, I think it would make sense to have a discussion of barriers up front rather than discussing it in terms of subsector-specific barriers and crosscutting barriers. There are a lot of counting barriers to adopting technologies in industry. Financial barriers, knowledge barriers, technology transfer. I think framing-wise, it would make sense to lay those out as key challenges early on, and then just unpack what's specific to steel or cement as needed. The other thing that would be very useful, I think, is doing, at least, a quick historical—setting some historical context for how we got to where we are today. There's been a lot of innovation. There have been a lot of efficiency improvements. But we know we have a big challenge ahead. So, where have we been? Where do we need to go? And what are some of the key barriers? To me, that's a framing level discussion that should be come early in the report rather than get lost in the technology discussion. Just a suggestion.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. So, one possibility Zach just mentioned is if there are people interested—it's very hard to come to consensus on an issue like this—so one possibility would be to spend more of our time talking about what things need to be added compared to what we've seen and less time about exactly how it's structured. And maybe we can have a small subcommittee of several people who would go off and develop the outline of the report, but we would spend the time together in this big group talking about what needs to be included. I'm seeing lots of nods to that. Neal?
NEAL ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott. And thank you, everyone. Looking back on the peer review that was done nine months ago—and we ended up with a similar set of challenges—I would be less concerned about the outline, and I'd be more concerned about the topics. Because we actually tried to write to the outline, and then ended up putting together a small working group that basically move stuff around into an outline that created a narrative flow that made sense. So, I would just advise let's not get tied up on the outline. Let's focus on content.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Oh, sorry. Jeff.
JEFFREY RISSMAN: Yeah. I agree. The Murial board is good. I see lots of people have been adding to it including me. And so, for instance, I added electrification of industrial heat as one of the items, which was in line with one of the things we were asked to cover in … So, I guess, it's hard to talk through them all. Does it make sense to just rely more heavily on the Murial board to add lots of items?
SHARON NOLEN: It's certainly a possibility. I do think we've had consensus around several things, competitiveness, social justice. So, we have some consensus, but there may be others where it's just one or two people's opinion. I guess, I'm going to suggest, at this point, first, let's see would we have a few people who wanted to work with me and Zach like—of course, for you to be—well, I think you have to be included in this.
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: I do. I have to. Yeah.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. so you are included. There's two or three people. How many would like to work with us on developing the outline? Could I see a show of hands for that? Oh, quite a few. Can you make note of that. OK.
ZACH PRITCHARD: OK.
SHARON NOLEN: Zach, if you'll make note of that we can get a Zoom or Teams or whatever call together to address that. I think what I'd like to do next is we did have a proposal, and it's at the bottom of the list, for possible subcommittees. So, I'd like to have some discussion about your thoughts around the subcommittee division that we came up with. And I can already say there's probably something that's not there. We don't have competitiveness or social justice there unless it's captured in these other things. And there may be something on the Murial board. I haven't really been able to watch the Murial board very well. Are there other suggestions for subcommittees?
ZACH PRITCHARD: And I would maybe just add one consideration as to whether things fall under this or whether they should be a separate crosscutting is. So, subcommittee meetings are not required legally to be open to the public and can be more frequently than the full committee. Easily they could be virtual meetings. The only stipulation there is that any output from a subcommittee has to be then discussed in a full committee meeting that is open to the public. For that to be possible, it means that no subcommittee can have more than half of the committee members because that would then become a quorum for a full committee meeting. So, just something to keep in mind both as we develop these to not have a subcommittee topic that everybody wants to be on and also to not have a collection of subcommittees that one person feels like they have to join every single one. And I'm sorry, [INAUDIBLE]. You're pointing to the screen, and I don't know what … OK. I'm not sure.
SHARON NOLEN: Arun just asked about the time frames for the report, which I think is another thing we have to decide today.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Exactly. The report was due a year and a half ago is the bad news.
SHARON NOLEN: We're already late.
ZACH PRITCHARD: So, yes.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Let's go ahead and get the comments. And I don't know if you've been noticing, I'll start with Sue.
SUE CLARK: Yeah. Thanks. And so on the topic of possible subcommittees, I'll remind everybody that Joe had a comment on refining and where it fits or not. I don't know if it's implied that maybe it fits in chemicals or whatever, but I do feel like refining is something we have to touch on somewhere.
JOE POWELL: Yeah. And my recommendation is to call it fuels because refining is going to be replaced by hydrogen and synthetic fuels to a good degree. And that was a very important sector in the industrial decarbonization report, and it's still going to be a major CO2 footprint going forward. But again, it's going to change because you're going to be manufacturing hydrogen, and you're going to be manufacturing synthetic fuels, and then backing out in conventional diesel and gasoline.
SHARON NOLEN: Sorry. Back to your earlier comment Joe about is it today or is it future, I think one other thing we do keep in mind—and I think this supports what you were saying—is that if this report—and I'm not saying when we're going to have it—but I think very best case it would be a year from now, possibly longer.
JOE POWELL: Yeah, but my time frame was the time frame of the technology evolution that we're considering. And the U.S. industrial decarbonization roadmap deliberately had a pretty short vision frame. I believe it was around 10 years. Whereas industry is looking to decarbonize through 2050 and beyond.
And so the scope of the frame for which technologies are going to be important is relevant to deciding what the report content would be. Are we just talking about things that would be implemented within the next decade, or are we talking about getting to net zero for 2050 and beyond?
SHARON NOLEN: Yes, I did understand that. I'm just saying because of the length of time to write the report, get it to the Secretary, get it to Congress. We certainly, I don't really want to focus on just today because it's going to be in the future when the report is delivered. So, I think the further out we can look to me that makes a lot of sense.
JOE POWELL: All righty. Thank you.
SHARON NOLEN: Cathy.
CATHY CHOI: To answer or to provide a suggestion, potential subcommittees. And this may be under smart manufacturing. But overall, next generation controls and thermal management. They're a lot of times connected.
SHARON NOLEN: Sasha?
SASHA STASHWICK: Thanks. I guess I'm wondering why we wouldn't want to structure subcommittees based on the report outline. So, right now, the subcommittees are focused on industrial subsectors and then some of the crosscutting technologies. I guess my suggestion is why don't we have a subcommittee that is thinking about are these the right industrial subsectors, a subcommittee on crosscutting technological opportunities, a subcommittee to Eric's point on crosscutting barriers, and then subcommittees on some of these additional topics that we want to add like competitiveness, like jobs, and then gaps. So, we're basically from the outset structuring the committees to tackle the big pieces that we want to cover in the report. And there's maybe even a one-to-one match, plus some point people that are the overseeing the overall coherence of the report.
SHARON NOLEN: Akshay.
AKSHAY SAHNI: If you go last and your points are already covered … So, actually, I was going to suggest something similar to Sasha to align the committees with the frame of the report. I know that we're going to reframe how the report would look like. I think one has to be a little careful because many of these will overlap. So, for example, if you're doing a technology that overlaps with an industry, the industry committee could be talking about the same thing. So, there has to be coordination on what's in the purview of one committee versus another. And then we're adding some new committees as well economic competitiveness, so, the social impact. But I like Sasha's suggestion.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Anna?
ANNA FENDLEY: I'll just say me too. That was largely my comment.
[LAUGHTER]
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Abigail.
ABIGAIL REGITSKY: That was also largely my comment. But once, I guess, friendly amendment is in, folks, I think are interested and have the subject matter expertise, which is part of why they're on the committee on some of these specific technology areas.
Maybe you don't call it a subcommittee, but there's a meeting where people have the option to come and do whatever the iron steel metals portion is that then helps make the determination of where do we just reference the roadmap lift off report, and then where do we want to add … What pieces do we want to add about that specific sector or crosscutting technology? Because I feel people on the committee will want the opportunity to give that input, but I don't know that you'd have to make it a subcommittee in that it's like a thing that's going to have multiple meetings for each of these technology areas. And then maybe the standing subcommittee is the one that takes all of that after maybe just one meeting for each of the areas and starts to put that together into what would make sense as the report. And then the other standing subcommittees, as already mentioned, are more aligned with what we're going towards on the outline. And then in that case, I would certainly recommend adding the more current section 6, like the DOE approach piece, the evaluation as a standing subcommittee.
SPEAKER: We'll just add their subcommittee as a bit of maybe a term of art in the federal advisory committee universe. But if it helps to think of things as working groups that meet one or two times, then that is totally. Yeah.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Before we get to more comments, so, hold on just a second, Neal. I do think we're starting to get consensus around something. But I want to clarify what we're getting consensus around. So, I think what I heard Sasha say that—help me here, please—was several subcommittees. One on crosscutting, one on subsector, one on the additional topics that we've added such as social competitiveness, and then a fourth on gaps. Is that what I heard?
SASHA STASHWICK: Almost. I would say—I don't know, I don't have the [INAUDIBLE] on this, but I would say one on industrial subsectors. One on I think this is the point that Eric was trying to [INAUDIBLE]. There's crosscutting technologies, and there's crosscutting barriers. And I would separate those two and have those covered in separate sections. Some of these additional pieces that have been elevated around jobs and social impacts, global competitiveness, that may be one conversation that may be two separate conversations. I think Abigail just added this evaluation of DOE's—I'm sorry about that—evaluation of DOE's current remit and any gaps that this committee wants to identify. And then something to our earlier discussion around gaps in DOE's authorities that Congress might want to address for this agenda to be as powerful as it could be for the country. I think that's it. That was on my mind.
SHARON NOLEN: So, I've heard a couple of other people over here say you agreed with what Sasha said. Was there anything she missed, or anything you want to add to or contradict with that?
AKSHAY SAHNI: Akshay Sahni just for everyone. I think what Sasha says is good, but also she just said earlier that we need to be as granular as possible at the right level because if it's very high level, you can't action something. So, you could have these high-level sections but within those sections you need to be somewhat more pinpointed so that actions can be taken, whether it's for a certain technology, whether it's for an industry. So, I think that needs to be considered and factored in.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Abigail, I think you'd also said you agree. Anything we left out there?
ABIGAIL REGITSKY: Just maybe that the what DOE can improve upon and the additional authority DOE needs maybe that can be one committee because there's probably a lot of nuance there. So, I think general evaluation and other could probably just be one. But I think the rest I think I generally agree with what Sasha mentioned.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. All right. We'll go ahead and pick up some other comments, and then come back to that. So, Neal?
NEAL ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott. Two things. When we get the list, I want to make sure we include infrastructure in there, and that doesn't get lost. And this goes back to Joe's conversation about petroleum refining. I think there are several of us in that community that have been trying to think about how does petroleum fit into this. And Joe was talking about the liquid fuels part of this. I think the part that we think is perhaps more challenging and more, I think, something that this committee needs to weigh in on is the feedstock issue. And so I would suggest maybe, in a lot of cases, we actually look at trolling and refining as fully integrated within the organic chemical—the hydrocarbon industry. So, just think about it that way. But we can't not think about that issue.
SHARON NOLEN: Betsy.
BETSY DUTROW: Yeah, so one on the topics we kept looking in that direction, but one crosscutting one might be workforce—just to remind that. But then a comment or question actually for Zach: So, we generate a report. Is there some review process that this has to go through? And then how do we work that into our timeline?
ZACH PRITCHARD: Well, so, I mean, what is in the legislation is that the report will go to DOE for a 60-day period when DOE could develop a response to that report before it goes to Congress. That is my understanding of the extent of a formal review period.
BETSY DUTROW: That's not a review, right? That's just a comment period.
ZACH PRITCHARD: I don't know if Avi has anything to say or Neal was nodding aggressively, so maybe they have comments.
SPEAKER: No. I think that's right. And we can get more clarity from GC on this. And Zach may know. But my understanding is that there is no review above this committee on what you put in the report. This is your report to write, and DOE we will not edit it.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Yeah, that's my understanding.
ERIC MASANET: Eric Masanet. Yeah, I agree. I think with all the subcommittee suggestions so far. One thing I also want to put out there—it got a bit lost yesterday, but I think it's very important—is the upstream and downstream effects of industrial sector changes. So, this office—IEDO doing a lot of work looking at life cycle. So, for example, the materials that are produced can save energy elsewhere in the economy. Lightweight advanced steels can reduce the energy use irrespective of drivetrains and so forth. So, I think whether this is elevated to the level of the subcommittee or not, I think it's important to recognize in the report that the way the industrial sector evolves could have really strong benefits both upstream, less mining, that sort of thing, and downstream, new materials going off into buildings and cars and wherever else, leading to savings there. So, I think somehow we need to capture that. And it's just a suggestion I have maybe for a subcommittee is life cycle effects or roll that into some subcommittees charge.
SHARON NOLEN: So, we've had some help from someone capturing all this in Murial. So, I'm going to ask Zach to—oh, I'm sorry, we have one more hand up. So, Comas, go ahead, and then we'll come back.
COMAS HAYNES: OK. Comas Haynes. And I think this is important to consider just the practicalities. And I'm thinking about what Abigail mentioned. And that is as we plug into this understanding that, in fact, we may be our own final review stop in light of what was just shared. I think it will be important as far as how we assign our assignments when they're areas or essentially portions of the report that we initially own be it working groups or subcommittees. And then there might be some areas that we don't really quote unquote, "own" i.e. not a primary responsible people for it. But based upon our collective areas and backgrounds, we somewhat spot check. No one person will be woven all throughout the report. That shouldn't happen. But at the same time, I'll speak for self and maybe to two or a few areas that I initially co-owned with some others as far as working group subcommittee. But then there may be some other areas of the report that maybe I could spot check based upon my background. So, to me, that's two levels of assignment. And I think even as we're bringing this about as this gets hashed out, I think it's going to be important for us to understand, OK. what should Eric be a co-owner of? What's should Sasha be spot checking with, of course, their feedback, and that will help us to really get through this in a effective way.
SHARON NOLEN: I think that makes sense. I would also anticipate once the report is finished we would all have the opportunity to review and comment. Sridhar?
SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: Thanks. And just maybe a question whether this would be useful or not for Avi and Zach. But one thing I'm thinking of is do we administer 17 or so National Labs? And to me, they represent capability that you build for a long time and expertise and hardware and things like that.
If there are gaps within the country for, say, demonstration or long-term capabilities that we want to build up that don't go away after a couple of years and stuff that may happen at universities and other places, are there critical capabilities or networks that we should be thinking of forming for industrial decarbonization utilizing the 17 National Labs? Is that some recommendation that would be useful from DOE's point of view?
ZACH PRITCHARD: Yes was the short answer. Yeah.
SHARON NOLEN: All right. Anna?
ANNA FENDLEY: I'm glad that this committee proposal is up on the screen.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Sorry, I think, the microphone—
SHARON NOLEN: Didn't go on. Yeah, there we go.
ANNA FENDLEY: I'm glad this proposal is up on the screen. I'm feeling a little unsettled about where we're landing on 3 and 4. I'm not sure what global competitiveness means or whether that's meant to be an economic competitiveness. And, I guess, I'm interested in thinking about whether we could combine those or turn the social one into social and economic considerations. I think that it's a very big bucket, but I don't want to—and I think I think social issues or workforce issues get short shrift if they're not considered in the broader context of other economic considerations. That may be a place to also bring in some of the thoughts that Eric just raised on upstream, downstream infrastructure if that's not a separate group. But I do think those need to be together. So, this works for me, by the way, on the changes.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. We'll take one more question. But after that, what I'm going to propose—because I wrote down some things that are not on this list—so what I'm going to propose after Akshay speaks is that we take a 10-minute break, and Zach and I will sit here and look through the Murial board, look through my notes, update this list. And then when we come back, what I want everyone to do is to try to just like Anna was saying, or there's some that need to be combined, or there's some that are lower priority that we want to eliminate or, at least, not focus on initially. So, Akshay let's hear your comment, and then we'll have a 10-minute break.
AKSHAY SAHNI: So, like Anna, I think we should just delete global competitiveness, and we should be very explicit this is economic competitiveness of U.S. industry and social and workforce considerations. I think we should just rephrase and be very explicit.
SHARON NOLEN: Let me make note of that. All right. 10 minutes. So, come back. We'll just say—it's 11:20. Come back at 11:30.
ZACH PRITCHARD: All right. Thanks, everybody. We'll be back at 11:30. All right. Thanks. We are back.
SHARON NOLEN: All right. I'm going to ask Zach to share his screen. And what we try to do during this short break was just capture the things we had heard. And so what I want to do is just talk through this list as possible subcommittees. And, hopefully, my goal by the end of the time we have this morning is to agree on subcommittees as one of our deliverables. So, I would like to try to head there. All right. So, the first proposal or first section here on section subcommittee would be technologies, and that aligns with what is in Section 4 and 5 of the outline that you were provided earlier. And the orange box, I guess, has a question. And Selena, please speak up if you have any—if I'm not getting anything right here. But in the orange block we see the question, do we want to include just technologies in this section, which would then align with—no, I'm sorry. I'm just—so how do we want to handle the industrial subsectors and whether we want to include crosscutting technologies? Should that be two categories or one category? I think I'm saying that right.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Selena's on it.
SHARON NOLEN: OK.
ZACH PRITCHARD: The thing that I will put out there is a consideration is: First of all, if this is one subcommittee, would more than half of members want to be on it? And I suspect yes. If this was two subcommittees, would more than half of members want to be on either of those? So, if we had a subcommittee on industrial subsectors which we can define what those are, but there are some that are specifically called out in the legislation and on the outline as we talked about earlier. And a separate one on crosscutting areas that are on the outline that pen into those. Would those be areas that a majority of the committee would want to be on both of them, or do we need to break it down further?
SPEAKER: You could potentially also consider it from the perspective of a committee that just identifies the technologies that then have working groups that work on those specific technologies if that helps prevent a lot of people from wanting to be on these committees and have it be more of a guiding committee for short-term deciding working groups later, if that helps.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. So, I'm seeing nods around that. So, can we agree there'll be a committee on, I guess, industrial sectors? The standing committee will determine which industries are going to be included, and then working groups will be formed for the different industrial sectors. I'm just looking around at nods, but I'm expecting if you disagree to speak up. OK. All right.
Then I personally think we ought to make crosscutting technologies a separate subcommittee because yeah, OK. everybody agrees with that. Good. All right. We're getting somewhere. All right. so who is typing? Selina is that you? OK. So, which industries now needs to go under number one and upstream and downstream effects? I'm trying to think do all of those need to go under number one, all those bullets you have?
SELINA: Yeah.
SHARON NOLEN: OK.
ZACH PRITCHARD: It sounds like, I think, infrastructure is probably a crosscutting topic. Upstream and downstream effects I could see applying to different industries. So, we could go from that angle. Feedstock issues for fuels will depend on what subcommittee is handling fuels.
So, that could be seen as a crosscutting technology as an energy source. It could also fall under the, say, chemicals and refining sector and industrial specific working group. And Joe also has his hand up. So, Joe Powell.
SHARON NOLEN: Yeah, Joe.
JOE POWELL: Yeah. Sorry. Let me get off of mute here. I think it belongs up in technologies. And crosscutting would be more like AI impacts, infrastructure, but fuels is more under the technology space
SHARON NOLEN: I'm sorry. What were you saying Cathy?
SPEAKER: In my mind, some of the most important crosscutting stuff would be things for providing industrial heat like electrification, heating processes, which are used across many industries and similar things like energy efficiency, material efficiency, design for longevity and repairability, circular economy, all of those apply to products for many industries.
SHARON NOLEN: I mean, we're capturing those things, but it'll be up to the subcommittee to decide exactly what they want to include. OK. So, general agreement on number 1 and number 2. All right.
SPEAKER: You keep—
SHARON NOLEN: Sorry—
SPEAKER: Just a very minor amendment—
SHARON NOLEN: OK.
SPEAKER: —could be called crosscutting technologies and opportunities I think some are technologies, like thermal storage options. And then some are, I think, infrastructure. It's not a technology. It's more an opportunity. So, I think—
SHARON NOLEN: Good point.
SPEAKER: —it's things that can propel things forward in more than just one industrial subsector both technologies and other.
SHARON NOLEN: I would agree.
SPEAKER: Yeah. I second that. Fuels is to me crosscutting because everyone needs a fuel.
ZACH PRITCHARD: It's an issue of use of fuels versus production of fuels, so it could appear on both. Yeah.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Any other comments on 1 and 2? All right. We'll go on down to number 3, barriers. And I think we probably need some more clarification on what barriers we're talking about. So, barriers to adoption is one that I heard discussed earlier. What other things do we need to add to barriers?
SPEAKER: Interconnection. Access to clean power.
SHARON NOLEN: I'm just going to repeat, access to clean power. So, don't forget to use the microphones. Akshay?
AKSHAY SAHNI: Akshay Sahni. Yesterday, I asked Avi [INAUDIBLE] on the opportunities in this space. And one of those big barriers that appeared is—
ZACH PRITCHARD: Akshay, your mic turned itself off.
AKSHAY SAHNI: Sorry. Akshay Sahni. I'll repeat that. Yesterday when Avi was presenting, I asked what are some of the opportunities he sees? And there's a barrier between pilot to demonstration phase in terms of technology innovation how that is progressing. Hopefully, this committee will address that.
SHARON NOLEN: Barriers to the actual technology where applied R&D can help. Neal?
NEAL ELLIOTT: Neal Elliott, workforce.
SHARON NOLEN: We do have a separate workforce section. So, do we want to include it there or here.
NEAL ELLIOTT: I think the question of workforce versus workforce barriers is different. Example is TSMC is trying to stand up the chip fab in Arizona. They've delayed start by 18 to 24 months because of workforce adequacy. Talking to my friends at Intel, they're encountering the same problems.
In Ohio, I'm hearing from Hyundai-Kia that they're having same problems in Savannah. So, we just need adequacy of workforce to Sasha's comments.
SHARON NOLEN: I think Anna had a comment related to that.
ANNA FENDLEY: Yeah, I think maybe what you're getting at Neal is where it should live in the report. I do think it's worth having one workforce discussion in a subcommittee if that if that makes sense.
SHARON NOLEN: All right. So, Selena did you get that move workforce adequacy under number 4, please? All right. Cathy.
CATHY CHOI: Just to expound on actually pilot to demonstration to deployment because that's the scale part. Thank you.
SHARON NOLEN: Eric?
ERIC MASANET: Eric Masanet. Just two quick notes on resources. I think quick question for maybe Avi and Joe. There was a report that your office commissioned a few years ago looking into barriers to technology adoption. Isn't that right? So, unpacking a lot of the different barriers to maybe just to efficiency where we can learn from the taxonomy and the categories?
SPEAKER: I think that's correct if I recall what you may be speaking, though, there was I think a report to Congress on barriers to obtain for efficiency.
ERIC MASANET: Yeah, it was dedicated to civilians.
SPEAKER: That might have been five or six years ago. So, there are yes, some other resources, and we can pull together for this committee. But upcoming workshop. So, with respect to the roadmap extension analysis that we have underway we have announced this actually. So, there is a workshop that will be held May 14 and 15 on our follow-on to the roadmap work.
We're referring to it as this pathways to net zero and the need for industrial improvements where we're taking a very deep dive and getting feedback from stakeholders on barriers. And I highlighted this, but this work is also underway with respect to getting feedback through sectoral deep dives. So, yes, I think what this committee will also see is information, data, reactions from stakeholders across the board that we can share with this committee on things like that.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Wonderful. That all sounds great. The second thing I'd like to point out is this is an opportunity to utilize IAC data and Better Plants data and really comment on the agency's ability to understand the barriers and to gather data on them. Because for some of the programs, we get rejection codes for the IAC and so forth. So, anyway, just those are two resources that could really help this barrier subcommittee.
SHARON NOLEN: Joe, did you forget to put your hand down, or did you have another question?
JOE POWELL: No, on barriers I think the infrastructure and the permitting and then also the policy because a lot of these technologies require long-term policy and price supports relative to incumbent technologies. So, infrastructure overlaps with the crosscutting, but it's lack of it is certainly a barrier. And permitting is a real problem. And yeah, the policy support.
SHARON NOLEN: One other suggestion I'm going to make. I know we had people agree earlier to volunteer to participate in developing an outline. There are things like the barrier to technology where that might fit better in crosscutting technologies or at a minimum it needs to be defined so there's not overlap.
So, I'm going to suggest that we have this—we're not going to solve every problem today. So, if we have a general structure, and when that committee gets together to develop the outline, I'm going to ask them to also put some more verbiage around these to make sure we don't have overlap between the subcommittees. But I think we don't need to take time to do that with the full group. OK. with that, Comas?
COMAS HAYNES: I think Abigail [INAUDIBLE]
ABIGAIL REGITSKY: Abigail. My first comment was related to what you just said Sharon. So, I think that's good to be able to do some of that finessing later. And then building off I think what Joe mentioned, and maybe this fits under policy support but more on demand side of the market for the cleaner products, whether that policy or private sector uptake as well. I put long-term off take of clean goods under that bucket.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Is that something that should be discussed in the context of economic competitiveness? Should it be discussed as a barrier?
ABIGAIL REGITSKY: I guess the way I'm thinking about it as a barrier is that it's become a financing barrier for a commercial facility that doesn't exist. But it probably also has relevance on the general economics.
SHARON NOLEN: So, [INAUDIBLE], if you would just go ahead and duplicate that under economic competitiveness. And that's one we'll decide where it fits best. All right. any last comments?
SPEAKER: Yes mine is just kind of a catch-all because, I think, this is the part where we're coming closest to again, what resonated with me again with what Betsy stated and others have reached to about really knowing what the challenges with industry. So, I'm kind of actually just wanting to double check before we move on.
It seems like we have a pretty robust list here is do we think it's capturing and teasing out those insights that need to be understood or gathered regarding industry having challenges or barriers with regard to the technology. I wanted to almost double check because once we move on, I think we've kind of moved past the part that resonated with me in that regard.
SHARON NOLEN: One suggestion I make—and I know I told everyone I've been in Better Plans for a long time. And, of course, Betsy has similar contacts to Energy Star. But we do have access to a lot of industrial companies through those programs. Or speaking for Better Plans, we had technical account managers at Oak Ridge National Lab, for example, who work with lots of different companies.
So, I think there's opportunity to tap into that more than just the limited expertise on this committee. I think that's something we should think about. All right. do we have—Neal, sorry. Did you have? Neal, no? OK. one last comment, Jeff, and then we're going to move on.
JEFFREY RISSMAN: I guess, while we're on barriers is the higher cost of electricity per unit energy versus some fossil fuels. I think that can be an important barrier especially for heating. Maybe that's a barrier to adoption. It overlaps with the first bullet but worth noting.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. one thing I have not asked so far, but I think we have agreement the first three we've talked about everybody agrees we should have those subcommittees. Any objections to that? OK. just wanted to ask that before we went on.
OK. I know we've had a lot of talk about workforce and social considerations, so I'm sure that needs to be one. Are there any additional bullets we want to put there just to help us understand a little better about what's going to be included? OK. we'll just leave it as is. OK. then we have—
JOE POWELL: Usually we had training.
SHARON NOLEN: That's a good point. Yeah.
SUE CLARK: For number 4, I think the affirmative case for the opportunities around jobs and also addressing non-CO2 pollution. So, health benefits or local pollution.
SHARON NOLEN: Cathy? No. OK. OK. And I'm a little confused. [? Selina, ?] are you saying—oh, no, you're moving that. OK. thank you. I was about to ask about what that meant? OK. so economic competitiveness this is also one I don't think I need to ask. It seemed like there was a lot of support for this. So, we have a few bullets there. Other things people want to add just to better define this or any comments. Neal?
NEAL ELLIOTT: I think something on international trade exposed provenance tracking. I know this is [INAUDIBLE].
SHARON NOLEN: Yeah what about offshoring job. Is that the same thing is what you're saying? OK.
SPEAKER: It's basically they would separate the two sides.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Anna?
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: Turn your mic on.
ANNA FENDLEY: I'll turn it on for me.
[LAUGHTER]
ANNA FENDLEY: I just wondered if this is the subcommittee to discuss the part of our mandate about industrial technology exports?
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: Mm-hmm.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Cathy?
CATHY CHOI: Potentially alignment between global governments and entities such that our U.S. competitiveness could be improved such that we can drive scale.
SHARON NOLEN: Did you say global?
ZACH PRITCHARD: Governance.
SHARON NOLEN: Governance? Sorry. I was trying to hear what that word meant. OK.
[LAUGHTER]
CATHY CHOI: So, I don't know exactly how to say it, but if we are alone in terms of infrastructure and things like that, it's hard to adopt outside and that drives scale. So, it could be governments. It could be standards. I know [INAUDIBLE] might be going outside our remit, but it's that kind of alignment.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. All right. Anything else? All right. DOE's current work assessment and gaps analysis. Any—
ZACH PRITCHARD: I think Joe Powell has his hand up.
SHARON NOLEN: Joe. Go ahead, Joe.
JOE POWELL: Yeah, supply chain resilience is another item under the competitiveness.
SHARON NOLEN: Good one. Thank you.
ZACH PRITCHARD: And for these last two maybe let me—or, at least, for number 6 let me pose the question, is this something that—so in my head I understand why this would be a section of the report, but should it be a subcommittee that is separate from, for example, the technology assessments?
NEAL ELLIOTT: Yes.
ZACH PRITCHARD: I heard an [INAUDIBLE] yes from Neal. I don't know why.
SHARON NOLEN: I'm seeing lots of cards going out. So, I don't know who was first. Sue, I'll call on you.
SUE CLARK: Well, I mean, following up on your comment, Zach is this where we would be looking at the point that Arun brought up around looking at DOE's effectiveness in all this. Is this what we're talking about? It's just the wording is a little odd. OK.
SHARON NOLEN: So, are you advocating that it does need a subcommittee or no?
SUE CLARK: I think [INAUDIBLE] could use a subcommittee. But yeah.
SHARON NOLEN: I'm just wondering. OK. Abigail?
ABIGAIL REGITSKY: Yeah, agree that I think this should be a subcommittee. And I think the previous bracket that was maybe combining the 6 and 7 as one. Because, I think, the more technology gaps that might be surfaced in the first two subcommittees could certainly go into this kind of piece of the report.
But I think there are probably broader things like the coordination or just like—and maybe this gets more at 7, but—what are the authorities that go beyond technologies but just like how DOE is able to support this effort broadly, the FOA process, like some of those types of details that may be internal barriers that touch probably more than just the industrial space in the Department. But that's kind of where I see some of this conversation going is not just technology or sector specific but really getting to how DOE is able to get the work done. And then again, maybe that's a distinction of some coordination that could be happening better that is more of an internal DOE recommendation where we can look at that versus where the areas that DOE does not have the authority to do some of the things that would be helpful, which is why I think just having that conversation in one subcommittee might make sense.
SHARON NOLEN: And I'm sorry just to make sure I understood what you were saying, were you saying 6 and 7 to be one subcommittee?
ABIGAIL REGITSKY: Yes, that's my suggestion.
SHARON NOLEN: OK just clarifying OK. Eric.
ERIC MASANET: Eric Masanet. I would support combining 6 and 7. I just think that I give my strong recommendation for having a separate section because this is the one that will synthesize everything from the other working subcommittees. I do want to point out a finer flag for item 6.
We've had a lot of conversations about the data that are being generated in the various programs, the modeling tools. And it feels to me that there's a lot of great work happening, but it's very fragmented. So, I think just understanding the DOE's access to data and its analytical capabilities across the various offices and how all of that is brought to bear on shining a light on where to invest in programs, which technologies to support, I think that needs to be a separate activity under 6.
It's part of the part of the ecosystem, but it's one that my side conversations have indicated there's probably a need for maybe greater coordination or, at least, shining a light on the importance of data and analysis on integrating everything.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Comas. No, I'm sorry. Anna? I'm looking at [INAUDIBLE].
ANNA FENDLEY: Yeah. I agree with the last two speakers and maybe want to make a more formal proposal for the mandate of this combined subcommittee. Because I think this really is the meat of what we as a committee need to talk about. We heard so many presentations yesterday. Eric just outlined some information that would be good to know more information.
So, I mean, perhaps the mandate for the subcommittee can really be doing that information collection and figuring out some key questions and basically teeing up a conversation our next conversation for the fuller committee on these issues by doing the work of getting the information together.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Comas.
COMAS HAYNES: OK. so from a paradigm standpoint—and this is genuinely open-ended question. I want to know if it goes out of bounds. But when we talk about the gaps analysis and technology gaps analysis and even other areas, I find myself wondering are we to view this as a—may not be the best way to say it—a U.S. exclusive scenario?
In other words, globally, there are all kinds of technologies that are being developed and vetted and things like that are clean tech and are being proven. But are we to consider that when we look at the gaps, or are we to—and I know, ultimately, it's about how we invest in the United States. But I think I saw Neal nodding his head. I think there's an aspect of understanding what's going on the global scene, which is, of course, outside the program. And so how do we treat that?
NEAL ELLIOTT: I don't know if Avi wants to come in on that.
AVI: Yeah, sorry, I was just trying to look back in the language. I mean, without looking at the specific language for this committee, I would say that we think about that on a few different levels. One is that in terms of certainly the climate goals for the U.S., I think there is a wide recognition in the U.S. government that the U.S. can't solve this problem alone.
And so the extent to which we can use U.S. government mechanisms to influence the rest of the world to achieve global climate goals I think is an important mission of any of these mission goals we're talking about.
I think in terms of industrial technologies, particularly to the points about competitiveness, I think looking at areas where we can strengthen U.S. industry for export markets or leverage the strength of our IP in international markets is absolutely within the scope of what we think about.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Joe.
JOE POWELL: I'm sorry that was unplanned hand there. Sorry.
SHARON NOLEN: Oh, no problem. OK. Sasha sorry.
SASHA STASHWICK: Just very quickly, what I'm thinking about 6 and 7 or the combined 6 and 7 work to me, this is where the actionable agenda comes in. It's almost like the recommendations section of the report so that somebody in Congress or whoever's reading it could take this and actually move it forward as an agenda. So, I just want to capture that somewhere and a few folks have mentioned this, but the work of whatever subcommittee and, ultimately, all of us in writing that section, I think, is to come up with actionable items.
SHARON NOLEN: Just to build on that, I don't think we had it. Well, I don't know, maybe it wasn't there. Yeah, there's an executive summary. I think we should be very thoughtful about how we do an executive summary too because we know some people will read just that. So, we need to make sure we get that in. OK. any last comments on the subcommittees? Akshay.
AKSHAY SAHNI: Thank you. I think combining 6 and 7 looks good. There's a lot of good discussion on this. I have a slightly different view on the first bullet DOE's effectiveness. I see this committee more as a enabler for DOE than testing DOE's effectiveness.
So, how do we enable to support the conversation that we are going to have and the recommendations that we will make? So, I don't know if everyone believes that word effectiveness is a good word there or it's more like a DOE enablement to achieve the goals that we all have, the common goals that we have?
SHARON NOLEN: I think that's a good point. We'll just leave them both in for now, but I appreciate that point. All right. let's just do a quick recap of where—what else we need to do because we're now a little bit less than an hour away from our end time. So, I would like to talk about, first of all, I think we've got agreement on six subcommittees, which I think is really good for today. So, I'm proud of us for getting that far.
I would like to just quickly ask—so give a minute to think about who might like to lead these subcommittees. And then before we end, I think Selena is going to put together a voting poll for us about who wants to be on which subcommittee. Correct?
SELENA: We can do it that way, or we can just do by hands. Whichever is easiest.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Yeah.
SHARON NOLEN: OK.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Just raise hands.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. I'm just thinking about time because we have a few more things to get through. So, let's just ask for leaders, and then let's talk about the timing of the report. And we did want to have a picture.
I think we have at least one person needs to leave a little bit early. So, I'd like at 12:15 let's make our picture. What do you think? OK. so let's just have a raise of hands for who would be willing to lead the subcommittees. And we'll start with the number 1, industrial sector. Don't raise them all at once.
ZACH PRITCHARD: So, we see Subodh's hand.
SHARON NOLEN: Very good. Thank you. OK. crosscutting technologies and opportunities.
ZACH PRITCHARD: I see Eric's hand.
SHARON NOLEN: Barriers. Cathy.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Cathy's hand.
SHARON NOLEN: Workforce and social considerations. I think you're the natural leader Anna. Thank you.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Anna.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. economic competitiveness. Akshay. Thank you for everyone volunteering so quickly. OK. and then the last one, current work assessment, gaps analysis. OK.
ZACH PRITCHARD: I think we can—
SHARON NOLEN: Jeff and Sasha, do you want to team up on that one. I think that's fine.
JEFFREY RISSMAN: That works for me.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. sounds good. All right. excellent. Let's go ahead and talk about timing and see if we can get that done. Then make the picture, and then we'll come back and divide into subcommittees.
ZACH PRITCHARD: So, I would maybe suggest we ask folks what subcommittees they want to join before we move on from this just because nine is the magic number here. So, if any of these subcommittees have more than nine people, it is not a subcommittee. So, that would be helpful to know if we want to stick with these, or if we need to break things down more. Or if people say, wow, I want to join all of these, and I don't have time to do that. Does that make sense?
SHARON NOLEN: OK. we'll just ask for a raise of hands, again. I will ask Zach for clarification for me. Is it good for me to be on specific subcommittees or attend various meetings and try to keep a hand in all of them?
ZACH PRITCHARD: I don't think there is any official guidance on that. You are definitely allowed to join subcommittees, but for the purposes of a quorum of members, you still count towards that.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. All right. For the industrial sectors—and remember, this is the committee just to decide which industrial sectors are included, and then we're going to have people work on specific industrial sectors. So, who would like to be on the committee just to decide which ones? OK. I see Betsy. I think you're already chairing, so you're on it. OK.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
ZACH PRITCHARD: OK.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Eric.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Joe Powell.
SHARON NOLEN: And Joe Powell. Thank you.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Yeah, we'll just say I think we can have people join in the future also, but this is just starting group to make sure that there's no subcommittee that's overwhelmed.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. crosscutting technologies and opportunities.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Neal, I see. Jeff. Comas. And Sridhar. And Sharon.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. Barriers.
[LAUGHTER]
ZACH PRITCHARD: I see Sasha, Betsy,
SHARON NOLEN: Abigail.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Sue. Abigail. Eric.
SHARON NOLEN: Neal. I'm just realizing thank you for capturing all the names. So, if you got missed, please speak up. OK workforce. Sorry.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Sorry, I was saying or they can type their own name in there.
SHARON NOLEN: Oh, good. Workforce and social considerations.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Comas.
SHARON NOLEN: Abigail.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Sridhar.
SHARON NOLEN: Sue.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Sue.
SHARON NOLEN: All right. economic competitiveness. Anna, Neal,
ZACH PRITCHARD: Subodh. Abigail.
SHARON NOLEN: Abigail. OK. And DOE's current work assessment and gaps analysis, gaps and authority. Anna, Sue, Cathy, Eric, Comas.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Sridhar. Abigail. Sridhar.
SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: Yeah.
SHARON NOLEN: How many is that?
ZACH PRITCHARD: 3, 4, 6. Yeah.
SHARON NOLEN: Do we get everyone?
SPEAKER: Well, it's 6 plus us, right?
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
ZACH PRITCHARD: Plus 2 so that's 8. So, we're at—yeah.
SHARON NOLEN: OK.
SPEAKER: You can have nine or that is too many.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Nine is too many. Nine is more than half. Yeah.
SHARON NOLEN: OK.
SPEAKER: Sorry, [INAUDIBLE].
ZACH PRITCHARD: So, it does already have nine. OK. And one thing—yeah, one thing that I would wonder about here. So, with the description of this as being the group that is sewing everything up together, makes it feel like a very important one to be on right.
But I'm wondering if we can delay that aspect of that group's work and focus more on the pieces that don't overlap with the other subcommittees for right now and let the other subcommittees write their own recommendations and then—I don't know. I guess, I think, it makes sense that somebody has to write the recommendations. But, I think, the full committee probably would want to discuss those before they're adopted.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
ZACH PRITCHARD: Yeah.
SPEAKER: For this one.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Depends on how often you want to meet.
SHARON NOLEN: Yeah.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Yes.
SHARON NOLEN: Yeah, I'm in favor of having a subcommittee to do some of the work rather than all of this being the whole committee. Anna?
ANNA FENDLEY: I was just going to say you can take my name off if that helps as long as we have the opportunity to discuss this in the full committee. That's really the important piece there.
ZACH PRITCHARD: And, yes so to be clear, all the work done by all of the subcommittees whatever the outputs of those subcommittees are does have to be presented to the full committee discussed and approved by the full committee.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. so does that get us down to eight?
ZACH PRITCHARD: It does.
SHARON NOLEN: OK Everybody feel OK about that? All right. I think that's great. Do we stop and do the picture, or what do you think?
ZACHARY PRITCHARD: I'll leave it to you, I guess. Somebody has to leave early?
SHARON NOLEN: Sue has to leave at 12:30. Let's go ahead and do it because we really want Sue in the picture. So, we'll say 10 minutes to get the picture. We'll come back and talk about the timing.
ZACH PRITCHARD: OK. Yeah, so we will resume at 12:25. A couple minutes early. All right. we're back. And I'll just note before we resume that Sue and Subodh both have left us for the day. But we just have, I think, a couple more items to discuss before the rest of the group wraps up.
SHARON NOLEN: Yes, so we do have a draft timeline. So, Zach, if you'll share that and just get comments on that. So, it is somewhat I guess up to us as to our schedule. This is just what we had thought might work. So, here's our first meeting in March, and then we thought give six months for subcommittee report outs. So, that would be another in-person meeting correct in September.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Or it could be virtual.
SHARON NOLEN: It could be virtual. Tentatively, we were talking about meeting in person twice a year, and then on the three months between meeting virtually. So, this would give us on a 18-month schedule to have the full report done. And then, I guess, after two years, it would go into the next phase as well.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Yeah, so after you finish the report, there's a three-year period before the next one is due. So, the committee decide what they want to do in that time. Other than that, you do have to meet, still, twice a year.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. and it had been my understanding from previous conversations with DOE there may be other things that you want our input on. So, our job is not just to report, correct?
ZACH PRITCHARD: Your job is to advise the Secretary on those issues, and the report is one task that you're assigned.
SHARON NOLEN: Yeah, so there could be other things that come up. So, this is not set in stone. This is just a proposal. So, thoughts on frequency of meetings? What do you think? Neal?
NEAL ELLIOTT: Fine. I think I would encourage Zach and his team to start scheduling now for all of these because I think this group is going to be hard to schedule.
SHARON NOLEN: Jeff?
JEFFREY RISSMAN: Can I ask a question first. So, I think I recall in the initial appointment letter that it was for an initial two-year period we were appointed. My memory was two. And so how does that interact with this? I see it says next phase. Is it likely we get reappointed, or do you know anything about this process, how long we would likely serve?
ZACH PRITCHARD: So, committee members can be reappointed. One thing that we will probably want to take into consideration when we reach that mark is to start staggering appointment of new members so that the whole committee never completely changes over all at once.
So, I think I wouldn't say there's a clear this is what we're going to do in two years at this point. But I think there will be members who are renewed. And some people whether they're they feel like they're done with their time here or by whatever other reason, we might want to bring in some new members at that point as well.
SHARON NOLEN: And it's certainly possible even during the two-year period, young people could change jobs or for whatever reason decide not to be a part of it anymore.
ZACH PRITCHARD: And this has happened between initial identification of members and now the intention is for the committee to have a full 20 members, which is I believe the maximum that is allowed in the statute. We have 17 right now. So, yeah.
JEFFREY RISSMAN: Got it. So, people, of course, can resign at any time. But then if there's still too many, is it the Secretary who determines who will be pushed off at the end of two years if there aren't enough voluntary resignations?
ZACH PRITCHARD: The Secretary yes, appoints members approves and appoints.
JEFFREY RISSMAN: Got it. Thank you.
SHARON NOLEN: So, that was one thing I didn't know. I knew my term was two years, but everyone's term was set to be two years initially. OK. I wasn't sure if some people had three and some people had two. OK. Betsy.
BETSY DUTROW: It's good to know we're not permanent. If we had—
ZACH PRITCHARD: One person who unfortunately is obligated to be here is Arun Majumdar who by statute as the chair of the Secretary's Advisory Committee has to be on our committee. Sorry, go ahead.
BETSY DUTROW: Meaning style, can we do these virtually, or are you going to bring us in-person every time?
SHARON NOLEN: My preference, although this is a committee discussion, is that we would meet twice a year in-person. I personally feel that it was able to have some of the informal discussions we've had, and so I was proposing we meet twice a year in-person.
BETSY DUTROW: And in D.C., I assume?
SHARON NOLEN: I think it would be in DC. Yes. Other questions? All right. So, I'm not hearing objections. So, I guess we'll just plan on this being a rough outline I think is it Caroline or Zach? One of you would be contacting people to schedule the meeting in September, is that correct? So, let's go ahead and start working on getting that committee schedule. So, that would be back here in DC in-person.
And then could we also look for a time maybe mid-summer just to get at least an update from committees. I think it would be really good for the whole committee to hear how the subcommittee work is going. And that one, I think, could be virtual and shorter. I see nods. And then we'll shoot for having this report done in roughly 18 months. Betsy.
BETSY DUTROW: So, I'm going to ask a question that it's been bugging me. Yesterday was a whirlwind. Some of us may not know all the details of what we heard yesterday. So, we have the ability to ask repeat performances if we're in a subcommittee and can ask, say, Kelly to come back and talk about X or Y, or Joe, or whoever else was here. Not this Joe. Because, I think, we'll need more information as we get into these topics.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Yeah, I think—and Avi maybe wants to comment on this too, but I think absolutely. What I see part of my role is facilitating, getting that information to you from DOE. So, I think we can think about a process, but there can be presentations. I think we can also take written questions so that we don't have to get everybody on a Zoom together.
AVI: Yeah, I was just going to say the same. I think, of course, in relative informality of the subcommittee, is there's a lot less overhead in setting up any meetings and setting up any conversations. I think we are very happy to facilitate discussions as subcommittees feel they would be helpful with specific folks in DOE whether in IEDO or other offices.
SHARON NOLEN: It's one other thought. We will be looking at the Murial board for, I think … There's several things in there where people wanting to learn more. If we see a lot of commonality in things where we think everyone could benefit when we have our meeting in three months, it'd be good to have that for the whole group. But if there are specific subcommittee requests, that is fine.
I mean, everything I've heard from DOE says they want to give us the information we need. We need to ask. And if they can't do it for some reason, they'll tell us. But we should err on the side of asking than not asking. All right. Next steps. So, we have our leaders, our subcommittees. Thank you all very much for those who volunteered to do that.
So, I'm going to ask each of our subcommittee chairs. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I don't think we have to … I'm sorry. Let me just think out loud. I don't think we have to wait for the outline of the report for the subcommittees to start meeting. That is not contingent, I don't believe. OK. So, for the outline of the report, we did not have a chair or a chair for that, do we?
ZACH PRITCHARD: We did not discuss that.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. I will plan to chair that.
ZACH PRITCHARD: OK.
SHARON NOLEN: OK. So, we'll be getting that group together, but all the other chairs can go ahead and start meeting with your subcommittees, laying out what you're going to do. And so when we meet in three months, we don't need to have all the answers, but I would like to see—and maybe we'll do a follow-up note on specifically what should be included. But it seems, in general, an outline of what you're planning to do for your piece, and maybe we'll have a little bit more discussion within that group that's going to do the outline of what we would like to see in that first meeting in 3 months. OK.
ZACH PRITCHARD: And let me just confirm. I made a note of this, but the people who would like to be on that outlining group are Akshay, Jeff, Abigail, Eric, and Neal. Is that?
SHARON NOLEN: Sridhar.
ZACH PRITCHARD: Oh and Sridhar. OK. That's fine.
SHARON NOLEN: And that's seven. So, that's OK.
ZACH PRITCHARD: I'm not trying to strong arm you. So, it's—
SRIDHAR SEETHARAMAN: No, that's fine. OK.
SPEAKER: I don't remember volunteering.
ZACH PRITCHARD: I thought you raised your hand.
SPEAKER: I'm happy to volunteer on that.
ZACH PRITCHARD: OK.
SHARON NOLEN: All right. Zach, what else do we need to cover today? I think that's what I had in mind.
ZACH PRITCHARD: I don't know that there's anything else. I will say again that we did not receive any requests to deliver oral statements. So, that section of the agenda has been removed. But anyone listening online who would like to submit a public comment for the committee, a written statement can do so to the committee's email address. It's itiyac@ee.doe.gov.
SHARON NOLEN: All right. Before we end, I just want to thank everyone. I felt like this was a really good group to work with. I think we had a lot of good discussion, a lot of good thoughts and insights. And you very respectfully challenged each other. I think it was Abigail who said, I'm going to make a friendly amendment. I've never heard that before, but that was a very nice way of saying I want to add something.
[Inaudible]
SHARON NOLEN: OK. That came from … Yeah. Anyway, but I think it's been a great group to work with. I really appreciate everybody's insight. I came in excited about leading this committee. I'm leaving even more excited than I was. So, thank you all for the support and contributions you've made. All right. So, I think with that, we'll conclude the meeting a few minutes early.
ZACH PRITCHARD: We will adjourn.