Hearing on Opportunities and Challenges in Deploying Innovative Battery and Non-Battery Technologies for Energy Storage (U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources)

Hearing	Hearing on Opportunities and Challenges in Deploying Innovative Battery and Non-Battery Technologies for Energy Storage
Committee	U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Date	September 22, 2022

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Long-Duration Energy Storage Technologies: The hearing focused on the development and deployment of long-duration energy storage technologies to support the U.S. energy grid. Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses stated that these technologies would be critical for ensuring the U.S. energy grid’s resilience, especially given the intermittent nature of many of the renewable energy sources coming online. They stated that these new technologies would work together to help the U.S. achieve its long-duration storage needs.
  • Lithium-Ion Batteries: Lithium ion-batteries are currently the most popular available type of energy storage technology. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Wiley attributed the popularity of these batteries to their power densities, which made them well-suited for supporting transportation and consumer technology products. However, Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses raised concerns over how lithium-ion batteries were dependent on imported critical minerals from China. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Wiley further stated that lithium-ion batteries could not address more seasonal gaps in energy supply and demand.
  • Metal-Air Batteries: Metal-air batteries use the oxidization process between air and metals to generate energy that can be stored. Mr. Wiley discussed how his company had developed an iron-air battery with 100 hours of energy storage. He stated that the key advantages of his company’s iron-air battery were that it was composed of readily available materials within the U.S. and was significantly cheaper to produce relative to traditional batteries. He acknowledged however that his company’s iron-air battery was about half as efficient as traditional batteries.
  • Pumped Storage Hydropower: Pumped storage hydropower involves pumping water to higher elevations when electricity production is high and then releasing the water to produce hydropower electricity when electricity production is low. Committee Members, Mr. Hemstreet, and Mr. Nelson highlighted how pumped storage hydropower could help the U.S. to weather periods where energy supplies decrease and/or energy demand increases.
  • Advanced Nuclear Reactors: Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY) and Mr. Hemstreet expressed interest in efforts to develop and deploy more advanced nuclear reactors that would include molten salt energy storage capacity.
  • Hydrogen Energy Storage: Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) and Mr. Nelson expressed interest in efforts to develop clean hydrogen storage. Mr. Nelson remarked that hydrogen was a unique and versatile chemical in that it could be used for energy storage, as an input, or to complement fuel cells.
• Challenges with Existing Energy Storage Technologies: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses also identified several challenges associated with existing energy storage technologies. They stated that these challenges underscored the need to develop new long-duration energy storage technologies. 
  • Critical Minerals Access Issues: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses raised concerns over how China controlled various amounts of critical minerals, including copper, nickel, lithium, manganese, graphite, and rare earth minerals. They stated that the U.S.’s reliance on China for these minerals made the U.S.’s energy system vulnerable to disruption. Committee Republicans and Mr. Nelson further expressed frustration over the U.S.’s inability to produce these critical minerals domestically and largely attributed this inability to excessive U.S. mining restrictions.
  • Intermittent Nature of Renewable Energy Sources: Committee Republicans criticized the U.S.’s recent efforts to increase its reliance on renewable energy sources, which tend to be weather-dependent. They warned that the internment nature of these renewable energy sources could leave the U.S. vulnerable to power outages. They asserted that these renewable energy sources should supplement (rather than replace) traditional baseload energy sources. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) further raised concerns that the long-duration energy storage technologies that would need to be deployed to support renewable energy sources would impose additional costs on consumers.
  • Lithium-Ion Battery Safety Risks: Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY) expressed concerns over the potential for lithium-ion batteries to catch fire. He warned that these batteries burned at very high temperatures and produced dangerous fumes.
  • Interconnection Challenges Between New Energy Sources and the Energy Grid: Committee Members highlighted how it often took a long time for regulators to approve the connection of new generation sources to the energy grid. Mr. Nelson indicated that it took 3.7 years on average for new energy generation sources to connect to the energy grid and commented that this figure had been increasing over time. Sen. Cassidy asserted that these interconnection issues made California’s electric vehicle (EV) deployment goals unrealistic.
  • Weather Testing of Battery Technologies: Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) expressed interest in the performance of new battery technologies in very warm and very cold climates. Mr. Wiley testified that his company’s battery technology could handle both very warm and very cold climates (including Hawaii and Alaska).
• Impact of Recent Laws on the Development of Long-Duration Energy Storage Technologies: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses further expressed interest in how recent laws were supporting the development of long-duration energy storage technologies.
  • The Energy Act of 2020: Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (R-WY) and Mr. Nelson noted how the Energy Act of 2020 had provided $355 million in authorization for long-duration energy storage demonstration and pilot programs.
  • The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Full Committee Chairman Manchin further indicated that the IIJA had subsequently provided full funding for the Energy Act of 2020’s demonstration and pilot programs. He also mentioned how the IIJA had included over $6 billion for battery processing research, development, demonstration, and deployment, as well as manufacturing and recycling for both mobile and grid scale storage applications.
  • The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022: Committee Democrats, Mr. Hemstreet, and Mr. Wiley applauded the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. They stated that the Inflation Reduction Act included incentives to onshore the entire battery supply chain and important tax credits to support the development of long-duration energy storage technologies. Mr. Hemstreet and Mr. Wiley contended that these provisions were critical for enabling their companies to expedite their deployment of long-duration energy storage technologies. Mr. Wiley commented that this expedited deployment was key to ensuring that his company remained financially viable as it moved from the research and development (R&D) phase to the commercialization phase.
• Policy Proposals: The hearing further considered various policy proposals meant to bolster the U.S.’s energy supply.
  • Permitting Reform: Committee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed frustration with the length of the current process for permitting new energy projects. Mr. Hemstreet noted that the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Licensing Commission’s (FERC) licensing process for projects typically ranged between seven and ten years. He mentioned how representatives of the hydropower industry, Native American tribes, and environmental stakeholders had recently agreed upon consensus recommendations to Congress around a package of reforms to the Federal Power Act. He indicated that these reforms would provide for a three-year start-to-finish licensing process for certain pumped storage hydropower projects. He called on Congress and federal agencies to streamline the permitting process for new pumped storage hydropower projects.
  • Deployment of Energy Storage Technology Demonstration Program Funds: Mr. Nelson noted that the U.S. Department of Energy had not yet provided funding opportunities for the Energy Act of 2020’s authorized energy storage demonstration projects. He called on the Committee to push for swift action on this funding.
  • Development of Microgrids: Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) expressed interest in efforts to support the development of energy microgrids and stated that microgrids could increase resilience to storms in non-mainland states and territories (as well as frontier regions). Mr. Nelson called it important for infrastructure systems (including firefighting emergency response systems) to have islanding and microgrid capabilities. He further stated that energy storage was particularly important for black-start capabilities and would enable faster recoveries from blackouts.
  • Workforce Development: Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) expressed interest in ensuring that the U.S. possessed a capable labor force that could work on new energy technologies. Mr. Wiley discussed how his company was targeting former steel and coal plant communities in its selection process for its new iron-air battery production facility. He stated that these communities had ample manufacturing talent that could be retrained to produce batteries. Mr. Hemstreet noted how the utility industry’s workforce was aging and commented that this challenge had been persistent over time. He stated that companies would need to work with their communities, labor unions, vocational schools, and universities to expose young people to energy industry career opportunities.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Mr. Tim Hemstreet, Managing Director for Renewable Energy Development, PacifiCorp
2. Mr. Spencer Nelson, Managing Director – Research and New Initiatives, ClearPath
3. Mr. Ted Wiley, President and Chief Operating Officer, Form Energy

Member Opening Statements:

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• He remarked that energy storage constituted a “game changing” technology for addressing climate change without sacrificing the reliability of the electric grid.
• He discussed how energy storage could be provided by an increasingly diverse set of technologies.
  • He indicated however that pumped storage hydropower and lithium-ion storage had dominated the energy storage field to date.
• He mentioned how many of the policy conversations surrounding energy storage had centered around supply chain concerns and commented that these concerns were particularly present with lithium-ion batteries.
  • He noted how lithium-ion batteries were used to power many modern technologies, including mobile phones and EVs.
• He highlighted how China was responsible for 75 percent of global lithium-ion production and called this situation concerning.
  • He added that China was responsible for 60 percent of global cathode production and 80 percent of global anode production.
• He applauded the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 for providing incentives to onshore the entire battery supply chain.
• He also stated that the U.S. should work to limit its overall use of minerals and highlighted how his state of West Virginia would be home to SPARKZ’s new cobalt-free lithium-ion battery manufacturing facility.
  • He mentioned how this facility would bring 350 new jobs to the state.
• He then commented that while lithium-ion batteries would continue to play a key role in supporting energy storage efforts, he asserted that lithium-ion batteries were not optimal for every application.
  • He cautioned that the U.S. should not become myopically focused on lithium-ion batteries.
• He remarked that the U.S. should explore energy storage options beyond lithium-ion batteries, including solid state batteries, compressed air, molten salt, and gravity-based storage.
  • He also stated that the U.S. should consider metal-air batteries as another form of energy storage and highlighted how Form Energy was developing these types of batteries.
• He discussed how Congress had increased the U.S.’s investments in energy storage in recent years and mentioned how the Energy Act of 2020 had provided such investments.
  • He noted how the Energy Act of 2020 had provided $355 million in authorization for long-duration energy storage demonstration and pilot programs.
• He indicated that the IIJA had subsequently provided full funding for these demonstration and pilot programs.
  • He also mentioned how the IIJA had included over $6 billion for battery processing research, development, demonstration, and deployment, as well as manufacturing and recycling for both mobile and grid scale storage applications.
• He remarked that the IIJA coupled with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s energy storage investment tax credit (ITC), battery production tax credit, and addition of battery storage to the Section 25D Residential Clean Energy Credit will help commercialize innovative storage solutions and make them more accessible to consumers.
  • He added that the U.S. should work to target these tax credits to the most in need communities.
• He then mentioned how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 included the Section 48C Advanced Energy Project Investment Tax Credit that will invest $10 billion to retool, expand, and build new facilities that make or recycle energy-related products, including storage technologies.
  • He indicated that $4 billion of this funding would be set aside for communities that have experienced coal mine and coal power plant closures.

Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY):

• He explained that energy storage referred to the ability to retain energy when electricity production was high so that it could later be used when electricity production was low.
• He noted how wind and solar power were weather-dependent technologies and asserted that energy storage would be key to maintaining electricity reliability as these technologies were added to the U.S. energy grid.
  • He commented that these energy storage technologies would need to be more affordable and have longer durations.
• He indicated that the only long-duration energy storage solution that is currently commercially available is pumped storage hydropower.
  • He explained that pumped storage hydropower involves pumping water to higher elevations when electricity production is high and then releasing the water to produce hydropower electricity when electricity production is low.
  • He noted that pumped storage hydropower can provide electricity for up to 16 hours depending on the size of the reservoir.
• He highlighted how pumped storage hydropower currently accounts for about 93 percent of all of the utility scale energy storage in the U.S.
  • He mentioned how PacifiCorp had proposed 11 new pumped storage hydropower projects throughout the Western U.S.
• He also discussed how one of PacifiCorp’s subsidiaries plans to build TerraPower’s first Natrium reactor in his state of Wyoming.
  • He explained that the Natrium reactor was an advanced nuclear reactor that will produce enough electricity to power over one-third of a million homes.
  • He added that the Natrium reactor will include liquid salt tanks that will be able to store enough energy to power more than 150,000 homes for over five hours.
• He then mentioned how many utilities were investing in large arrays of lithium-ion batteries and how other utilities were investing in battery technologies with alternative materials.
• He asserted that it was important for the U.S. to focus its resources and efforts on deploying readily available long-duration storage technologies.
• He called it especially important for the U.S. to invest in technologies that did not depend on supply chains controlled by its adversaries (including Russia and China).
  • He commended TerraPower for its commitment to not use any Russian uranium to fuel its advanced reactors.
• He highlighted how the U.S. was “heavily” dependent on China for lithium-ion batteries and noted how these batteries used large amounts of copper, nickel, lithium, manganese, graphite, and rare earth minerals.
  • He indicated that the U.S. relied upon China for the “overwhelming majority” of all the aforementioned minerals.
• He stated that the development of pumped storage hydropower and thermal storage solutions (such as TerraPower’s Natrium reactor) could help reduce supply chain risks for the U.S.
• He also remarked that broadening the U.S.’s energy storage priorities beyond lithium-ion batteries could reduce costs for the U.S.
  • He mentioned how the World Bank had found that pumped storage hydropower costs between $106 and $200 per kilowatt hour.
  • He indicated that the lithium-ion batteries by contrast cost between $393 and $580 per kilowatt hour.
• He highlighted how most lithium-ion battery costs were directly attributable to raw materials and asserted that the U.S.’s failure to increase its domestic mining and processing activities would lead the cost of lithium-ion batteries to further increase.
• He criticized the Biden administration’s mining policies and contended that these policies were making it more difficult for the U.S. to access its minerals.
  • He mentioned how the Biden administration had canceled leases for a mine in 2021 that contains 95 percent of the U.S.’s nickel, 88 percent of the U.S.’s cobalt, and 34 percent of the U.S.’s copper.

Witness Opening Statements:

Mr. Tim Hemstreet (PacifiCorp):

• He discussed how his company, PacificCorp, was an electric utility that serves approximately 1.9 million customers in communities across Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, California, and Washington.
  • He described PacificCorp as an “all of the above” energy company and highlighted how its customers were predominantly rural.
• He testified that PacificCorp had observed “incredible” growth in terms of the amount of renewable energy generation it was bringing online.
• He also noted how PacificCorp was looking at other energy generation resources to meet customer needs and highlighted how PacificCorp was involved in the development of TerraPower’s Natrium reactor.
  • He remarked that an important attribute of advanced nuclear technology was its molten salt energy storage capability.
• He also highlighted how renewable wind and solar resources were not dispatchable and called on the U.S. to add “substantial” amounts of energy storage to ensure that it could balance intermittent renewable generation with real-time customer energy needs.
  • He commented that this would entail the addition of 55,000 megawatts of energy storage over the next 20 years.
• He testified that PacificCorp was adding storage and solar resources and indicated that PacificCorp also anticipated adding many standalone batteries in the coming years to meet short-duration energy storage needs.
• He remarked that pumped storage hydropower could play an important role through meeting the need for long-duration, proven, and commercially available energy storage.
• He stated that pumped storage hydropower could maintain energy grid reliability through providing spinning reserves and quickly ramping to balance energy supply and demand, which would enable the cost-effective integration of renewable resources.
  • He also commented that pumped storage hydropower could provide important ancillary services to the energy grid, including voltage and frequency support, as well as inertia and black-start capabilities that enhance the reliability and resiliency of the grid.
• He further remarked that pumped storage hydropower could optimize the use of scarce transmission resources through storing renewable energy during times of abundant supply.
• He discussed how pumped storage hydropower could be deployed at scale and mentioned how there were pumped storage hydropower projects under consideration at FERC were up to thousands of megawatts in capacity.
  • He also highlighted how hydropower projects had long asset lives and indicated that the average age of PacificCorp’s hydropower units was 90 years.
• He stated that pumped storage hydropower projects could be developed with secure supply chains sourced domestically or with strategic partners.
  • He indicated that PacificCorp was currently evaluating how it could incorporate pumped storage capabilities at its existing hydroelectric projects.
  • He also indicated that PacificCorp was evaluating the feasibility of new pumped storage projects across its system and mentioned how PacificCorp had filed 11 preliminary permit applications with FERC in support of that effort.
• He remarked however that the development of pumped storage hydropower projects could be challenging and noted how these projects could involve high upfront costs and long development timelines.
  • He thanked Congress for its provision of incentives for technology neutral energy storage resources and commented that these incentives would help to address the cost challenges associated with these projects.
• He explained how pumped storage hydropower projects usually required FERC licenses and called the process to obtain these licenses highly complex and time consuming.
  • He commented that FERC’s permitting process added uncertainty to the development of pumped storage hydropower projects.
• He mentioned how representatives of the hydropower industry, Native American tribes, and environmental stakeholders had recently agreed upon a consensus a package of reforms to the Federal Power Act.
  • He indicated that these reforms would provide for a three-year start-to-finish licensing process for certain pumped storage hydropower projects.
• He called on Congress and federal agencies to streamline the permitting process for new pumped storage hydropower projects.

Mr. Spencer Nelson (ClearPath):

• He remarked that American energy grid operators face “immense” challenges as power use changes and emissions decline.
  • He called it critical for the U.S. to increase electricity generation and promote new grid-scale energy storage solutions to maximize reliability, affordability, and clean energy.
• He discussed how lithium-ion batteries had recently served as the primary new means of grid scale storage.
  • He indicated that lithium-ion battery costs had fallen 90 percent since 2010 and now accounted for 20 percent of the U.S.’s energy storage.
• He stated that the growth of lithium-ion batteries had several benefits and highlighted how these batteries had helped to prevent blackouts during California’s most recent heat wave.
• He raised concerns however over how lithium-ion batteries relied upon critical minerals that were not readily available in the U.S.
  • He noted how the vast majority of the world’s lithium-ion battery pre-processing manufacturing came from China.
• He remarked that the U.S. needed to onshore its entire battery supply chain from critical minerals production to battery manufacturing.
  • He indicated that global demand for critical minerals and batteries was expected to “skyrocket” by up to 1,200 percent by 2030.
• He discussed how lithium-ion batteries were tied to EVs and commented that EV demand increases corresponded with lithium price increases. 
  • He mentioned how prices for lithium had increased from $5,000 per ton to $70,000 per ton over a two-year span.
• He contended that the U.S. ultimately needed to innovate away from technologies that relied upon critical minerals and specifically called for moving away from lithium-ion battery designs that used nickel and cobalt.
  • He noted that while geopolitical and cost concerns were driving a transition to grid-scale lithium-ion phosphate batteries that use fewer critical minerals, he stated that this shift did not solve the broader problem of Chinese control of global lithium supply chains.
• He then discussed how the growing share of renewable energy on the U.S. energy grid would lead the U.S.’s energy reliability to increasingly depend on wind and sunshine patterns.
• He stated that long-duration energy storage was the best means of maintaining energy capacity when there were suboptimal wind and sunshine patterns.
• He asserted that lithium-ion batteries were “fundamentally impractical” for long-duration storage.
  • He elaborated that while lithium-ion batteries could address daily gaps in energy supply and demand, he commented that these batteries could not address more seasonal gaps in energy supply and demand stemming from the increased use of renewable energy sources.
• He remarked that the U.S. should invest in non-lithium-ion battery technologies that can provide 100 hours of storage or more and specifically mentioned how thermal, chemical, and mechanical storage could provide affordable long-duration storage.
  • He highlighted how TerraPower’s Natrium nuclear reactor was a good example of a new thermal storage opportunity.
  • He also listed flow batteries, hydrogen storage, and metal-air batteries as innovative long-duration storage solutions.
• He stated that batteries that used earth abundant minerals could be long-duration and keep energy storage costs low.
• He also noted how mechanical long-duration storage technologies, such as pumped storage hydropower, currently represent 80 percent of the energy grid’s total energy storage.
  • He called on the U.S. to further expand its use of these mechanical long-duration storage technologies.
• He lastly discussed how there were numerous bipartisan actions currently underway from both the U.S. Department of Energy and the Committee to support energy storage.
  • He mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy had worked to reduce the cost of energy storage through both the Trump administration’s Energy Storage Grand Challenge and the Biden administration’s Long Duration Storage Shot.
• He also highlighted how the Committee had worked to support energy storage through the Energy Act of 2020, which had reauthorized energy storage R&D and new demonstration programs.
  • He indicated that the U.S. Department of Energy had not yet released research funding opportunities for these demonstration programs and called on the Committee to push for swift action on this funding.
• He further recommended that the Committee focus on identifying alternative sources of critical minerals and making it easier to develop the sources within the U.S.

Mr. Ted Wiley (Form Energy):

• He discussed how many currently available battery technologies could only provide between four and six hours of energy storage at full rated power.
• He stated that while this limited energy storage was adequate in some circumstances, he remarked that recent severe weather events (including heat waves, cold snaps, and 1,000-year rain events) have hamstrung the U.S. electric grid.
  • He further highlighted how the U.S. had become increasingly reliant on vulnerable supply chains to meet its energy needs.
• He contended that the U.S. needed domestically manufactured and cost-effective energy storage technologies that could store electricity for multiple days during extended periods of extreme weather, grid outages, or low renewable generation.
• He remarked his company, Form Energy, had reinvented and optimized the iron-air battery for the electric grid.
  • He testified that Form Energy’s energy storage systems would be produced domestically and help to ensure a reliable year-round electric grid.
• He stated that the U.S. could not be overly reliant on any single country to meet its energy needs and mentioned how the active components of Form Energy’s iron-air battery system were among the safest, cheapest, and most abundant materials in the world.
  • He indicated that these materials included low-cost iron, water, and air.
• He testified that every material in Form Energy’s iron-air battery was readily available within the U.S., as well as at a global scale.
  • He added that there were opportunities for “high recyclability” at the end of the iron-air battery’s use.
• He noted how Form Energy’s technology was based on U.S. Department of Energy-supported research from the 1970s and stated that this technology would be able to store energy for less than one-tenth of lithium-ion battery technology when at scale.
  • He explained that the basic principle of operation in Form Energy’s battery technology was “reversible rusting,” which involved the conversion of iron to rust and rust to iron.
• He testified that Form Energy’s technology could provide over 100-hour duration batteries, which was required to safely make solar and wind energy reliable year-round with no risk of thermal runaway.
• He thanked the Committee for its work on the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and commented that these “unprecedented” investments would support the U.S.’s clean energy innovation ecosystem.
  • He further commented that these policies would enable the more effective and efficient leveraging of private sector investments with government policies to support the U.S.’s energy transition.
• He stated that the aforementioned laws would enable Form Energy to scale its iron-air battery technology in years (rather than in decades) and called this quick scaling necessary for meeting the U.S.’s energy goals.
  • He indicated that these goals included enhancing grid resilience and security, increasing grid reliability and safety, creating good paying jobs and economic benefits, and ensuring that innovation would occur domestically.
• He then discussed how Form Energy was currently selecting a site for its first full-scale battery production U.S. factory east of the Mississippi River and stated that historic coal and steel communities would serve as prime locations for these factories.
  • He elaborated that these communities typically have rail and river infrastructure and manufacturing expertise.

Congressional Question Period:

Full Committee Chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV):

• Chairman Manchin noted how the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 contained many incentives and tax credits to promote the development of energy storage technologies. He asked the witnesses to address the importance of these incentives and tax credits in terms of accelerating energy storage innovation. He also asked the witnesses to indicate whether the U.S. needed to make reforms to its permitting processes to support domestic energy production and availability.
  • Mr. Hemstreet called the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s energy storage ITC key to enabling the cost-effective deployment of pumped storage hydropower projects. He stated that pumped storage hydropower projects were key to supporting energy storage for the U.S.’s existing renewable energy sources. He then discussed how pumped storage hydropower projects faced permitting headwinds that delayed their construction. He indicated that the current licensing process for pumped storage hydropower projects took between seven and ten years and noted that it could take an additional four years to construct these projects once approved. He commented that this situation was inadequate for ensuring that the U.S. maintained sufficient energy storage capacity.
  • Mr. Wiley remarked that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s incentives and tax credits would accelerate the development of energy storage technologies. He noted how Form Energy was only five years old and predicted that Form Energy could achieve gigawatt scale in another five years. He stated that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s tax credits would catalyze investor capital, provide Form Energy with market certainty, and enable Form Energy’s battery technologies to reach the market quicker. He then expressed Form Energy’s support for Congressional actions that would make it easier for clean energy companies to develop operations and scale domestically. He commented that permitting process reforms would be important.
  • Mr. Nelson remarked that policies should be technically feasible, economically realistic, and politically sustainable. He stated that there had been several beneficial bipartisan energy storage policies in recent years. He remarked that policymakers would need to address multiple aspects of energy storage policy, including basic R&D, applied R&D, demonstration programs, and market signals. He commented that no one policy on its own would be sufficient for bolstering energy storage capabilities and contended that the U.S. would need to pursue a variety of policies to achieve a strong and reliable energy grid.
• Chairman Manchin then asked Mr. Wiley to indicate whether Form Energy had found that the best locations for new energy projects were in states with strong energy industry experience.
  • Mr. Wiley answered affirmatively. He discussed how Form Energy’s manufacturing facilities would need to receive hundreds of thousands of tons of iron. He stated that the infrastructure needed to support iron deliveries for these battery plants was the same type of infrastructure that had been used to support steel and coal plants. He also stated that the workers needed for battery plants would be the same types of workers that had supported other types of energy and infrastructure projects. He remarked that there thus existed a “strong overlap” regarding the locations and workers needed for new battery plants and the locations and workers that were involved in other energy and infrastructure projects. He testified that Form Energy expected to announce the location of its new plant within the next month and a half.

Full Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY):

• Ranking Member Barrasso noted how PacificCorp had recently submitted nearly a dozen applications for preliminary permits to develop pumped storage hydropower projects. He indicated that FERC was currently reviewing these applications. He asked Mr. Hemstreet to explain why PacificCorp was seeking to develop pumped storage hydropower projects.
  • Mr. Hemstreet remarked that PacificCorp viewed pumped storage hydropower as being critical for maintaining grid reliability. He also stated that pumped storage hydropower would enable PacificCorp to have flexible energy capacity, which would allow for the company to better integrate its renewable energy resources. He elaborated that pumped storage hydropower allowed for the energy grid to remain functioning during periods of intermittent energy. He highlighted how PacifcCorp had built wind energy projects in eastern Wyoming and stated that pumped storage hydropower could help to optimize the company’s transmission capabilities.
• Ranking Member Barrasso asked Mr. Hemstreet to address how long FERC’s licensing process took to complete.
  • Mr. Hemstreet noted that FERC’s licensing process for projects typically ranged between seven and ten years. He called on the U.S. to make reforms to FERC’s licensing process. He noted how there was currently a bipartisan package of proposed reforms to the Federal Power Act under consideration that would expedite FERC’s licensing process.
• Ranking Member Barrasso then mentioned how PacificCorp would be involved in constructing an advanced nuclear reactor in Wyoming. He highlighted how this advanced nuclear reactor would provide 345 megawatts of power and would include a liquid salt-based energy storage system that could increase the reactor’s output to 500 megawatts over five hours. He asked Mr. Hemstreet to discuss the benefits that this particular storage system would bring to the electric grid in Wyoming (as well as to Wyoming’s neighboring states).
  • Mr. Hemstreet remarked that this upcoming advanced nuclear reactor project would produce large amounts of energy for Wyoming and its neighboring states. He stated that this advanced nuclear reactor’s molten salt energy storage system would enable the reactor to ramp up energy production during periods of reduced renewable energy production and periods of elevated consumer energy consumption demand.
• Ranking Member Barrasso asked Mr. Hemstreet to address how the energy storage system being used in the upcoming advanced nuclear reactor in Wyoming would compare to other energy storage systems.
  • Mr. Hemstreet noted how the energy storage system being used in the upcoming advanced nuclear reactor in Wyoming would be inherent in the project’s design. He commented that this design would help the advanced nuclear reactor to better meet customer demands.
• Ranking Member Barrasso then mentioned how a Tesla battery at a utility storage site in California had recently caught fire. He noted how this fire had forced California’s Highway 1 to close and had forced California residents to shelter in place. He stated that lithium-ion battery fires were “notoriously” difficult to extinguish because they burned at very high temperatures and produced dangerous fumes. He asked the witnesses to discuss the public safety concerns associated with using lithium-ion batteries for energy storage.
  • Mr. Hemstreet indicated that he was unfamiliar with the public safety concerns associated with lithium-ion batteries. He stated however that PacificCorp desired energy storage diversification and commented that pumped storage hydropower could support his aim.
  • Mr. Nelson noted how the flammable properties of lithium-ion batteries were attributable to the high-power density of the batteries. He indicated that lithium-ion batteries were not necessary for grid-scale energy storage. He stated that lithium-ion batteries were mainly used for grid-scale storage because they were cheap, which he attributed to the prevalence of lithium-ion batteries in EVs and consumer electronics. He remarked that the U.S. should work to lower the costs of alternative sources for grid-scale energy storage. He commented that these lower costs would support large-scale deployment, increase grid reliability, and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign countries for key materials.
  • Mr. Wiley testified that Form Energy had considered safety when designing its batteries. He highlighted how Form Energy had eschewed flammable materials in its battery design process and had worked to develop a chemical reaction with no pathway for thermal runaway. He indicated that Form Energy’s batteries were water-based and did not have any pathways for thermal runaway. He testified that Form Energy’s batteries were not flammable.

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM):

• Sen. Heinrich asked the witnesses to address the importance of setting tax policy incentives that are long-term and durable in nature. He specifically asked the witnesses to address the importance of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s tax incentives being decadal.
  • Mr. Wiley noted how Form Energy had spent the previous five years engaged in R&D and was just beginning to scale up its manufacturing. He testified that Form Energy expected to grow from 300 employees to 1,000 employees over the next three years and expected to make “major” investments in a battery manufacturing plant and salesforce. He stated that short-term incentives were insufficient for catalyzing investments given the time it takes to set up manufacturing processes. He remarked that long-term incentives by contrast would provide Form Energy with the needed confidence to pursue more ambitious manufacturing projects within the U.S.
• Sen. Heinrich stated that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provided the U.S. with an industrial policy, which he called critical for ensuring the U.S.’s international competitiveness. He then asked the witnesses to provide recommendations for the U.S. Department of the Treasury as the Department commenced rulemaking around the Section 45X Advanced Manufacturing Production Credit, the Section 48C Advanced Energy Project Investment Tax Credit, and the Section 25D Residential Clean Energy Credit.
  • Mr. Hemstreet remarked that it was important for there to be certainty that all aspects of a pumped storage hydropower project would be considered part of the energy storage facility. He stated that tax credits enabled PacificCorp to provide cheaper energy to their customers. He remarked that certainty around tax credits would help PacifcCorp to make more informed investment decisions.
  • Mr. Nelson recommended that the U.S. Department of the Treasury engage the private sector before it implements the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. He noted how poorly implemented tax credits could lead the U.S. Department of the Treasury to pursue recissions or claw backs of said credits. He also stated that transparency was important when implementing tax credits.
  • Mr. Wiley remarked that the U.S. Department of the Treasury should broadly interpret the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’s tax credits so more technologies could qualify for them. He also stated that the U.S. Department of the Treasury should provide clear definitions for these tax credits. He specifically called on the U.S. Department of the Treasury to define what constitutes an apprenticeship program and to clarify domestic content standards for the purposes of the tax credits. He further called on the U.S. Department of the Treasury to quickly provide this guidance.
• Sen. Heinrich interjected to ask Mr. Wiley to address the scale of Form Energy’s partnership with Georgia Power. He also asked Mr. Wiley to discuss Form Energy’s software and modeling tools and to explain how these tools differed from traditional tools (such as capacity expansion models).
  • Mr. Wiley discussed how Georgia Power has a partnership with a large information technology (IT) company and noted that this IT company wanted to use 24/7 carbon-free electricity to power a data center. He testified that Form Energy was working with Georgia Power to help this IT company achieve its energy goals. He noted how Form Energy was using its proprietary software, which he described as a redesigned capacity expansion tool. He explained how typical capacity expansion tools considered four days throughout the year while Form Energy’s software considered every hour of everyday. He stated that Form Energy’s project with Georgia Power involved developing a 1,500-megawatt battery to enable the data center to completely rely on locally sourced renewable energy.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA):

• Sen. Cassidy noted how there were costs associated with building and maintaining pumped storage hydropower plants and with the water transportation process. He asked Mr. Hemstreet to address how these costs impact the cost per kilowatt hour of wind farms. He commented that these pumped storage hydropower costs were necessary for addressing the internment nature of wind farms. 
  • Mr. Hemstreet noted that pumped storage hydropower projects lost energy as part of the water transportation process. He estimated that pumped storage hydropower plants had efficiency rates between 70 percent and 80 percent. He stated that there were energy losses associated with all forms of energy storage and indicated that these energy losses led to increased costs.
• Sen. Cassidy interjected to note that Mr. Hemstreet’s response would suggest that the energy losses of pumped storage hydropower plants would increase wind energy costs by about 20 percent. He also asked Mr. Hemstreet to address how the capital costs associated with building and maintaining pumped storage hydropower plants impacted wind energy costs. He commented that wind energy consumers would need to support the capital costs associated with building and maintaining pumped storage hydropower plants.
  • Mr. Hemstreet noted that the cost of pumped storage hydropower plants ranged between $3,000 and $4,500 per kilowatt hour. He stated that high capital costs have been an impediment for pumped storage hydropower.
• Sen. Cassidy noted how wind energy proponents often argued that wind energy could be cheap once it is installed. He stated however that the amortization of pumped storage hydropower expenses and the diminution of energy efficiency associated with pumped storage hydropower make wind energy more expensive. He asked Mr. Hemstreet to indicate whether wind energy has a viable business model absent tax credits and incentives.
  • Mr. Hemstreet stated that he was not familiar with the full impact of pumped storage hydropower on the economics of wind energy.
• Sen. Cassidy then asked Mr. Nelson to address whether the current market dominance of lithium-ion batteries would crowd out other types of energy storage solutions.
  • Mr. Nelson remarked that technology lock-in was a problem across multiple different sectors and suggested that the lithium-ion battery could become the main type of battery (to the exclusion of other types of batteries). He commented that the U.S. Department of Energy’s programs to support the demonstrations of new energy storage technologies were important for ensuring that lithium-ion batteries faced competition. He stated that investors would not fund large manufacturing projects unless they believed that the manufactured products would work at scale. He called it important for the U.S. to support public-private partnerships to spur the development of alternative technologies. He elaborated that public investments would provide the proof of concept for new technologies and that private sector investments could scale up these new technologies.
• Sen. Cassidy then mentioned how interconnection issues could limit energy storage efforts. He elaborated that energy storage was dependent on the energy grid’s ability to accept battery influx and noted how power lines might have limited capacity. He asked Mr. Nelson to address how these interconnection issues hamper energy storage.
  • Mr. Nelson discussed how all new energy generation projects must undergo an assessment of their impacts on the energy grid. He stated that these assessments varied significantly in length based on the region of the project. He indicated that it took 3.7 years on average for new energy generation sources to connect to the energy grid and commented that this figure had been increasing over time. He highlighted how new energy generation projects in California waited 8 years on average to learn whether they could connect to the energy grid.
• Sen. Cassidy interjected to note how California was seeking to have only EVs by 2035. He commented that this goal necessitated that the state expands its energy generation capacity. He highlighted however that it took California 8 years to connect an energy generation project to their energy grid.
  • Mr. Nelson clarified that this 8-year wait period was prior to the construction phase.
• Sen. Cassidy asked Mr. Nelson to indicate how long it took energy projects to be developed and deployed after they were deemed able to connect to the energy grid.
  • Mr. Nelson estimated that it took an energy generation project an additional two or three years for construction and operation startup following a determination that the project could be connected to the energy grid. He stated that there were currently 421 gigawatts of battery storage awaiting approval to be connected to the energy grid nationwide. He estimated that half of this amount was tied to renewable energy sources. He estimated that the U.S. would ultimately be able to construct 20 percent of this amount unless the U.S. addressed the generator interconnection queue. He mentioned how FERC was working to address the generator interconnection queue and indicated that FERC had recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the issue. He called on the U.S. to address these energy grid connection issues.
• Sen. Cassidy stated that the U.S. must address these energy grid connection issues and bolster its transmission capacity. He commented that the transmission capacity was needed to absorb the electricity already being generated. He noted that this transmission capacity must also be permitted. He called it unrealistic that California would possess both the energy storage and transmission capacity needed to support an EV-only fleet by 2035. He asked Mr. Nelson to provide his views on the feasibility of California’s goal to have an EV-only fleet by 2035.
  • Mr. Nelson stated that California would face challenges in terms of achieving an EV-only fleet by 2035. He asserted that permitting reform would be necessary for developing clean energy in California. He also mentioned how California had many state-specific regulatory requirements that hampered their development of energy generation capacity. He stated that California was currently not on pace to meet its 2035 EV deployment goal.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI):

• Sen. Hirono noted how her state of Hawaii currently had some of the highest gas prices in the U.S. and relied upon oil for most of its electricity. She mentioned how Hawaii had set a goal of using 100 percent renewable power by 2045. She noted that while Hawaii currently obtained nearly 40 percent of its power from renewable sources, she indicated that rising oil prices had recently driven up power costs for Hawaiian families and businesses. She stated that energy storage would play a critical role in enabling Hawaii to transition towards renewable power sources. She asked Mr. Nelson to discuss how new energy storage technologies could help Hawaii to achieve its renewable power goals.
  • Mr. Nelson remarked that long-duration energy storage would be important for Hawaii in its efforts to achieve 100 percent renewable power. He stated that there were two approaches for reaching low emissions with renewable power sources. He indicated that the first approach entailed the overbuilding of renewable capacity to ensure sufficient energy generation when there was not enough sunlight. He indicated that the second approach entailed the building of energy storage capacity to account for periods of reduced energy generation. He stated that long-duration energy storage would be critical for Hawaii given the state’s land use constraints. He specifically suggested that metal-air batteries and flow batteries could support this long-duration energy storage and indicated that these batteries did not need significant land to function.
• Sen. Hirono then asked Mr. Wiley to indicate whether Form Energy had developed batteries with 100 hours of energy storage capacity.
  • Mr. Wiley stated that Form Energy had developed batteries with 100 hours of energy storage capacity and was now ready to move to the manufacturing phase.
• Sen. Hirono mentioned how the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute at the University of Hawaii conducts tests of batteries to assess the durability of batteries in a warm island climate. He asked Mr. Wiley to indicate whether Form Energy’s batteries would work in Hawaii.
  • Mr. Wiley answered affirmatively.
• Sen. Hirono asked Mr. Wiley to indicate whether Form Energy had tested its batteries at the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute.
  • Mr. Wiley answered no. He stated that Form Energy now needed to identify third-party locations to test its batteries and to commence the testing process.
• Sen. Hirono then discussed how Hurricane Fiona was currently impacting Puerto Rico and mentioned how the hurricane had caused an island-wide power outage. She noted how Hawaii was also vulnerable to severe weather events and stated that microgrids could help Hawaii to maintain power during severe weather events. She mentioned how the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Transitions Initiative (ETI) program was supporting Hawaiian Electric in evaluating which communities may benefit from the establishment of microgrids. She asked Mr. Nelson to address the role that advanced storage technologies could play in building microgrids and increasing resilience to storms in non-mainland states and territories.
  • Mr. Nelson first highlighted the importance of the U.S. Department of Energy’s ETI program states like Hawaii, Alaska, and Maine. He then remarked that microgrids could support power backups and provide power resilience during extreme weather events. He called it important for infrastructure systems (including firefighting emergency response systems) to have islanding and microgrid capabilities. He further stated that energy storage was particularly important for black-start capabilities and would enable faster recoveries from blackouts.
• Sen. Hirono asked Mr. Nelson to indicate whether states like Hawaii, Alaska, and Maine were moving fast enough to promote microgrids.
  • Mr. Nelson noted how most Alaskan communities were already isolated microgrids. He stated that Hawaii and Maine could implement the most up to date microgrid technologies, including better demand management systems and behind-the-meter (BTM) storage.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK):

• Sen. Murkowski remarked that her state of Alaska was a global leader in microgrids and expressed interest in how energy storage technologies could support more flexible microgrids. She mentioned how Alaska had just experienced severe storms that had left some communities without power for a brief period. She stated that this experience demonstrated the importance of energy resilience and the necessity of energy storage within islanded systems. She asked Mr. Nelson and Mr. Wiley to indicate what constitutes a sufficient duration for an energy storage technology.
  • Mr. Nelson stated that the sufficiency of an energy storage technology’s duration depended on the next best alternative for restoring power.
• Sen. Murkowski interjected to posit a scenario in which a community faced a blackout and the next best alternative was a diesel generator that could not receive fuel due to temporary shipping restrictions. She asked Mr. Nelson to address how a community should respond to this type of situation.
  • Mr. Nelson remarked that this type of community would want a longer-duration energy storage technology or a nuclear microreactor that was less weather dependent in nature. He acknowledged that many long-duration energy storage technologies could be very large, which could make them ill-suited for Alaska’s climate. He suggested that nuclear micro reactors might be best suited for addressing Alaska’s isolated communities.
• Sen. Murkowski asked Mr. Wiley to indicate what constitutes a sufficient duration for an energy storage technology. She also asked Mr. Wiley to address how Form Energy’s batteries performed in cold weather environments.
  • Mr. Wiley remarked that duration sufficiency for energy storage technologies varied across locations. He elaborated that this sufficiency was dependent upon a location’s available renewable energy, the types of renewable energy available in each area, and the location’s available energy grid assets. He testified that Form Energy had software that performed simulations based on local factors to determine what constitutes a sufficient duration for an energy storage technology by location. He indicated that while duration sufficiency varied across the U.S., he stated that 100 hours of energy storage would address most grid transition issues in most places. He then recounted how Form Energy’s first customer was Great River Energy in Minnesota and stated that Great River Energy had chosen Form Energy in response to a polar vortex event. He testified that Form Energy was designing its batteries to withstand winters in very cold climates (such as Alaska).
• Sen. Murkowski then raised concerns over the length of time it took to determine whether new energy generation projects could be connected to the energy grid. She further raised concerns over the U.S.’s failure to produce enough critical minerals domestically to support energy storage projects.

Sen. Angus King (I-ME):

• Sen. King remarked that the U.S. needed permitting reforms to meet its clean energy goals. He criticized the length of time it currently took to determine whether new energy generation projects could be connected to the energy grid. He then discussed how Form Energy’s batteries appeared to be cheaper and safer than existing batteries and did not use foreign materials. He asked Mr. Wiley to identify any disadvantages associated with Form Energy’s batteries.
  • Mr. Wiley remarked that all technology decisions involve tradeoffs and stated that iron-air batteries alone would be insufficient for transforming the U.S.’s energy grid.
• Sen. King interjected to ask Mr. Wiley to indicate whether iron-air batteries had 100 hours of energy storage capacity.
  • Mr. Wiley answered affirmatively. He then stated that Form Energy’s batteries prioritized costs over efficiency. He elaborated that Form Energy’s batteries were about one-tenth as expensive as traditional batteries and were about half as efficient as traditional batteries.
• Sen. King asked Mr. Wiley to define efficiency as it pertains to the context of batteries.
  • Mr. Wiley explained that efficiency for batteries referred to the amount of energy output relative to the amount of energy input.
• Sen. King asked Mr. Wiley to indicate the efficiency of lithium-ion batteries.
  • Mr. Wiley noted that lithium-ion batteries were about 95 percent efficient at the cell level. He testified that Form Energy’s batteries would be about 50 percent efficient at the plant level. He remarked that batteries with “radically” lower costs would enable the U.S. to take advantage of excess renewable energy generation.
• Sen. King then expressed concerns over the U.S.’s current reliance on China for critical minerals and stated that the U.S. must proactively work to address this reliance. He asked Mr. Nelson to comment on these concerns.
  • Mr. Nelson remarked that the U.S. would lose control over its energy system if it increased its dependence on foreign countries for energy resources. He noted how the U.S. was currently a net producer of oil and gas and contended that the U.S. could become a net producer of energy storage technologies and clean energy technologies.
• Sen. King asked Mr. Nelson to confirm that the U.S. possessed substantial lithium supplies that could be mined.
  • Mr. Nelson confirmed that the U.S. possessed substantial lithium supplies. He highlighted how there were lithium deposits in Nevada. He also stated that there were opportunities to co-produce lithium with geothermal energy in the Salton Sea.

Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT):

• Sen. Daines attributed Europe’s current energy challenges to the continent’s overreliance on its adversaries for energy and the continent’s increased reliance on intermittent energy sources. He mentioned how Germany had just needed to pass emergency legislation to keep their coal plants functioning for the upcoming winter. He predicted that Europe might eventually need to ration energy and asserted that an environmentalist ideology had driven the European economy to the brink of disaster. He highlighted how European electricity prices had surged more than 300 percent. He remarked that the Biden administration’s energy policy resembled Europe’s energy policy and called on the U.S. to maintain a more balanced energy portfolio. He contended that renewable energy sources should supplement (rather than replace) baseload energy sources as the U.S. worked to address the energy storage and intermittency issues associated with renewable energy sources. He then discussed how the Gordon Butte Pumped Storage Project in his state of Montana could help his state to balance the increases in intermittent solar and wind energy that were coming online. He asked Mr. Nelson to address how closed loop pumped storage hydropower projects were bolstering the U.S.’s energy storage capacity and enhancing existing girds.
  • Mr. Nelson remarked that pumped storage hydropower could support both renewable and baseload energy resources. He noted that pumped storage hydropower could enable baseload energy resources to operate at a high capacity, even when demand was low, through charging up pumped storage hydropower systems.
• Sen. Daines then discussed how the U.S. was import-dependent on China for 31 of 50 critical minerals. He stated that increased demand for renewable energy sources could further empower China given the country’s control of the world’s critical minerals. He highlighted how critical minerals played key roles in renewable energy supply chains. He also mentioned how critical mineral producing countries often have lower environmental standards than the U.S. He criticized environmental groups and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for inhibiting new domestic mining projects. He highlighted how Montana had a copper mine that had been awaiting permits for 37 years. He asserted that these permitting delays were a threat to national security, harmed the economy, and stymied renewable energy innovation. He asked Mr. Nelson to provide recommendations for how the U.S. could close its critical mineral gap with China.
  • Mr. Nelson noted that China controlled many critical mineral processing and recycling facilities and indicated that China was not very involved in directly producing critical minerals. He remarked that the U.S. should work to domestically produce critical minerals. He also stated that the U.S. should work to foster partnerships with ally countries (including Canada and Australia) to ensure that it could access other sources of critical minerals. He then recommended that the U.S. make it easier to build domestic critical mineral processing facilities. He specifically called on the U.S. to improve its environmental permitting procedures and its critical mineral exploration and leasing practices. He further stated that the U.S. should support innovations that would reduce the need to use critical minerals.
• Sen. Daines lastly mentioned how PacificCorp had an ownership interest in Colstrip Units 3 and 4. He called it critical for Colstrip to continue operating after 2025 and stated that Colstrip was vital to Montana and the energy grid.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV):

• Sen. Cortez Masto first mentioned how Redwood Materials and the American Battery Technology Company were two Nevada-based battery companies that could responsibly mine Nevada’s unique critical mineral deposits and recycle spent batteries. She then asked the witnesses to identify areas where there were intersections between both standard and emerging energy storage technologies working together. She expressed interest in having the U.S. develop domestic ion battery resources and explore innovative technologies and corporations.
  • Mr. Nelson remarked that there could exist a variety of different roles for energy storage technologies. He noted how lithium-ion battery technology had a high-power density and had a quick discharge capacity. He commented that these features made lithium-ion battery technology well-suited for quickly responding to sudden power fluctuation changes or voltage regulation. He stated that other longer-duration energy storage technologies would be well-suited to address seasonality issues. He commented that these diverse energy storage technologies could therefore be complementary in nature.
  • Mr. Wiley testified that Form Energy’s energy grid modeling had found that a combination of iron-air batteries and lithium-ion batteries would result in optimal energy grid storage. He elaborated that this combination would provide the lowest cost system for users and the lowest energy rates to ratepayers. He stated that lithium-ion batteries could address short-term shifts in energy needs while long-duration energy storage technologies could address more seasonal shifts in energy needs.
  • Mr. Hemstreet discussed how PacificCorp served customers across six states and relied upon generation from ten different states. He noted how these states each had unique transmission constraints and varying proximities to energy sources. He stated that PacificCorp’s energy storage needs might vary across locations based on the aforementioned factors.
• Sen. Cortez Masto then asked the witnesses to provide recommendations for ensuring that the U.S. possessed a capable labor force that could work on energy storage technologies.
  • Mr. Wiley remarked that Form Energy was very interested in workforce availability as it set up its first factory. He noted how this factory would likely be at the location of a former steel or coal plant because such a location would likely have ample manufacturing talent. He stated however that many people had left these former steel and coal plant communities. He remarked that Form Energy would likely require assistance to attract people back to these former steel and coal plant communities so that it could staff its future factory. He stated that these workforces would need to be retrained to manufacture innovative batteries and commented that these retraining programs would need to involve local colleges, community colleges, and high schools.
• Sen. Cortez Masto suggested that Form Energy could also work to reskill existing workforces to staff its new factory.
  • Mr. Wiley expressed agreement with Sen. Cortez Masto’s suggestion. He noted however that many workers might have already left the communities where Form Energy plans to locate its new factory.
  • Mr. Hemstreet noted how the utility industry’s workforce was aging and commented that this challenge had been persistent over time. He stated that companies would need to work with their communities, labor unions, vocational schools, and universities to expose young people to energy industry career opportunities.

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO):

• Sen. Hickenlooper asked Mr. Nelson to indicate whether there existed estimates regarding the costs associated with delayed energy project permits.
  • Mr. Nelson remarked that it was difficult to estimate the costs associated with delayed energy project permits because these delays could cause a project not to happen (which would have huge costs). He also noted how there were estimates that found that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for a geothermal project on public lands could add 15 percent to the financing costs of said project. He indicated that this 15 percent figure was in addition to the normal costs of a geothermal project.
• Sen. Hickenlooper expressed interest in compiling the various estimates regarding the costs of delayed energy project permits. He then noted how new renewable energy and energy storage technologies were being integrated into the U.S.’s energy grid. He stated that the U.S. must ensure that its energy system was inexpensive, reliable, and clean as it worked on these integration efforts. He asked Mr. Hemstreet to identify actions that the U.S. Department of Energy could take to assist utility companies, energy grid operators, or state regulators with these integration efforts. He suggested that the U.S. Department of Energy could supply computer modeling to these stakeholders to reduce the complexity of such integration efforts.
  • Mr. Hemstreet remarked that the U.S. Department of Energy has played an important role in supporting research into energy storage technologies and providing policymakers with a better awareness about the benefits of energy storage. He expressed support for the U.S. Department of Energy’s work on these issues. He also stated that advanced modeling of all storage technologies was important for conveying the benefits of these technologies to stakeholders.
• Sen. Hickenlooper asked the witnesses to indicate whether energy project permitting reform should be a national priority.
  • Mr. Wiley answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Nelson answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Hemstreet answered affirmatively.
• Sen. Hickenlooper also expressed interest in modeling the costs associated with integrating renewable energy and energy storage technologies into the U.S.’s energy grid. He then mentioned how both the public and private sectors had sought to encourage energy storage technology R&D efforts, as well as the deployment of the technology. He stated that many innovative companies faced challenges remaining viable during the period between the R&D phase and the commercialization phase. He referred to this period as the “valley of death.” He asked Mr. Wiley to address how the public and private sectors could align their efforts to ensure that innovative companies could survive this period.
  • Mr. Wiley remarked that Form Energy had not yet emerged from the “valley of death” period and stated that the U.S. government actions (including the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the IIJA) were helping his company to survive this period. He noted how it usually took decades for new energy industry technologies to be developed. He indicated that Form Energy was entering the scaling phase for its technology and emphasized that Form Energy must now compete with technologies that were already fully scaled. He stated that policymakers should not assume that the costs of a new technology cannot be reduced overtime and highlighted how the costs of producing solar panels had declined significantly over the previous two decades. He called on policymakers to consider the future potential of new energy technologies and to provide assistance throughout the development process of these new technologies.
• Sen. Hickenlooper expressed support for efforts to support the faster scaling of new energy technologies.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND):

• Sen. Hoeven discussed how the U.S.’s energy grid faced challenges in obtaining sufficient amounts of baseload power. He mentioned how his state of North Dakota was working diligently to decarbonize coal to address these baseload power issues. He noted how federal programs that provided front-end funding for new power equipment and loan guarantees were supporting North Dakota’s efforts to decarbonize its coal. He also highlighted the importance of the Section 45Q Carbon Sequestration Tax Credit in supporting the development of decarbonized coal power plants. He asserted that these efforts were necessary for ensuring a stable energy grid. He asked the witnesses to explain how advances in battery technology would help the U.S. to stabilize its energy grid during a period of increased demand for electricity. He also asked the witnesses to provide a timeframe for the deployment of new battery technologies.
  • Mr. Hemstreet remarked that batteries would be critical for supporting energy grid stability as more renewable resources came online. He stated that energy storage would be key to ensuring consistent power from intermittent renewable sources.
• Sen. Hoeven interjected to ask Mr. Hemstreet to identify what specific batteries would need to be developed and deployed to ensure that the U.S. had a stable energy grid. He further asked Mr. Hemstreet to provide a timeline for this deployment.
  • Mr. Hemstreet testified that PacificCorp was just beginning to deploy batteries as part of solar energy storage projects. He indicated that these batteries were lithium-ion batteries. He stated that while it was difficult to predict the precise type of battery technology that would be most adopted, he asserted that long-duration storage capabilities would be important moving forward.
  • Mr. Nelson noted how Congress had appropriated a large amount of money for the Energy Act of 2020’s energy storage demonstration programs. He stated that these funds could be deployed immediately to support energy storage demonstration projects. He noted that the U.S. Department of Energy had not yet provided funding opportunities for these demonstration projects. He predicted that these demonstration projects would take between four and five years to materialize and noted how there were several current companies that could apply for this demonstration project funding. He specifically mentioned Form Energy, Malta, Antora Energy, and Quidnet Energy as prime candidates for this funding. He stated that the length of time it would take to deploy these new battery technologies demonstrated the importance of both maintaining current dispatchable technologies and making these technologies more environmentally friendly.
  • Mr. Wiley mentioned how Form Energy was developing an iron-air battery that could use all domestic content. He noted how Form Energy currently had 300 employees across three U.S. locations. He stated that Form Energy plans to launch and scale its first 50,000 megawatt hours per year production facility. He asserted that Form Energy’s ability to quickly launch and scale its production facility would not have been possible absent the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. He then mentioned how there were currently companies announcing new battery factories throughout the U.S. He indicated that most of these factories were producing lithium-ion batteries for transportation purposes. He mentioned how there was currently 60 gigawatt hours of battery manufacturing capacity within the U.S. and noted that a terawatt hour of U.S. battery manufacturing capacity was expected to come online by the end of the decade. He indicated that this new battery manufacturing capacity would primarily be allocated for transportation purposes.
• Sen. Hoeven interjected to ask Mr. Nelson to explain how underground pumped storage hydropower works.
  • Mr. Nelson explained that underground pumped storage hydropower involves injecting water underground to pressurize the water. He noted that this pressurized water could be used to generate energy.

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS):

• Sen. Hyde-Smith remarked that Congress should consider ways to diversify the U.S.’s energy storage portfolio. She mentioned how her state of Mississippi was working to develop a clean hydrogen hub that would incorporate renewable hydrogen production, long-duration geologic energy storage, and multiple industry end users. She asked Mr. Nelson to provide his views on the role of hydrogen in energy storage and to discuss the benefits of using hydrogen for energy storage.
  • Mr. Nelson remarked that hydrogen was a unique and versatile chemical in that it could be used for energy storage, as an input, or to complement fuel cells. He noted that hydrogen could be stored for a very long period.
• Sen. Hyde-Smith stated that new long-duration energy storage technologies would not be deployed unless electricity markets sent the right signals to businesses to invest in these technologies. She noted how electricity markets in the U.S. varied across regions. She asked Mr. Nelson to indicate whether there was any particular electricity market structure or region that was more favorable to the rapid deployment of innovative energy storage technologies.
  • Mr. Nelson remarked that the more regulated energy markets (which were in Southeastern and Western states) would be able to deploy long-duration energy storage technologies in the near term. He stated however that the feasibility of deploying long-duration energy storage technologies would be very dependent on state public utility commission decisions.
• Sen. Hyde-Smith then asked Mr. Nelson to explain how energy storage advancements could enable the U.S. to maximize the value of its existing infrastructure.
  • Mr. Nelson remarked that imbalances in energy supply and demand had traditionally necessitated reductions in energy supply and demand. He stated that energy storage technologies could absorb extra supplies of energy when demand is low and then provide that stored energy when energy demand is high. He remarked that energy storage could therefore increase the utilization of any type of asset, including baseload dispatchable power plants and intermittent renewable energy sources. He concluded that energy storage would maximize the energy grid’s value.
• Sen. Hyde-Smith then asked Mr. Nelson to identify the critical minerals where there were shortages. She also asked Mr. Nelson to address how the availability of critical minerals were necessary for investments when developing new energy storage and other clean energy technologies.
  • Mr. Nelson noted how numerous critical minerals were essential for lithium-ion batteries, including lithium, graphite, cobalt, and nickel. He predicted that the aforementioned critical minerals would experience a large increase in demand. He stated that the total demand increase for clean energy technologies between now and 2030 would be between 7- and 12-times greater than the current demand for said technologies.
• Sen. Hyde-Smith asked Mr. Nelson to discuss how the U.S. could address these demands for critical minerals and clean energy technologies.
  • Mr. Nelson remarked that the U.S. would need to make it easier to construct critical mineral production and processing facilities domestically. He also stated that the U.S. should work to ensure that it was not overly reliant on critical mineral-dependent technologies unless said technologies were necessary. He remarked that lithium-ion batteries were well-suited for transportation and consumer technology products where power density was necessary. He stated however that lithium-ion batteries were less necessary for the energy grid and suggested that other energy storage options, including pumped storage hydropower and metal-air batteries, could adequately support the energy grid.