 Good afternoon everyone. My name is Carol Werner. I'm the Director of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute and I'm delighted to welcome you this afternoon, and we are very, very honored to have start off our briefing for us this afternoon, our very distinguished democratic whip of the House of Representatives Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland. The briefing this afternoon, as you know, is really focused on the nexus between energy, climate, and water. And I must say that Congressman Hoyer has been an ardent advocate, very, very thoughtful in terms of really understanding this nexus, because after all, he is very, very concerned about the bay, about the whole connection of water to energy. He has done Yeoman's work in terms of thinking about the connection with regard to economics, manufacturing, the role of R&D and education in trying to weave all of these things together. And so it is my great honor to welcome Congressman Steny Hoyer to start off our briefing this afternoon. Mr. Hoyer? Well, thank you very much Carol, and thank you all for being here. Mr. Ambassador, it is always good to be here with you, that you have a wonderful ambassador here in Washington. We all have great respect for him and great affection for him, and his wife, and your entire embassy that does a wonderful, wonderful job. And Mr. Durer, we're very pleased to have the opportunity to welcome you here at the United States. I'm not sure how long you've been this trip here. This is your second day. Okay. Third day. So, so you've gotten a little bit of sleep. That's good. And I want to thank all of you for being here as well. Denmark, of course, is an extraordinary country, and those of you who may not be from Denmark, perhaps don't know that Denmark has been a judge to be, have the happiest people in the world. So why my father came here? I'm not sure, but I'm pretty happy here, but I'm glad to hear that I have a lot of relatives in Denmark. And when I go over there and visit with them, sometimes they're happy, and sometimes they're not. They're sort of like my constituents, and I'm sure yours as well. But I'm very proud to be here. I'm a very proud Danish American. I had the opportunity to have breakfast with the ambassador and with your prime minister at Blair House, which not everybody gets to stay at Blair House. That's not extended to everybody, but ladies and gentlemen, if you don't know it, the United States of America has no closer ally than the Danes. Denmark has been an extraordinarily good ally, a member of NATO. Obviously, our British allies are very, very close to us, our Australian allies are very close, and we do have other very close allies, but very few of our allies are as strong as the Danish people. I was one of those who was a very strong proponent of taking action in Bosnia to prevent the genocide that was occurring in Bosnia. Denmark had more soldiers in Bosnia per capita than any other nation on earth. What a courageous nation Denmark is. So, Madam Minister, I'm very pleased to welcome you here to our country. This has been my first opportunity to meet you, I believe, and not the last. Some perceiver to be the minister of industry, I perceive her to be a teacher of Danish language, and I intend to take her up on our offer, but she's going to have a really tough job, I'm going to tell you at that. The United States and Denmark have faced many challenges together in over two centuries of close bilateral relations. Today, rising oil prices and the threat of climate change make the shift toward more energy, efficiency, and energy independence, all the more important in the coming years for both of our nations. Denmark, of course, is way, way, way ahead of the United States in this question. Denmark has already established itself as a leader in pursuing these goals. In February 2011, the Danish government embarked on an ambitious drive toward complete independence from oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels by 2050. As the minister will tell you when the oil crisis occurred in 1973, Denmark was sourcing 99% of its energy from foreign fossil fuels. Today, foreign fossil fuels account for none of Denmark's energy. That's an amazing accomplishment and a testimony to the discipline, the vision, and the political unity, not in every aspect, but in this particular objective that Denmark has shown. Through targeted investments in infrastructure, energy, efficiency, and domestic production, Denmark is already well poised to wean itself from fossil fuels completely in 40 years. One of the tools has been investments in renewable energy, such as wind. We've done that ourselves here, not to the extent, but as you know, Madam Minister, in the recovery act that we passed in February of 2009, we made a very substantial investment in that renewable, in renewable energy in that piece of legislation. Danes are turning their drive for energy independence without fossil fuels into an economic opportunity, as we think we can as well, with 20,000 people now employed in the wind sector and 90% of national output exported. In Denmark, wind is an economic value of around 3 billion euros, and the country's largest turbine manufacturers are also investing here in the United States. However, some Americans may look at Denmark's accomplishments and say Denmark is a small country, so this was an easy goal to meet. They would, of course, be incorrect. With a population of 5.6 million, an area of 16,000 square miles, Denmark is roughly comparable in size to my home state of Maryland, Madam Minister. If Denmark can achieve energy independence through the multi-pronged approach, so too can our 50 states. All it takes is the same commitment, the same willingness on the part of government to lead, and the same can-do spirit that has long been a trait both Danes and Americans have in common. The nations of the world have much to learn from Denmark about what has worked and where there will have to be changes. I hope today's forum, and I believe today's forum, will be a productive exercise in identifying best practices and determining how best to replicate the Danish model here in the United States and around the world. Madam Minister, unfortunately, I will not be able to stay because we're still in session. We're about to vote pretty soon, but I have two members of my staff who will be listening and then reporting to me on your comments. But further than that, I like to get to Denmark on a relatively regular basis, certainly annually, and I look forward to visiting with you on my next visit to Denmark. Welcome, and I know the audience looks forward to hearing your comments. Thank you all very much. Minister Dewar. Thank you so much, Congressman. I am honored, and I'm excited to be here today in the halls of Congress to discuss three critical issues, water, energy, and climate. These three issues may constitute the most important- Block in Maryland, a few, but not a lot. But one of my colleagues in the Congress, who is a good day, and served with me in another party, but we're a good friend, and I wanted to recognize him, Congressman Jim Russell. These three issues may constitute the most important nexus of challenges facing us now and over the next decades. My two points here today are the following. First, we cannot continue to deal with the challenges related to climate, energy, and water individually. The economic and environmental impact of these areas are interconnected and must be dealt with as such. Solutions to the one may impact on the other two. Second, key to these efforts is building strong, viable partnerships between business and the Danish government. Only through such partnership will we be able to craft new, innovative ways to meet the challenge of climate, water, and energy. Let me begin with energy. Since the 1970s, when the oil crisis hit, as the Congressman was stating, Denmark was almost 100 percent dependent on foreign energy sources. We were extremely vulnerable and forced to take the crisis seriously. It was a matter of national survival. Denmark began implementing policies that would make us energy independent with business as a partner. Danish governments, both of political stripes, lay out policy that led Denmark to being today the most energy-efficient country in the European Union, and maybe in the whole world. The energy-dependent, energy-dependent, independent, and a net energy producer and exporter. Having 80 percent economic growth over this period comparable to other developed countries, while energy consumption has remained flat. And, not at least, having companies like those here today that have gained a global competitive advantage by embracing these policies. The Danish story is a win-win for society, government, and business. Government is the partner that sets long-term regulations that companies can count on when making investment plans and formulating strategy, and that society can count on to avoid extreme price fluctuations. The companies have used constituents' regulations to become global leaders within their sectors benefitting society with jobs and a high standard of living. Let me highlight some of the factors that have been important in Denmark's energy success story. In spite of the North Sea oil discovery in the 1970s, Denmark only used this oil as a short-term bridge to energy-independency, while at the same time we continued developing renewable solutions. In the mid-80s, the Danish energy plan shifted away from centralized power plants. Every community were asked to formulate an energy plan to generate power and heat. This led to district heating and power being extremely widely used to heat and power cities and towns of all sizes, preferably with natural gas at that time. With district heating and power, our facility obtained 80 to 90 percent efficiency from any energy source, even coal, compared to approximately 40 percent from all the U.S. coal-fired power plants. Today, we also have added cooling to the dynamic. In the rural areas, biomass and biogas is rightly used to generate heat and electricity for local use. In fact, waste is recycled at an impressive rate. In Denmark, 85 percent of garbage is recycled or incinerated compared to the U.S. that only recycles or incinerate 35 percent of its garbage. Since Denmark produced power and heat from trash and reuses most of the remaining garbage, we have no need to open new landfills. Wind now accounts for 22 percent of electricity generation, and by 2020, one-third of Denmark's total energy consumption will be covered by renewable energy. Danes also bicycle and walk and about 35 percent of people living in Copenhagen bike to and from work. Bike lanes are widely available and goes from one end of the country to the other. Mass transit is reasonable, reliable, and widely used. Energy efficiency is also greatly increased. The introduction of energy-saving obligations for energy companies have been a great success. Denmark and the EU began facing in energy-saving light bulbs, for instance, in the early 90s. Being an early adapter of energy-efficient technologies have meant that we've been able to keep consumption flat. This early energy-efficient push means that the average stain consumes about half of the energy of an average American. In spite of our spare energy consumption, Denmark has one of the highest standards of living in the world. We live in modern houses with all the conveniences one expects for a highly developed society. In fact, Denmark had more cell phones and computers per capita earlier than almost all other countries. We have some of the highest standard of energy-efficient applications. Buildings are also groundbreaking. Houses built four years ago uses half the energy that those built in the late 70s. By 2020, new buildings will consume 75 percent less energy than they use today. That is ambitious regulation setting these targets. Project Zero in the southern Jutland was included last month in the Global C40 Climate Positive Development Program in partnership with the Clinton Climate Initiative. They have joined the global network of the world's most ambitious climate projects. Project Zero builds homes to a plus standard. That is generating more energy than they consume. This municipality will reduce carbon to zero by 2029. Teester municipality in the northern of Jutland is already fossil free and the island of Samsu achieved energy independence with a 10-year period and is almost also carbon free. All of this makes it evident that a high standard of living can go hand-in-hand with energy efficiency and low energy consumption. Like energy in the 70s, Denmark takes very seriously the next big challenge, those of water and climate. We will react to these crisis with the same resolve given to the energy crisis we have faced. Let's turn first to water. There is a world water crisis in terms of both quantity and quality in many parts of the world already. The World Water Forum stated by 2025 it's estimated that 1.8 billion people will live in areas that suffer from severe water scarcity. What is not only a critical issue in the developing countries but also here in the U.S. The droughts in the southwest and southeast overuse of rivers in many areas and contamination in general have impacted the U.S. water supply. The use of water in producing fossil fuels is also a real concern. Water has not been part of the calculations where solutions were evaluated or has been seen as a cost factor in the supply chain. But that must change. It takes from 1 to 5 million gallons of water per well using fracking and more if refracking is required. In many areas where water is scarce the use of water in this way may be prohibitively expensive or even prohibited. Water is also used in coal production and the U.S. draws approximately 410 billion gallons of water a day from rivers, lakes, etc. According to the U.S. Geological Survey about 200 billion gallons of a day is used to cool power plants, mostly coal-fired power plants. At the same time the U.S. uses in mining and burning of coal about the same amount of water going over Niagara Falls over a five-month period. So water will need to be not only considered as a cost in production but the consequences of depleting the supply must also be taken into consideration. In Denmark we have started seeing water efficiency as a companion issue to energy efficiency. Let's look at a few comparisons. In Denmark the average family uses 30 gallons of water a day. In the U.S. the average family uses 152 gallons per day. And then there is the infrastructure issue. In Denmark it's rare to see a water main break. We see investments in our water infrastructure as a critical component in quality and supply. And aging infrastructure can lead to contamination and waste. Of course infrastructure costs money. But it is an investment that provides jobs, prevent other costs and make sure that we are not wasting a precious resource. In Denmark we strive to use efficient sustainable solutions that make good financial sense. However, let me stress we also want to maintain a higher living standard and are just as much in love with our gadgets as the rest of the world. Now let me turn to climate. I understand in this country many do not see climate as a serious problem. Many apparently believe fossil fuels and other and more fossil fuels will solve all the world's energy problems. Despite the fact that the world population will increase 50 percent by 2050 and the global energy demand is conservatively projected to increase by 30 percent over 25 years. I strongly disagree. I am confident that fossil fuels and the build-up of carbon in the atmosphere are accelerating the changes to the climate. Denmark sees the threat of climate change as a real crisis. We also understand that it's more expensive to respond after the crisis hits rather than preparing for and anticipating the crisis. Reliance on fossil fuels also means depending on many of the most unstable regions of the world for even increasing amount of oil. We are committed to changing this direction and we want to engage the private sector in our efforts. Further by involving business early, the costs are more equitably shared. We also see a plus side, the opportunity for a new economy based on renewable energy and sustainable solutions. We see climate change as a catalyst for economic revolution that will change our lives for the better and build a new economy for the 21st century. Denmark is making investments and improving regulations to prepare our cities for one to two meters sea level rise and not at least we have passed a bill to make us carbon-free society by 2050. To achieve this long-term goal, we will reduce greenhouse gases by 40 percent by 2020 and also by 2020 more than 60 percent of our electricity will steam from renewable energy. Key to these efforts is that Danish business will partner with Danish government to find new innovative ways to meet the challenges of climate, energy and water. The partnership between government and businesses making Denmark an incubator for innovative innovation and our companies will be ready with solutions just as they were in the energy sector. Just as clean tech is now the fastest growing part of Danish export, currently accounting for about 15 percent of the total Danish export, we are positioning ourselves also to lead in water and in climate solutions. I want to conclude by saying that sustainable clean energy solutions also address some of the issues related to climate change and water. We need energy that does not waste precious water resources and does not put more carbon into our air. Without air and water life cannot survive. We can solve these problems but Danish experiences demonstrates a strong partnership is needed between the private and public sector. A key to success is government providing reliable long-term and fair rules of the road to guide private sector investments decisions. And as one of the next speakers, Adam Monroe, the U.S. head of Novosimes, a Danish company will with large investments in the U.S. puts it. We believe a strong partnership is vital to the success of any emerging industry where the private sector provides innovation and the lion's share of capital to develop it. And the public sector provides consistent policy support to grow it. We also need to recognize that we are at a crossroad. Just as Europe and America were swept by an industrial revolution in the 19th century, just as America and Europe and the world were swept by fossil fuel revolution in the early 20th century and just as America and the world were swept by the information.com revolution in the late 20th century, Denmark, Europe and America is now being swept by the new carbon-free revolution. The transformation is coming. The only question is, who is going to benefit and lead the transformation to the new carbon-free world? Denmark has begun not only because it's the right thing for the future and for our children's children, but because it makes good economic sense. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Dewar. We really appreciate your thoughtful remarks. Over the past few years, as our organization has looked at what other countries have been doing in terms of governments and how they have worked with their businesses to address energy issues, climate issues, understanding how all of these things come together and how involved water is in all aspects of these issues. It has been very, very interesting to really specifically look at the whole role that Denmark has played in terms of really spearheading so much technology development, really being a model for us to really learn from in terms of what they've been able to accomplish to set their country on a pathway that is prosperous, that has been leading in global energy technology and indeed really providing at the same time a very sound economy while providing strong international leadership. So following up on the minister's words, we are going to hear from two Danish companies that have very substantial investments in the United States, because after all, the United States is a very big market and we should be playing and a very, very substantial role in global leadership, again in terms of looking at the nexus of these very, very important issues that are being addressed by countries around the world. We will first hear from Mr. Yes, Munch Hansen, who is the CEO of Grundfuss. I probably am not saying that right, Grundfuss, North America. And thank you. And Grundfuss has a very substantial investment in the United States and in North America. The company has about 1,400 employees in North America. And so those investments are in terms of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Since 2008, Mr. Hansen has been the CEO of Grundfuss and a member of the group's executive committee. And in that role, he has spearheaded Grundfuss investments in the U.S. I think a very interesting piece of what we will also hear today from Mr. Hansen is in terms of thinking about the whole role that this company is playing in, again, globally, since they are heavily involved in terms of looking at water and, again, its connections with regard to energy and are involved in various pieces of the water transportation market. And at the same time, as they have really explored our engineering very highly technical products and looking at the full cycle with regard to all of this, they indeed are leading the world with regard to their highly, highly efficient, energy efficient water pumps and indeed really setting the global standard and pushing that ever, ever higher. So I think that we have a lot to learn. There are major issues of competitiveness, trade, and investment. Where is that going to go? And I am pleased to be hearing from two leaders today and we will first be hearing from Yes, Hansen. Thank you for that introduction. And first of all, also thank you to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute for inviting me here today for this important congressional briefing. Also like to thank the minister and previous speakers to set the stage and really to make a very strong link between water and energy, because it is in the link, in the nexus between water and energy that the issues are and also where we find the solutions. Thank you to that introduction you gave. It's always nice to hear that we have many activities around the world that is correct. We are a Danish company. I'm not denying that. You can hear my accent and my last name is Hansen, that would be hard. But I do also want to stress that we are a truly American company as well as you said. We in fact actually have almost 2,000 employees now in North America, 1,400 of those here in the US. And it is very important to us that we develop products here in the US specifically for the needs of the US market, that we produce them here in the US and of course sell and service them here in the US. Because even though there's a lot of commonalities, there's also special requirements in each country. I actually come with good news today, I believe, because I will focus on some solutions, how we can solve some of the issues that were mentioned. I will have brought a couple of very specific examples. And I'm glad to tell you that these examples are feasible, not only from a technological point of view, but they are also economical feasible. And as the introduction mentioned, they are actually really good business. So that is actually why I'm here. I even believe that this is not just a win-win situation. I will take a step up and say it's a win-win-win situation. Because this is good for the consumer, I believe. It's good for society. And of course it's good for the environment. So it is, I believe, a great opportunity and a great outlook we have in this situation. As we heard, water is involved in all parts of society. It's involved in everything from agriculture to industry, everything from residential building to commercial buildings. And our water needs are never ending. They are of course essential to life, but they're also very, very central to economic prosperity. What is not well known to most people is how much energy it takes to move water around. That is not well known. And I can tell you that the hydraulic institute here in the U.S. has made an assessment of how much electricity is consumed in the U.S. by pumps and pump systems alone. And it's a staggering 20 percent of all electricity of the U.S. is consumed by moving water around. 20 percent is a fifth of all of our electricity is consumed by moving water around. The good news is that by applying modern technology, we can halve that consumption of electricity, halve. We actually talk about taking out 10 percent of the country's electricity consumption, thereby dramatically increasing our energy security, of course, reducing greenhouse gases, but also creating a strong base and infrastructure for strong economy, and not the least, more jobs. I'll give you a couple of examples. I don't think there are many pump experts in the room, so I'll be there to talk a little bit as an engineer about the subject. One example is that in buildings like these, or all over the country, commercial buildings, the pumps are very old. I must say I haven't studied this particular building's pumped mechanical room, but out of experience, I can tell you that the equipment in these buildings are very old. The typical technologies from the 40s, from the 50s, that are still applied. They're very, very inefficient, and worse than being inefficient, these pumps typically run all the time, and we know from my industry that pumps typically only need to run 5 percent at full capacity, yet they run all the time, and that is approximately as silly as if you this morning, when you woke up, you would go out on your way to work to your car, and the engine would already be running on your car. You would get in your car, and you would navigate through the streets of Washington, D.C. with full speed on the engine, and then only applying more or less brake to get through the city, and then, of course, you would leave the car outside here with the engine going. That's clearly not a way we run our cars today, but unfortunately that's the way we run pumps, and that's why we consume 20 percent of all electricity that way. As I said, fortunately, the good news is that relatively mainstream technology can be applied to these pumps, and we can reduce the electricity consumption dramatically. That's also why we, as a pump manufacturer, and we are a pump manufacturer, but we also consider ourselves an electronics manufacturer and a software manufacturer, and that is actually part of our success is to take relative mundane products and lift them into a new century, a new millennia now, and make these pumps smart, make them intelligent, and connect them to networks. So we are as much an electronics and software company as we are a classic producer of pumps. That is exactly how we cut electricity consumption in at least half. Let me give you some more engineering examples here. We have a technology we call auto-adaptation, or auto-adapt, and it's all, the way it really works is in a building like this, we install sensors, controls, and networks throughout the building, we make it a smart building, and we feedback that data to the pump systems, to the cooling systems, to the heating systems. We do that real time, and these auto-adapt systems then ensure that the equipment only run when they are really needed. That's a fairly basic concept, and also the technology, as I said, is not necessarily revolutionary, it's technology applied in many other industries. But this is how we can cut it in half actually, when it comes to commercial buildings, the statistics are even better. We typically can take 60% out of the electricity consumption by doing this. Another example I will talk to here, because I'm sure you also as politicians and active in policy know this, it is from the municipality arena, where there's an enormous potential for savings. Today communities in the US struggle with very inefficient systems. We're struggling with old systems and an aging infrastructure with enormous leaks. Typically we lose half of the water we put into a water distribution system, we lose before it even reaches to the consumer. This is because of old equipment, but it's also because of leaking systems, and this is of course an enormous waste, not just of water, but also of electricity. Clearly our country today cannot afford the trillions and trillions of dollars it would cost to replace all these leaking pipes and old infrastructure. That's not an option. And we have many examples here in the United States of cities and counties who have actually gone backdroped because of this. We can't afford to replace it all. What we need to do is make this infrastructure smarter and again what we do is we apply sensors and software and controls around in the municipal system and feed that back to the pumping systems and ensure that the system is only pressurized to the degree it really needs to be pressurized. And by that we can reduce the leakages dramatic and save a lot of energy. This is a relatively simple concept, I understand that, but it takes technology and not the least willingness to implement these solutions. But these solutions are available and have been proven to be highly effective. These are two examples I just mentioned, one is from buildings and one is from municipalities. And this is about applying technology to solve the problem we have. It's a win, win, win situation. And for the consumer it's a win because we can increase standards of living, like the minister talked about in Denmark. It's not that we have given up our standard of living in Denmark. And we can also ensure access to water at a reasonable rate. It's a win to society because we ensure infrastructure for growth and prosperity. And of course it's important and a win for the environment because we can utilize our resources in a more clever way. So this is all good news we've been coming with so far. And what now the time is to inform and share this with others, to educate others and that's actually I guess also what we're doing today. One basic challenge I can tell you we have in our industry is simply the lack of awareness. People don't know this and I didn't ask you but did you know that pumps use 20% of electricity? Probably not. And that is of course, I realize that. It's because not everyone thinks about pumps like me every single day. It is because pumps are hidden away in mechanical rooms, under hotels, under the swimming pool, under the airport or whatever. So it is rarely the focus of us, so to say, not even the focus of the architects, the engineer or the planners who established these systems. So I do have one call to action that I strongly would recommend to be considered. And that is a labeling system to increase the awareness about equipment like these are just presented and the energy savings that can be generated. A transparent system will ensure that everyone from engineers to consumers can much better and easily understand the efficiency impact by applying more advanced technology. And we know that such labeling systems work. Let me just pause here for just one second because we're always talking about the consumer not understanding it, but I can tell you it's also a huge task to educate the engineering community. They are simply not aware of many of these solutions. They think they are not feasible either technologically or economically. But they are and that is what I'm stressing again and again. So with a labeling system, this could be more transparent to everyone. We've seen that here in the U.S. that it works. Sure, some of you have heard about the lead standards that were introduced here in the U.S. that now are actually the factor standard also many other places in the world. If not, used directly than they used as copies of the American Green Building Association's lead standards. And many corporations today already use lead standards or energy standards or European standards when they construct new facilities and utilities or buy new equipment. In the pump industry in Europe, I can tell you what happened there. It was actually a volunteered effort. It was actually the industry that came together. It was not legislation. It was industry that came together and on a volunteered basis established a labeling system and established minimum requirements. And that has been in place now for seven years and made an enormous impact on that industry. Now it's actually getting turned into legislation seven years after and simply because it works so well. So a labeling system, I believe, is again a win-win-win situation because the consumer is able to make real choices, really informed choices between a variety of options. And the industry, and here is the crux for many of us, is incentivized to become more innovative and more competitive as we get held to higher standards. And all this, of course, again leads to a better environment. So label whirling will lift the entire water industry, not just the pump industry, by creating incentives for us, our companies, our industries to become more efficient and get more integrated solutions. Let me give you one example from the U.S. that has worked very well. And it's the NEMA standards within motors that were applied, I believe, one and a half, two years ago, almost now. It's the U.S. National Electric Manufacture Association that instilled very high standards for electric motors. And to my best knowledge, we actually in the U.S., and I'm very proud of that, have actually the highest standards now for electric motors on a global scale. So it can definitely be done. And we have some cases that not only can be done, but that it works. Energy efficiency, as the minister said also, is intimately related to energy security and economic growth. Significant issues that require public leadership. And energy efficiency not simply are good for individuals. It's good for society, as I mentioned a few times. And therefore, of course, politicians and governments have an important role to play. The catalyst, I believe you called it. We need our elected officials on all levels to set ambitious energy goals. And ambitious energy goals for our infrastructure. And I'm glad to say that some officials are today already do that. I've heard a couple already today. But also in cities like New York and Chicago, we see leaders emerging within efficient buildings. And that is not the least due to some very active mayors and some very active officers of these mayors that have been pushing this and are really showing that this can be done. You can hear I'm quite optimistic about the advancements about energy efficiency in the United States. And I think, actually, to a certain point, it's actually really also up to us in industry to actually be able to follow through with these demands and these opportunities. Before I conclude, though, I want to make one more observation, which is very important in this water energy nexus. And one of the most exciting things for me as a dean here in America with an American family, by the way, is that we are in a growth country. We're in a growth country, both for businesses, but also on an individual level, I believe. This is still a big part of the United States and American dream. We are an inspiration to the rest of the world. That is, of course, also why hundreds of thousands of people still immigrate to this growing country. Nevertheless, a growing population requires even more energy and even more water. And I think I have outlined a few times how much energy is spent on moving water. But as the minister also pointed to, the other way around is also the case. Producing energy is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, consumer of water. It's actually estimated that the energy sector in the U.S. will account for up to 85 percent of all additional consumption of water in the U.S. the next 20 years, next 20 years. So imagine that the next two decades, 85 percent, almost all, of additional consumption of water will be consumed by production of energy. That's an absolutely staggering number. The issue at hand is, of course, that the water scarcity is already a problem in some of our southern states in Georgia, California, other places, and this will seriously affect our ability to produce energy and then hence also limit our growth. This is another reason why we need to address this energy water nexus now and to ensure a more positive and prosperous future for us in the U.S. Fortunately, right now, water and energy is rapidly moving up the agenda. I've been to Washington, D.C. a few times lately and I really feel some excitement and some interest in the water and energy nexus. That is, of course, the first step. Earlier this year I actually spoke at the Hudson Institute about similar issues where we also had the Department of Energy, the Atlantic Council, a row of academia and resources for the future speaking. We brought actually quite a few copies of those transcripts. If you're interested, I believe there's some really good stuff inside there that can be studied further. They're out here, I believe. That's correct. To summarize, yes, we have a challenge, but I believe we can solve this with existing technology. Technology that is technical feasible and economical feasible. But we need help from the industry side. We need help from politicians to set minimum standards, minimum requirements to the equipment that gets installed, and we need a labeling system that somehow helps us with a better transparency and a better way to educate the greater public. We must, in other words, work close together between industry and policy makers, and I very much look forward to this, dialogue, also the next coming period. Thank you very much. Thanks very much. Yes. Lots of questions that I would love to follow up with you on as we talk later in terms of really trying to move this dialogue forward. We will now hear from another important Danish company that has been very, very active and has a very, very strong presence here in the United States. And that is Adam Monroe is going to be speaking to us. And Adam is the President of Nova Zimes North America. He has been with Nova Zimes for 20 years now. He helped establish the company's global manufacturing supply line of enzymes for the whole U.S. biofuels, which is now a core of Nova Zimes' line of business. He's been very active in a number of North Carolina bio industry committees and advisory groups. And the regional headquarters for Nova Zimes North America is in Franklinton, North Carolina. Nova Zimes holds many, many patents, and they have been a very, very innovative company in terms of looking at ways in which nature and technology can really work together to provide better solutions that, again, really straddle just as we heard with Grunffos that really straddle this important energy, water, and climate nexus. Well, thank you, Carol. And thank you to EESI for allowing us to talk today. I'm going to use a few slides. And if you're wondering what a Zimer is, that's what we like to call ourselves in Nova Zimes. I am the only non-Danish speaker today, but as Carol said, I've been in this company for 20 years. So I can't quite get the accent down, but I've been accused of looking Danish. That's as close as I've gotten. Yeah, no, that's okay. So I think sometimes one of the hardest things I have to do is to try to explain some of our core products. So I'm going to give that a different twist today. I'm going to tell you a little bit about Nova Zimes, how we play a role in energy, and I think some of the things that particularly for the United States are needed to move us forward. So you take away nothing else today, you'll get a little science lesson. So how many of you had lunch today? That's good. And maybe you had a carbohydrate while you had lunch, particularly a role, let's say. Now listen, if you eat that roll, your body converts that into sugar, and then that's what your body uses for energy. Man can convert that same roll into sugar. I'll tell you what it takes. You get out a big pot of water and boil it, throw the roll in, you got a little sulfuric acid laying around the house, put that in there too, and in about three hours you'll have some sugar. I don't advise consuming that mixture because of all the other side effects. Well, obviously that is not what happens in your body. Your body has thousands of kinds of enzymes, and in particular, this one. That's an alpha amylase. That's what's responsible for breaking down carbohydrates, or at least the first stage in that. And it does only that. It's very, very efficient, extremely efficient. It doesn't take three hours to consume that roll. And it doesn't take a harsh chemical. And it doesn't take a lot of that energy that it's going to take to boil that water. So we've built a whole business, a $2 billion a year business around nature's technology. We have lots and lots of enzyme products. We're in over 40 different markets, 700 products, 130 countries. But for today's discussion, I think it's the efficiency of nature's technology that I want to expound upon. Now, the way we get there, this is maybe the second part of your science lesson, is we go out and we find interesting microorganisms all over the world in cold places, hot places. One of the latest stories we have is that we found an organism, I believe in a polar fjord, where the organism uses a protease to break down things in the water. And that same enzyme that does that in that microorganism, we learned, took it out. And now, if you want to wash your clothes in cold water, and maybe you know which product I'm talking about, that can happen. And therefore, you don't need the energy that is required to heat the water up. That's a significant portion of an electricity bill in a household, believe it or not, heating water to wash clothes. So what we do is we find these microorganisms, these neat enzymes, and the trick and where we make our way in the world and where we have over 6,500 patents around this technology is learning how to make that in large quantities, such that it makes economic sense for us as a business, but more importantly, makes it a useful product for the world in all of these different applications. It's not only enzymes, it's also sometimes the microorganism, and sometimes it's other proteins that we're working to develop today. I mentioned how efficient this is, so you can see some of our applications behind me. The first one there on the bottom is around animal feed, but the point of this slide is that for every kilogram of enzyme that's used out there today, it liberates as little as 30 times the amount of CO2 reduction, meaning use enzymes in the animal feed market for every kilo you use, you're going to save 30 kilograms of CO2 emissions. That goes all the way up to the bread industry, which was where I started this talk, which is 3,800 kilograms. Add all that effect up from the use of our products in a given year, and it's 45 million tons of CO2 reduction. I promise you you won't find a lot of companies who can say that, but what I think is interesting about that is we built this business around nature's technology, and I think there's some great Scandinavian stories about how that came about that I won't get into today, so if you have some more time later, we can talk about that. But today, I want to focus a little bit on the energy side. Before I do that, just to give you some sense of NovoZems, because not a lot of people have heard of us. It's a $2 billion a year business. We're all over the world, but what I want to emphasize is that you've heard stories today about innovation. Innovation, I think, not only in products and technology, but also, I think, also in policy. I think some of the things that Minister Dewar mentioned were important, and I think there's lessons there to learn from the United States. Policy innovation sounds a little dangerous saying that in Washington, but nonetheless, I think it's some of the things we need. We spend 14% of our revenue in R&D. We've learned as a business that it is important to invest to create new future economic benefits to our company, better lives, better environment. Consequently, we do have 6,500 patents. The reason that's there is just to demonstrate that if you put your money into things, you can come up with a lot of inventions, a lot of inventions that can make a real difference in the world. As it relates to energy, a big business for us now, it wasn't a big business for us only five or six years ago, is in the biofuel space. We are the leading provider of enzymes to today convert starches into sugars, which are then fermented into alcohols, but we're also, more importantly, I think, the leading maker of enzymes that are going to be needed to turn all of our biomass resources into sugars, which can then also be turned into all kinds of molecules, ethanol being one of them. This chart shows the dramatic decrease in the cost of those enzymes. When we first started working on this, and this hasn't been long, we were up close to five dollars a gallon needed an enzyme cost. Well, you know, that's not going to work. But in just a very, very short period of time, we've brought that down by over 90%. So I think the point being that if you lay out a challenge to industry, and industry can rely upon a stable challenge, meaning we know if we invent it, the market will be there. Fantastic things can happen. This is an example. So today, the guys in the biofuel space, they don't talk about the enzyme cost being a big deal. That's not where the issues are. It's a lot to do with feedstock. It's a and and lately a lot to do about the stability around some of the key policies like the renewable fuel standard. So we work all over the world. We have partners in China, Brazil, at Italy, Europe, all over. And Bloomberg New Energy Finance has been taking an interest in what we do and what this world looks like from a biomass perspective. And so they did a study, and we we chipped in on on that. And they took a look at the ag powerhouses around the world. And they said, Okay, we know you work on agricultural residues. This can be anything from wheat straw to corn cobs. And they said, What if we took a look at just that source of biomass? And they made some assumptions. What if we only took 25% of that agricultural residue? And made 17 and a half percent of it available for biofuel production. Now 25% is a very, very conservative number around the removal of ag residue as it relates to how sustainable can you do that? So that's well under the reference studies you'll find about how much can you take off of a given field. And then they said, What would be the effect? And what we found was that if you just looked at the United States, 17% of our ag residue, just the ag residue part, could replace 16% of our US gasoline supply. Now, as an American watching the news, I see what dominates some of the energy conversation in this country. Not long ago, and it's coming back and forth and for the congressional members in the room, you know this is hot. That's the Keystone Pipeline. Now I mention this because I think the average American looks at that as potentially something big. It's certainly a big enough debate you would think it's big. Well, that 16% is three times bigger than the Keystone Pipeline. That's a big solution. Anybody who's telling you that biomass and these kind of things are, you know, small stuff that's over there in the green space. Well, last I heard, you know, 16% a big solution. So I think just the bigness of that alone, coupled with what we know about what's the possibilities technically means that that's a big solution for the country. Why wouldn't we try to do that? Not to mention it's going to create a lot of jobs in this country. I'm not casting any judgment right now on the Keystone Pipeline, but I know where the majority of that economic benefit is going to go. And it's not into the United States. But this would employ a lot of people in the United States. Not to mention that there's going to be the normal things about engineering, building these plants. And I think one of the best things about the biomass story is it's not going to benefit just one spot. I mean, granted, this is looking at residues, but this is only ag residues. In this country, we have a lot of biomass resource from municipal waste, the trash truck, to woody biomass, you name it. So this is just a fraction. And certainly if we look at the CO2 reduction, when we talk about advanced biofuels, these biofuels have upwards of 90% or more in CO2 reduction relative to gasoline. So the impact on the climate is huge. As I mentioned, we work all over the world. Now, this chart, what it shows is not only some of the partners we work with, but also some of our competitors. But the point of putting this up today is that we, as an industry, within the biomass space, and I just want to reiterate that biofuels for us is not our whole business. I mentioned we're in a lot of industries. It's about 17% of our revenue stream today. We'd like it to be bigger because of this potential. But the point being is some of the largest companies in the world, if you look there, DCE stands for DuPont Cellulosic Ethanol, BP, Petrobras, Kafka. These are huge companies, and they're getting into this space. And if you look at those timelines, you're looking at 2013. And I got to give the Danish credit, my colleague's credit, if you look at Inbecon there in Denmark, and if you can read that date, it says 2009. They've been working on wheat straw and producing fuel from wheat straw since 2009. They're ahead. I find it interesting that the Italians are moving into this. I had to check on that one to see what it's very legitimate. They're one of our best partners. It's an energy crop that they're looking at, and it's due to open here shortly. But if we look at the United States, I think the main takeaway here is that now steel is starting to go into the ground. Serious effort. If you look at BP as an example, they have their own energy crop fields, and they're getting ready to build plants, big ones. So this is getting ready to happen. And when we talk in the industry, we talk about policy that we need and want to continue to have. But we talk a lot about why would anybody pull out the rug now? Now we've done all the innovation, the technology development, and these kind of things. Now is absolutely the worst time to pull the rug out from this industry. And when I say that, that means things like opening up the renewable fuel standard, the slippery slope. We don't want to go down that one. So it's a huge potential. So if I cover a little bit about what's needed, what's needed, we're going there now. And I think, look, the issues now are relatively not, they're not technology issues. They're things like market access, things like getting blender pumps into the system so we can get more biofuels out there. I know that E15 can be a controversial issue, but nonetheless, whatever the molecule, it's got to be something else that's got a chance to get into that infrastructure. The renewable fuel standard, as I mentioned, is a linchpin for us and one that provides, and I think this is really important. These companies I mentioned earlier, all of them are putting their own money in. We have a plant that I'll show you in a second that I understand from talking to you before we started is helping us out with some of their great pumps. It's a $200 million facility that we will inaugurate here at the end of May. That's our own money. This is not a government subsidy thing, but we do need stable policy. We do need things that we can look to and not have to recalculate business models every year. And you hear that all the time, but it's the truth. Biomass scale up. Listen, we've been harvesting crops in this country for a long time, and I would have guessed that picking up the corn cobs in addition to the other stuff wouldn't have been that big a deal. But if you're a farmer and you've never done that and we've never collected it in one spot, there's supply chain things that you've got to get through. It's not rocket science, but it is supply chain science. So the things that help with that biomass supply innovation, I know the Department of Energy has done a great job there working with some of those issues, but also some of the incentives that can help a new group of farmers, biomass providers, get into that mode, things like, you know, the biomass crop assistance program for all its warts and its early days. I think right now that's a that's a that's a good idea. Maybe we should call it something else, but it's a good idea. And then the last part, not all the companies in the space are on that chart and not all of them are the size of us or BP. And some of them have great technologies and things like loan guarantees also help those guys get into the game. And also things like front end investment tax credits are good ways to help those guys get started. So from a policy perspective, what's most important to make this energy future happen that I mentioned, the renewable fuel standard is a big one. That's right at the top. And then the other things I mentioned, I think will help a lot. And I mentioned that we're building a large facility in Nebraska. We'll open that, we'll inaugurate that at the end of May. We'll be in full scale, full production middle of July. And we're capable of producing a lot of protein out of that plant. And we are a forward thinking company with a forward thinking heritage. And we are out in front of what we think is going to be a big industry. And so I'll leave you with that the potential is big. We're ready. And everybody's lined up at the gate to go with steel in the ground. So anybody in the room who can help us maintain the policies we need, but also more importantly, just spread the word. As yes, mentioned about some of the things that you might have learned, please do that as well, because I think that helps all of us build a new future for the United States as it relates to renewable energy. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I think it's very interesting in terms of looking at what's been done to create these successes in terms of these large companies that are extraordinarily competitive in providing leadership internationally and the whole role and partnership with government. But I think both of you, all of you emphasize kind of the need for consistent policy. And obviously, as the minister spoke in terms of looking at the kind of policy leadership that the government of Denmark has provided for a very long time in terms of really moving the country forward, which is really encouraged industries to really have to be innovative in order to compete and to meet those challenges. We would like to open it up to you for any questions, comments, if you could just identify yourself. If you if you have a question. Okay. Renewable energy is a goal in and of itself if it's going to have a negative impact on water consumption and on just water safety and so forth. So I'm wondering if you are doing anything in prioritizing your research and development to develop these enzymes that can include the water footprint of advanced. Absolutely. In fact, I think one of the things our company very very well understands is that it's it's an entire system. We have some of the top life cycle assessment scientists in the world and we're used as a reference for those kinds of studies all the time. And consequently, we understand things like agricultural inputs are absolutely critical elements to work with from a sustainability perspective. And to be honest, when you look at the water consumption around renewables, that's a lot of where the water goes is in the agricultural sector. I think a lot of the factors there misunderstood, but nonetheless, we are working with enzymes. So I'll give you one quick example. We just moved into the bio ag space. We made some acquisitions there. And the reason we did is because we understood that there was a space of understanding around microorganisms that are in the soil that play a critical role for breaking down phosphorus and nitrogen and making those materials more available for the plant. Consequently, that provides things like drought tolerance and a number of other factors that affect water. So that's at least one example that I can give you among many that we know of. But I'll give you just one industry that I know that that's also a big issue. And that is in the everything from textiles to you name it, there's a lot of water consumption and the enzymes that we are working on in that space will also help with with water as well. Are there any policy mechanisms that you are, that you've been able to implement? I'm just assuming that everyone will agree that research and development and that... Well, I can tell you we invest just about six percent last year in research and development, six percent of our turnover. And that as a benchmark is at least twice as much as any of our competitors. Twice as much both absolute, but also relative. So no, we're leading the pack there. And that is also what we're benefiting from now is long term research and development. No doubt about it. Yeah. In the biotech space, we're probably double. And then if you compare that across industry, especially when you get into things like pumps, you know, it's four or five times higher, which is, I think admirable what ground phosphorus does there. But I think the point being that if you study businesses that have succeeded long term over decades, they're the ones that when their chips were down, we're investing in R&D because they understood that to survive long term, you need new innovation. So policy wise, again, a lot of, regardless of the policy, if it's stable sometimes, that helps to generate as it relates to R&D, I think some of the things that the government can do to spur R&D work. We've gotten some grants from NREL or DOE in the past, not big ones, but small ones. Sometimes that also launches new ways of innovation because of the work that we did. It created more understanding, but other people watched that work. And I think that's the point. They share that information and other companies start to get into the ring because of something that was discovered. So whether it's something that spurs innovation within a company, it certainly spurs innovation in other companies. First of all, the Danish government has a target setting. 1% of our GDP in general is used for research, which will mean that the government is also spending on research. We have in our university a focus on that. We have the university should work together with private companies also to make innovative ground-breaking new ideas. And it's actually working, there's a lot of PhDs dependence in private companies. So this public-private partnerships works both at the university level, but also when we talk about our public sector, where we, in some areas, for example, in healthcare, is very determined on inviting private companies in to find a solution to specific problems which we have identified, then we ask different kind of private companies coming in, giving answers to this specific question. That actually also means that we get the answers to a question which we need to solve, but also the company develops a new product, which is, for example, maybe some of you know about the cousin, or how do you say about Nova Nordisk, a close friend of Nova Simes, a sister, which have developed insulin and is a world-leading in insulin, and that was actually from the public-private partnerships developed from that. So we know that we can, in that way, push companies also to develop new products. We're not, in some little scale, we are financing some of it, but it's very little. Actually, the companies are doing it mostly themselves. We don't have policies demanding of private companies to spend it on R&Ds. But with our regulatory framework setting targets, clear targets saying that in 2020 you have to deliver. If you're going to be a company in Denmark, you can spend so-and-so on CO2 emission, or you can only have water, a spinach in that field, or saying that we are making tariffs on water, then there is the push for the private sector also to develop new solutions. But they also have to know that we're delivering when we are making regulation that it is not going to be altered again. So they have, I'm calling it a clever regulation, that we're setting clear target saying in five years we have to be there, but then you have five years to develop it. You can do it any way you want to do it. I don't care, you just have to deliver on the target. We're not going to discuss the measures, but you have to deliver in five years, and then we can ensure that you have a market. And that actually works together. I don't know if we've overcome them all. I still have companies coming to us, for example, the one producing vegetables and fruits. They would come and see that they need quite a lot of energy used in their greenhouses. And then we have to tackle the specific problem, and we do that. But sometimes we also have to say high demand, saying to them, maybe you should introduce new technology in your production, and then you can reduce your energy emission or energy consumption, which means that you will actually be better off. We have high tariffs on energy in Denmark. We have high tariffs on water. That works. But trust me, it's not an easy task as a politician, having a lot of industry on your neck telling you that they cannot deliver in this field. But knowing what we know from the 70s and our history shows that every time we do this, it is actually possible, because it develops a new branch of technologies in areas. I think the next hub in Denmark probably would be in agriculture. We have put down a commission looking into agriculture and nature in Denmark and how to have control of the emissions coming from the agriculture, which would be ammonium. It could be, well, it doesn't matter, but the emissions coming from agriculture. And we are putting targets to that. I'm pretty sure when the commission comes out with their conclusions, they will be going into that field. And then there will be, and there are companies who are already capable of delivering the technologies for the farms to put in so they can control their emissions. But if we don't have the regulations, why should the farmers put in the technology? Why should they invest in that? So I know it sounds easy, but it's not. And everybody's shouting. And sometimes it also means that we go two steps back. But I can see in the long run that we've moved quite a lot. If I should make a bold assessment of what I would like most, subsidies or clear standards, then I would absolutely go for the clear standards. Because if we set the standards high, then we'll figure it out. There are many good scientists and innovators around the world, and we'll find the right solutions. But the policy makers needs to help setting the stage. And then we from business and from academia will come with the solutions. And you concur, right? Okay. Because at least you're saying that gives you a platform and a level playing field, essentially, so that everybody knows and that there is that constancy. Correct. There you go. But it should be a very high goalpost. Well, let us be perfectly clear about that, right? Okay. Last question there. We'll kind of change our future in the international. I would like to ask the questions. The many of these incentives go via the protocol, very clearly. Could you give us an example of what the taxes are in Denmark on energy, maybe particularly gas, that everybody can understand, that as compared to the tax level here in the United States. And then you mentioned also the prices. Well, maybe you don't have the answers, but maybe. And the same would be very interesting to know about the water, because you mentioned the water is price relatively high, so that everybody knows this is a very valuable resource. And it would be interesting to see the difference of the markup, so to speak, in these two areas. Allow me to start here. I'm just jumping in here in front of me. I can say that it's been very interesting, both. I'm very passionate about this. I've been working both in Europe and here in North America in this water and energy arena. And it is a big issue that we, until now at least in the North American arena, have had such plentiful access to resources. I used to work in the forest industry. I'm a forest, actually, of education. And we've had so many resources that we never really had to think about it. And unfortunately, to a certain degree, it's the same with water. And I've been a lot in Chicago lately. And you would think with those great lakes, there's no issues with water. And that's a big misunderstanding about resources. But in fact, these resources are still very, very cheap in North America, both water and energy. And therefore, there's not been this natural pressure, a high goalpost just by setting by prices. And electricity is basically for free in the U.S. There are still many counties in the U.S. where you don't have a water meter. You just let, you can let your water run as much as you want. And of course, as long as that is the situation, municipalities cannot invest in new technology. And why should they? So of course, the price plays a huge role. And now I won't answer what I think it should cost. But that is, of course, a key driver. Well, if you view water and then, Mark, we knew that in the area of Copenhagen, our capital, that we were lacking access to water. And the demand was even growing. And there was a huge discussion on how can we actually ensure that people have clean groundwater every day in their houses? And we were having a huge discussion on how to secure that. And actually, it came as a demand from NGO Society and a civic society saying that we have to decrease the use of water. And it was very interesting because that was actually a demand for tariffs. And it worked. We haven't the use of water in Copenhagen by putting in tariffs. I can't compare it on gallons to the U.S., I'm sorry. But just to give another example, we also want people to use their car lists and actually use a public transportation or their bikes. And therefore, a car in Denmark has two-thirds tariffs put on top of the price of a car. So that means that we don't have that many cars in Denmark. You can just imagine the price of an American car put two-thirds on top of the price. It's two-thirds of the total car in Denmark would be taxes. And that's the way we regulate. Some would say, how can you do that? That is a problem for the individual. But we're also saying society is benefiting from this. But then we will use the taxation to ensure that we have good public transportation, that we actually have good access or biking lanes and that's how we are spending it. So I cannot say the specific tariff on water, but I can probably get the embassy to do it if you give them a card. Interesting. And of course, as Congressman Hoyer pointed out, there have been polls showing that Danes were some of the happiest people in the world. So despite all this, right? Okay. Go ahead, yes. Maybe we're the most naive people, but we're very happy. I do want to add an extra dimension to this. And you notice that I'm very optimistic. I think this is great business. I think there's a lot to be done. But I also think it's very important that we act here in North America and that we act right now. And why is that? And it is because the rest of the world does. And I can tell you what happens right now in Europe is that companies are getting very, very competitive when it comes to water and energy. More and more European companies are developing technologies that are also demonstrated today, much more competitive both technologically and economically. And what is also happening, I can tell you, is in Asia it goes really quick. The Chinese showed up in Doutons down in South Africa here for the COP meetings lately, and they are also setting standards and minimum targets for how much energy they want to reduce and also for some of their energy consuming equipment. So it's maybe not a positive story, but I'm saying, if we don't do this in North America, then some of our industries will simply not be competitive in five to ten years. And we have seen that happen with other industries in North America. So I would like to take the positive way around, but there's also a little bit of a scarce scenario that we need to keep our competitiveness going. Well, and that is certainly a huge issue before the Congress in terms of international competitiveness and what that means. And as you said, we've seen it with regard to thinking about the steel industry, many, many industries in the past. So that's a good way to close out. Yeah, because if you look at the company's total cost at the moment, we can see more and more clearly in Denmark that salary is a little part of it. But what is really growing is the resources they're needing for having their production. And it's really rising at the moment. So if one does not seize the moment, they're going to be losing in the competition. I think that sums it up very, very nicely. I want to thank all of our speakers very, very much. Really, really appreciate all of you being here. And thank you very, very much. Minister Dore, really so glad to get to know you and look forward to working with all of you in the future. And thank you all very much for being here.