[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON ``THE FISCAL YEAR 2023 DOE
BUDGET''
=======================================================================
HYBRID HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-82
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-452 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
Chair JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Professional Staff
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Staff Director
WAVERLY GORDON, Deputy Staff Director
NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Energy
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Chairman
SCOTT H. PETERS, California FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania Ranking Member
JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
Chair ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
KIM SCHRIER, Washington H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
KATHY CASTOR, Florida JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
PETER WELCH, Vermont GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GREG PENCE, Indiana
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware (ex officio)
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Witnesses
Jennifer M. Granholm, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy....... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Answer to submitted questions \1\
Submitted Material
Letter of March 2, 2022, to Ms. Granholm, from Mrs. McMorris
Rodgers and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Rush................... 93
Letter of March 21, 2022, to Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, from Ms.
Granholm, submitted by Mr. Rush................................ 96
Letter of April 27, 2022, to Ms. Granholm, from Mrs. McMorris
Rodgers and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Rush................... 98
Article of April 27, 2022, ``Europe decries `blackmail' as Russia
cuts gas to Poland Bulgaria,'' by Tsvetelia Tsolova and Anna
Koper, Reuters, submitted by Mr. Rush.......................... 101
Article of February 25, 2022, ``EXCLUSIVE China boosts oil
reserves ignoring US push for global release,'' by Chen Aizhu
and Dmitry Zhdannikov, Reuters................................. 106
Article of April 5, 2022, ``Asian refiners hope US SPR release
leads to more crude exports lower global spot premiums,''
SPGlobal, submitted by Mr. Rush................................ 109
Article of April 26, 2022, ``Russia to halt gas shipments to
Poland,'' PoliticoPro, submitted by Mr. Rush................... 113
Letter of April 8, 2022, to Ms. Granholm, from Joe Manchin III,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, et al.,
submitted by Mr. Rush.......................................... 115
Article of April 26, 2022, ``Industry Grows Increasingly
Concerned Over EPA Plans For Natural Gas,'' InsideEPA.com,
submitted by Mr. Rush.......................................... 117
----------
\1\ The legislation has been retained in committee files and is
available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20220428/
114649/HHRG-117-IF03-Wstate-GranholmJ-20220428-SD001.pdf.
HEARING ON ``THE FISCAL YEAR 2023 DOE BUDGET''
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2022
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room, 2123 Rayburn House Office Building,
and remotely via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon.
Bobby Rush (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.
Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle,
McNerney, Tonko, Schrier, DeGette, Matsui, Castor, Welch,
Schrader, Kuster, Barragan , McEachin, Blunt Rochester,
O'Halleran, Pallone (ex officio); Upton (subcommittee ranking
member), Burgess, Latta, McKinley, Griffith, Johnson, Bucshon,
Walberg, Duncan, Palmer, Lesko, Pence, Armstrong, and Rodgers
(ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Dingell, Ruiz; Joyce, Carter,
and Crenshaw.
Staff present: Waverly Gordon, Deputy Staff Director and
General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Staff Director; Perry
Hamilton, Clerk; Zach Kahan, Deputy Director Outreach and
Member Service; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff
Director, Energy and Environment; Mackenzie Kuhl, Press
Assistant; Elysa Montfort, Press Secretary; Tyler O'Connor,
Energy Counsel; Lino Pena-Martinez, Policy Analyst; Kaitlyn
Peel, Digital Director; Kris Pittard, Policy Coordinator; Kylea
Rogers, Staff Assistant; Medha Surampudy, Professional Staff
Member; Caroline Wood, Staff Assistant; Tuley Wright, Senior
Energy and Environment Policy Advisor; Sarah Burke, Minority
Deputy Staff Director; William Clutterbuck, Minority Staff
Assistant/Policy Analyst; Peter Kielty, Minority General
Counsel; Emily King, Minority Member Services Director; Mary
Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Brandon
Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for Energy; Peter
Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy; and
Michael Taggart, Minority Policy Director.
Mr. Rush. The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to
order. Today, the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled
``The Fiscal Year 2023 DOE Budget.'' Due to the COVID-19 public
health emergency, members can participate in today's hearing
either in person or remotely via online video conferencing. In
accordance with the updated guidance issued by the attending
physician, members, staff, and members of the press present in
the hearing room are not required to wear a mask.
For members participating remotely, your microphones will
be set on mute for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent
background noise. Members participating remotely would need to
unmute your microphone each time you wish to speak. Please note
that once you unmute your microphone, anything that is said in
Webex will be heard over the loudspeaker in the committee room
and subject to being heard by the livestream and CSPAN and
your--members of your congressional district.
In order to ensure that we have as much time as possible
for questions and that each member in this subcommittee has an
opportunity to ask questions, I will be strictly enforcing 5-
minute limits for questions, as the Secretary has a hard stop
at 1 p.m. The Secretary has a hard stop at 1 p.m. Given that
members are participating from different locations at today's
hearing, all recognition of members such as for questions will
be in order of the subcommittee seniority system.
Documents for the record can be sent to Lino Pena-Martinez
at the email address that we provided to staff. All documents
will be entered into the record at the conclusion of the
hearing. Before we continue, I want to take a moment of
personal--to recognize our subcommittee's ranking member, my
dear friend, Fred Upton, who recently announced that he would
not be running for reelection. Throughout his career and
throughout the entire time that I have served in the Congress,
I have known Mr. Upton as a very fair person, indeed, a true
friend, a knowledgeable person and someone who is always
willing to help.
He is also, in some respects, my Congressman because I own
a log home that's located in the forest in his district. And
he's been so many things to so many people, a thoughtful
colleague, a pragmatic policymaker and, most importantly,
again, my good friend. Fred, I will miss you dearly here in the
Congress, but I'll see you at Cubs games.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Rush. All right. So that said, we'll now move on to
opening statements. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BOBBY RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. Today's subcommittee hearing is on the Department
of Energy Fiscal Year 2023 budget request. It is my honor, my
privilege, and my pleasure to welcome the 16th Secretary of
Energy, the great Jennifer Granholm, to testify here before
today's hearing and our subcommittee. Madam Secretary, it's so
good to see you again.
The DOE's budget request comes at a very critical time in
the history of our Nation. The recent Russian invasion of
Ukraine and its subsequent impact on energy markets around the
world has shown the danger of relying on our own outdated
energy systems in the 21st century. If we truly wish to become
energy independent, we must dedicate ourselves to producing an
abundance of clean energy that's made right here in our home.
Madam Secretary, I am certainly pleased that the DOE's
budget recognizes that fact and reflects that fact in its
request. This budget contains a 7.4 percent increase to the
Department's funding, strengthening the Department's core
energy research goals while, at the same time, continuing to
build upon last year's bipartisan infrastructure laws,
commitment to deploying clean energy. These investments in
vital energy program will ensure that the American people will
have access to clean, reliable and affordable energy. The
Department's budget also includes a heartwarming commitment
toward--and I am delighted to see that the Department's budget
also includes multiple commitments to the President's 20--
Justice40 initiative and energy and environmental justice.
I believe this budget sets out a whole, yet realistic
vision for how the Department of Energy can help unlock a 21st-
Century clean energy economy that will benefit all Americans.
Partnered with the still vital investment that the House passed
last fall, it would set up the Administration, to meet its
climate commitments.
Secretary Granholm, I am eager to hear your testimony
today, and I want to thank you for your ongoing partnership and
your work with this subcommittee. I look forward to continuing
to work closely with you on these important goals and these
important commitments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby Rush
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. With that said, again, it is my honor to
recognize my good friend, the distinguished ranking member from
the great State of Michigan--I guess it is Michigan's Day--in
the subcommittee--Fred Upton for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
your very kind words. I would only say that we have had a
wonderful relationship, you and me, going back from the time I
was elected. But I would call you brother. You are a good man.
Thanks. And I did bring this.
Some of you may note that I have Coach Harbaugh coming in a
little bit later this morning, so I brought my license plating
for him to take a look at and do pictures for anyone that wants
one. Sorry about Penn Staters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
want to thank Secretary Granholm, too, for appearing before the
subcommittee to provide testimony. Our relationship as a former
Governor of Michigan goes back a long time in a very positive
way. So I would only add, just to compliment Bobby or Chairman
Rush that I hope we can--we can keep you here until maybe a
little bit after one. We've got votes at 1:15 or so. So I'm
hoping we can keep you until those votes start.
But Mr. Chairman, I know that we are all deeply troubled by
Russia's unprovoked attack on Ukraine. It is so terrible to
witness Russia's committing genocide in Ukraine while Europe is
being held hostage by the dependence on Russian oil and gas.
And sadly, we have watched America's energy production fall
while gasoline prices have reached record highs. Inflation is
surging out of control. Folks are suffering, having to choose
between putting food on the table or maybe put gas in the car.
And, yes, Republicans have been sounding the alarm. We urged
the President to impose crippling sanctions on Russia's energy
industry and stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
These steps are essential to cut Europe's dependence on
Russian energy. We have also put forth legislation that would
restore America's energy dominance in global leadership.
America is the world's leading producer of oil and gas. That's
no accident. And we should like it. We can produce
significantly more energy than we do today and unleash the vast
resources under our feet. We can also help our allies in Europe
and Ukraine by sending shipments of American oil and LNG to
replace Russian supplies.
Certainly the Department of Energy has very important role
to play. As the Secretary of Energy, your primary
responsibility is strengthening and protecting the Nation's
energy security and in order to maximize America's energy
abundance, we have got to modernize our energy infrastructure,
restart energy leases on Federal lands, build more pipelines
and LNG export facilities and strengthen our supply chain so
they are more resilient to shocks.
DOE must lead by example. They should consider issuing
waivers to streamline the permitting process for LNG export
facilities and send the signal that our country will be a
stable and reliable supplier of natural gas for many decades to
come. Our European allies need more certainty to push back on
Russia and build new import facilities and pipeline
interconnections. Meanwhile, FERC, an independent agency within
DOE, is needlessly postponing decisions on dozens of projects
by adding months to the already rigorous environmental review
process.
Making matters worse, FERC has also injected tremendous
uncertainty in the process by throwing out decades of
bipartisan precedent and attempting to change natural gas
policy in ways that contradict the Natural Gas Act. So I intend
to use today's hearing to learn more about the steps DOE plans
to take to encourage more American energy production and lower
prices for consumers.
While the Administration's talking points appear to
recognize the need to increase American oil and gas production
and lessen our dependence on China for critical materials, I am
concerned by the complete lack of follow-through. The White
House announced a goal, to increase LNG exports to Europe, but
they provided no details on the regulatory reforms needed to
make it a reality. The White House announced a plan to utilize
the Defense Production Act for critical materials while EPA
continues to make it virtually impossible to construct and
permit any new mines in the U.S. So we need new solutions.
America has the competitive advantage. We have the world's
richest supply of natural resources. We have enduring spirit of
innovation, and we have the most rigorous environmental and
labor standards.
On a positive note, many of us were pleased with the
announcement that our Ambassador to Greece, Jeffrey Piatt, who
is departing this week, is going to go to become the new
Assistant Secretary of Energy--Assistant Secretary of State for
Energy Resources. He's a career Ambassador under Obama to
Ukraine, under Trump and Biden, to Greece. He well understands
the critical need to ensure that our European allies have the
proper energy resources to wean themselves off Russian imports.
So important for the world as the Ukrainians need all the
tools needed to win and prevail against Putin. So let's lead by
example. Get the government out of the way and unleash
America's energy abundance. With that, Mr. Chairman, my friend,
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush. And I want to thank
the Secretary for joining us this morning to discuss the
Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2023 budget. You are always
so helpful in taking our calls and coming to our districts to
do events and, you know, highlighting how Congress interplays
with the Department. So I want to thank you for that.
I want to start by commending President Biden's recent
aggressive actions to address gas prices for American
consumers, including ordering a historic oil release from DOE's
strategic petroleum reserve. There is no question that Russia's
invasion of Ukraine has increased gas prices around the globe,
and big oil is taking advantage of this crisis to predatory
outrageous profit margins. We had a hearing before the holidays
on that with the oil companies.
And the President responded decisively to the supply
disruptions by releasing oil from our own strategic stocks and,
just as critically, by convincing foreign allies to release a
portion of their own reserves. Meanwhile, domestic oil
production has increased significantly since President Biden
took office while natural gas production and liquefied national
gas exports are both at record highs. Ultimately, the best way
to secure our energy independence and lower prices is to invest
in renewable energy made right here in the United States. Five
decades of fossil fuel dependency have left us relying on
volatile commodities that are priced at the whim of global
markets. Renewables were already the cheapest energy source,
even before oil and gas prices skyrocketed.
So if we truly want to lower prices and reduce our reliance
on foreign adversaries, we must invest in renewable energy and
domestic supply chains here in America. And I know that that's
one of your priorities, Madam Secretary. We started the process
of moving toward a cleaner, more secure and consumer-friendly
energy future by enacting the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
this year or last year, I should say.
And that includes $62 billion in funding that DOE will
oversee. This transformative law will modernize our
infrastructure to strengthen our economy for the future. The
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law not only invests in bridges and
roads but also in building domestic supply chains and the
critical electric infrastructure we need to transition to
cleaner, cheaper energy.
It also invests billions in electric vehicle charging
stations that give consumers a real choice and a chance to save
money by moving away from volatile oil markets. It also helps
build our domestic renewable energy manufacturing and
processing capacity for electric vehicles, batteries, and
chargers so they are built right here at home rather than in
China.
And the Bipartisan Law also invests billions to modernize
our electric grid so it is more resilient to ever-increasing
extreme weather events and so we can bring more renewable
energy to communities around the Nation. And I look forward to
hearing how DOE plans to administer the law's many programs and
ensure American taxpayers reap the benefits of those
investments.
Now, lowering energy or consumer energy bills isn't just
about supply. Energy efficiency is a critical tool in our
efforts to address the climate crisis and to lower energy bills
for all Americans. But for four years, the Trump Administration
delayed and ignored important deadlines for updating appliance
efficiency standards that save consumers money.
Since taking office, President Biden and Secretary Granholm
have flipped the switch back on--I should say back on for
energy savings. They are moving forward on efficiency
standards, including an announcement on Tuesday of two
lightbulb efficiency rules that will save consumers nearly $3
billion on their annual utility bills. And these two efficiency
rules would also cut carbon pollution by 222 million metric
tons over the next 30 years. DOE also plays a central role in
safeguarding our national security, especially as the Federal
agency responsible for oversight of our nuclear weapons
stockpile. In recent years, that obligation has grown to also
include protecting our Nation's critical energy infrastructure
against cyber security threats.
Under administrations of both parties, DOE has handled that
rule well, including leading the Federal response to the
Colonial Pipeline cybersecurity attack last year. And there is
bipartisan agreement on the--agreement on this committee that
we must continue to empower the DOE and its Office of
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response or
CESER, C-E-S-E-R, to address evolving cybersecurity threats.
So I look forward to hearing from you today about your
cybersecurity plans and how Congress can enhance DOE's role as
the lead agency responsible for protecting our critical energy
infrastructure. So thank you again for joining us, Madam
Secretary, and for all that you do on a daily basis, and I
yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone Jr.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. McMorris Rodgers, the ranking
member of the full committee, for 5 minutes for her opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Energy is
foundational to everything that we do. As Chairman Dingell once
said, if it moves, it's energy. If it doesn't, it's commerce.
That is why we all love this committee. Unfortunately, because
of President Biden's energy crisis, everything is more
expensive: gas, food, diapers, airfare, heating our homes,
buying a car, and much more.
Inflation now costs Americans, on average, $5,000 more a
year. Families across Eastern Washington have told me that they
are paying nearly double for groceries. Gas prices are causing
some of the greatest harm. Gas is more than four dollars a
gallon because of this Administration's actions to undermine
our energy independence.
In response, my Democrat colleagues are announcing today a
new bill unveiling a bill to give the Federal Trade Commission
more authority to go after price gouging. The American people
know it is not price gouging, nor is it Putin's price hike. It
is Biden's price hike, and it started on day one when he took
office.
We must flip the switch--absolutely--for more domestic
energy production. It is how we will lower costs, ensure
reliability, and strengthen our security and geopolitical power
too. Russia's immoral and brutal war in Ukraine and Europe's
energy crisis is proof all that is at stake.
Because of Russia's rush to green or Europe--Europe's rush
to green and their reliance on Russian energy, citizens today
are being asked to cut consumption and turn off their lights.
Scarcity is Europe's answer. This cannot be America's future.
Our energy abundance is how we should lead, keep the lights on,
lower costs and fight Putin's war chest and other communist
China activities.
Our path cannot be to weaken American leadership by
receding from world energy markets and shutting down our
tremendous energy systems. Yet that is what we are seeing. This
Administration's rush to green agenda has raised costs and
emboldened our adversaries like Putin and the Chinese Communist
Party. President Biden canceled Keystone on day one, but he
greenlighted Putin's Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. His rush to green
and electric vehicles make us reliant on China.
He imposed a moratorium on energy development on Federal
lands, slow-walked permits for much-needed energy
infrastructure projects. U.S. oil production has fallen by more
than 1.5 million barrels per day since peaking at 13 million
barrels per day in 2020. Yesterday, Secretary Granholm said,
``Perhaps renewable energy is the greatest peace plan this
world will ever know.'' I cannot overState how dangerous I
believe this statement is for our energy security, our national
security, our future as Americans. Has this Administration
failed to learn anything from Europe? We need a course
reversal. President Biden must reverse his war on American
energy. I urge my colleagues to join on an agenda to secure a
cleaner American future. We can say yes to flipping the switch
on domestic production of cleaner oil and natural gas. We can
say yes to American Energy Independence from Russia Act.
We can say yes to advance nuclear and new nuclear fuels by
fostering new domestic markets and lifting regulations. We can
say yes to innovation that will lead to abundant, affordable
and clean energy. DOE was formed to advance the nuclear
security missions of the cold war and later organized to
confront the energy security needs created by the 1970's energy
crisis.
These missions still matter more than ever. But this
Administration has strayed from them in pursuit of appeasing
radical and ideological agendas. DOE continues to maintain the
Nation's nuclear deterrent. It served central roles in
international, national nuclear security and powers the nuclear
Navy. A well-managed DOE enterprise produces amazing benefits.
I just want to emphasize again we need to flip the switch,
boost our energy production.
Last year in the budget hearing, we warned about the
consequences of this Administration's war on American energy.
Today, we are living the reality of these consequences, rising
gas prices, an emboldened Russia, a reliance on Chinese supply
chains and a weakened security. The Biden Administration must
abandon this dangerous and radical agenda.
Secretary Granholm, your core mission is to focus on
security, both national and economic security. It is urgent.
Let's celebrate and utilize American energy independence, not
shut it down. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. Members--that pursuant to committee rules, all
members, your opening statements shall be made part of the
record. And here now, I'd like to welcome our witness for
today's hearing, the Hon. Jennifer M. Granholm, the Secretary
of the United States Department of Energy.
Madam Secretary, again, thank you for joining us today. We
look forward to your testimony. At this time, the Chair will
recognize the witness for 5 minutes to provide opening
statements. But before we begin, I would like to explain, once
again, Madam Secretary, the lighting system that's in front of
you. It is a series of lights. The light will initially be
green.
The light will turn yellow when you have one minute
remaining. Please begin to wrap up your testimony at that
point. The light will turn red when your time expires. Madam
Secretary, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM
Secretary Granholm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Ranking
Member Upton and Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member McMorris
Rodgers and to members of the committee. It is really an honor
to appear before you in person today to discuss the President's
2023 budget request for the Department of Energy. I am very
grateful for the support that you have given to our Department,
including through the 2022 omnibus legislation. I applaud your
work to ensure secure and reliable and clean and affordable
energy for all Americans. It is an effort that I am proud to
play a part of as the 16th Secretary of Energy.
Under the Biden Administration, the Department of Energy is
committed to increasing energy security, energy affordability
and energy resilience. We are committed to securing the clean
energy supply chains needed to reduce our reliance on unabated
fossil fuels and increase our energy independence. And we are
committed to enhancing America's competitiveness by
accelerating scientific discovery and innovation. These
commitments are reflected in our budget. And a look around the
world shows that this is the right focus with the right
priorities for this moment in history. Right now, we do face a
trio of crises. We face climate change. We face COVID-19's
effect on supply chains and, most urgently, we face Russia's
invasion of Ukraine. The first of those crises, climate change,
cost the United States $148 billion last year alone in dealing
with extreme weather events.
The second two crises are costing American families right
now as they see prices rising from gas stations to grocery
stores. Let me be clear. The Department of Energy is using
every tool available to increase oil supply. And that is why
last month, President Biden authorized the release of one
million barrels per day from our strategic petroleum reserve
over the next six months, 180 barrels in total, coordinating
with international allies and partners who committed to release
another 60 million barrels.
I appreciate Congress's support of President Biden's ban on
Russian energy imports. We are also working to offer relief to
American families, including through
three-and-a-half billion dollars for the weatherization
assistance program provided in the bipartisan infrastructure
law. But ultimately, these crises tell us that global energy
security and energy independence and energy affordability all
depend on a shift toward American-made clean energy.
Fortunately, Congress, through the Energy Act of 2020 and the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, has invested in our ability to
build some of these clean energy technologies here at home with
American parts and labor. I am grateful to the members of the
committee for the faith they have placed in our Department to
oversee many of these investments. And the new offices and the
ambitious clean energy goals that come with them.
We are hard at work implementing the same legislation. Most
recently, for example, the Department of Energy began accepting
applications for the $6 billion civilian nuclear credit program
to keep existing nuclear energy online and to maintain this
reliable, secure source of clean baseload power. The $62
billion investment from the infrastructure law is an historic
long-term investment in projects that will serve our Nation for
decades.
But it is not, on its own, sufficient to address the
Nation's energy challenges. And that is why our request
includes base year funding for efforts to complement the
infrastructure law and maximize its impact to lower costs, to
make us energy secure and to provide us with reliable baseload
power. The request obviously also supports the Department's
innovative capacity with our Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, our Office of Science, our 17 national labs
to maintain America's competitive edge. And it includes funding
across a range of DOE missions that have kept our country safe
from environmental management to nuclear security. I am proud
of DOE's work to confront our Nation's most pressing
challenges, and I reaffirm my commitment to lead this
extraordinary department as we implement Congress's legislative
actions from the Infrastructure Law, the Energy Act and those
to come, including the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the
full agenda for building a better America. So thank you for the
opportunity to be here, and I am happy to answer your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Granholm follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Madam Secretary.
We have now concluded the opening statements, and we will
now move to member questions. Each Member will have 5 minutes
to ask questions of the Secretary. I will start by recognizing
myself for 5 minutes.
Madam Secretary, again, thanks for your appearance here
today. I want to begin by talking a little bit about the Clean
Energy Corps. As you know, increasing minority participation in
the energy industry has been my top priority as chairman of
this subcommittee. I believe that if it is done right, the
Clean Energy Corps could represent a once-in-a-lifetime chance
to supercharge the participation of those who have been
traditionally excluded from the energy sector.
Could you detail what steps the Department is taking to
ensure that 1,000 new employees that will make up the Clean
Energy Corps--that they come from diverse backgrounds of all
across our Nation, every sector of our nation?
Secretary Granholm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is really
important to us that those who implement the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law look like America. And the Clean Energy
Corps, the 1,000 employees that we are recruiting to be able to
implement the components of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
must look like America. And so we are developing strategies to
do that, first of all, with a dashboard for candidates as they
apply to self-report the DEIA information. And we are using
that to inform our outreach strategies to be able to ensure
that we get a full suite of employees that look like America
and have the skills to be able to implement the law as well.
Part of this involves reaching out to MS--to minority-
serving institutions and HBCUs. We have partnered with our ED
office to develop bias-informed interview process, ensuring
that people who are reviewing candidates and resumes have gone
through training. And we have standardized questions to make
sure that--that are informed by that process. We have detailed
a staffer in, for example, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab--from
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab to support outreach to diverse
candidates at all levels.
We have been doing a lot of intake of resumes. Final
selections certainly are ongoing and long-coming, but we are in
the process of continuous improvement to ensure the excellence
and the diversity that is necessary to build out the projects
and the demonstration efforts in that Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you. My next question is along
the same line. Underrepresented communities need to have more
than just the standard approach of--from--that come from
universities, but the high schools need to be included. And
another area that's often overlooked is the contracting
opportunities that help expand business--that do business with
the Department of Energy, particularly in the minority
community. How will this budget request for the Office of
Economic Impact and Diversity aid the Department in promoting
job opportunities at the high school and the university/college
level but also promoting contracting opportunities for
minorities who want to contract with the Department of Energy?
Secretary Granholm. The budget request of 34 million for
this effort reflects our commitment to provide historic support
for underserved communities. Our Office of Economic Impact and
Diversity is making sure that we are fulfilling the Justice40
requirements and that we are looking, for example, to our labs
to help increase our STEM workforce.
So for example, I was in South Carolina with Representative
Clyburn, who had recruited the HBCUs in his district and the
minority-serving institutions in his district who work with
Savannah River National Lab. And that program has resulted in
making sure that we are getting students and a pipeline,
because those HBCUs and MSIs are working with high schoolers as
well, to be able to ensure that that pipeline starts early and
moves through internships, paid internships at the labs. Each
of the labs has got a strategy in this regard.
For example, in Stanford at the SLAC Lab, they take young
women from underserved high schools, women of--young women of
color who are in high school who are not interested or have not
expressed an interest in majoring in STEM in college, and they
expose them through a summer program to STEM at the lab. And as
a result, the vast majority of--I want to say over 90 percent
of them actually major in a STEM field once they get into
college.
So that pipeline is a long pipeline. It starts in high
school and moves beyond. And then just quickly, on the making
sure that businesses who interact with the Department also
reflect that Justice40 commitment and reflect the opportunity
for small and minority-owned and women-owned businesses, our
economic development offices also--and it's not just the
office. Let me just be clear because these efforts have to
penetrate throughout the Department, that we are developing and
have developed process to ensure that we are inclusive in the
contracting, certainly as well as the hiring.
Mr. Rush. I yield back.
The Chairman now recognizes Mr. Upton for 5 minutes.
Mr. Upton. Well, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Granholm, welcome. As you know, all of us, both
sides of the aisle, for sure, are deeply concerned about the
situation in the Ukraine and Europe. A number of members,
including myself and Chairman Pallone, traveled overseas during
the recess, and we spoke with many European leaders, heads of
State, legislators. They are begging for U.S. LNG exports so
that they can wean themselves off Russian gas.
They want to move as quick as they can, but they got to
have our help. We know, just earlier this week, Russia cutoff
natural gas to both Poland and Bulgaria, and they threatened to
do the same to other countries. So I think it is--you know, I
think we are all on board that we have got to act quickly and
build new pipelines and LNG export facilities so that we can
increase that gas shipment to Europe. Can you help us? Are you
able to support waivers or permitting on some of the strict
permitting timelines to better prepare ourselves to export LNG
to our allies?
Secretary Granholm. Thank you for this question. First, we
are committed to helping our allies, clearly. And as you may
know, I just--we--the Department of Energy just permitted two
additional----
Mr. Upton. Right.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Facilities yesterday.
However----
Mr. Upton. We should have had this hearing a month ago.
Secretary Granholm. Well, but those won't come online
before another few years because they are under--one is under
construction. One hasn't even begun to be under construction.
Be aware that we have, under permit, permitted completely 38
billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas that has not been
constructed yet.
So we have permitted. We currently export about 12 billion
cubic feet of natural gas. We have permitted almost three times
as much that could be ready to go but that are simply not under
construction. Every molecule of natural gas that can be
liquefied at a terminal is being liquefied and exported.
Mr. Upton. So yesterday's announcement, I think--correct me
if I'm wrong--but I think yesterday's announcement allows an
additional .5 BCF a day for this year.
Secretary Granholm. But those facilities are not up and
running. That's a future----
Mr. Upton. But I--but the goal, I thought, was to get to
1.5 additional BCF a day.
Secretary Granholm. Well, the goal is for--to go to Europe,
it's 15 billion cubic meters by the end of the year. And we
will be increasing by that amount by the end of this year.
There are--there are other facilities that are coming online,
again, have been permitted. But they are under construction.
And it takes time for them to come online. But we will meet
what we have told the European Union that we will promise by
the end of this year. And by--and into the future, the
President has also----
Mr. Upton. So a little bit later this morning, I am going
to be meeting with the Ukrainian energy minister. So we ask
that maybe in the next couple weeks, we might be able to get a
written plan in terms of how we are going to be able to get
that before the end of the year or at least what the planning
and timeline is going to look like?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. It is already happening. I mean,
for example, the--there is a--one of the previously permanent
facilities that just came online or is undergoing coming online
has made its first shipments. This is, again, a new facility as
of this year. Every other facility is exporting to the max. We
have permitted four of six that are pending for us in addition
to the 30 billion that are already permitted. But the remaining
two facilities are in Mexico and have not even begun
construction yet.
Mr. Upton. So let me----
Secretary Granholm. Everything that we could have permitted
that could be exported within our boundaries has been
permitted.
Mr. Upton. OK. Well, that is good. I met with both Polish
as well as Greek authorities, and I know that they are planning
to make up for what has been cutoff from Russia. The Greeks, as
an example--I can't remember if it is kilometers or miles, but
they only need to do about a 100-mile segment that will connect
from Greece to the north that can offset what is coming from
Russia, what has been cutoff.
And they think that they can finish that before the year is
out, that pipeline. So that is why, you know, again, I think I
speak for everyone that was on our trip. We were so--so
impressed with what the new Assistant Secretary of State is
going to do on energy. And we look forward to having further
communication.
Let me just ask you one quick question about Michigan
before my time expires. Line 5. Where is the administration on
Line 5 in allowing this line that needs to be replaced be
replaced versus cutoff?
Secretary Granholm. As you know, that is in the courts
right now.
Mr. Upton. But they are waiting to hear from you all.
Secretary Granholm. It is in the courts, and it is the
Department of State. And it is Canadian government that have to
negotiate that. It is not in my jurisdiction.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time is up. The gentleman yields
back.
The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know,
countries around the world are transitioning to clean energy,
and we have a lot to lose if we don't move quickly to invest in
sources that are both cleaner and cheaper than the fossil fuels
we have used in the past. So Madam Secretary, what steps is the
Administration taking to ensure that we are leaders in the
clean energy supply chain and that--and what are the economic
and national security consequences of failing to be competitive
in this necessary industry? I will ask you to be short because
I have two more questions to ask you.
Secretary Granholm. Well, let me just say, as you can
imagine, because the President has been talking about this
nonstop, the supply chain issue is of critical importance to
this Administration. And DOE plays a role certainly on the
energy supply chain. We have issued--``we,'' meaning the DOE,
as well as several other agencies, have issued 13 supply chain
reports about the links, the missing links in the supply chains
that we need to fill. Critical minerals is one of them, for
example, for batteries, for electric vehicles and for
stationary storage.
We need to work on each one of those pieces, and the
President has a whole-of-government approach to make sure that
happens, including the funding that was provided for the DOE in
the Infrastructure Law.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you. Obviously, I want us to lead
the clean energy transition to the benefit of our workers, our
consumers, our economy. And I am hopeful that my Republican
colleagues across the aisle will begin to recognize that we
must invest significantly in clean energy and domestic supply
chains now while we risk handing these opportunities over to
China and other adversaries.
And of course DOE, as I mentioned in my opening, these
energy efficiency standards, like those for light bulbs, you
announced Tuesday, are a huge win-win that will save consumers
money and help us tackle the climate crisis. So I wanted to ask
you to elaborate on the actions DOE has taken to address the
backlog in updating money-saving appliance efficiency
standards, much of that backlog caused by the Trump
Administration.
Secretary Granholm. Yes. We, the Department of Energy,
inherited about 57 delayed standards when we came in. Our goal
this year is to get totally caught up from that and issue about
100 orders to make sure that we can keep appliances efficient
for American citizens so that they don't have to pay the money
that they would have to pay if they were using inefficient
technology. And so we are very proud of the actions that we are
taking. We are going to be very aggressive about trying to
reduce costs for people.
The LED light standards, the standards for the lightbulbs
issued earlier this week, are an example of that, as you
mentioned, saving taxpayers about $3 billion a year just for
changing out to LED lightbulbs, which last between ten and
umpteen times longer than incandescent bulbs. So we are going
to continue to move down that to save people money.
Mr. Pallone. I appreciate that. I look forward to, you
know, action on these standards, especially the one that is
long overdue, is gas furnaces. But I don't want you to talk
about that now. But I did want to mention it. I want to get to
cybersecurity. In March, Congress passed the Cyber Incident
Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act, which establishes
mandatory cyber intrusion reporting requirements for critical
infrastructure companies.
DOE is the sector-specific agency responsible for energy
cybersecurity. But the Department of Homeland Security is
responsible for implementing the new law. And the concern or
one of the concerns I have is that the new law gives Homeland
Security up to 24 hours to share with DOE information it
receives on cyber threats. That seemed like far too much time
to me.
I also want--think it is crucial that the reporting process
be streamlined so companies don't have to report to multiple
agencies. So my question is how important is it to receive
threat information from Homeland Security in a timely manner?
Is 24 hours too long, and do you agree that implementing the
new law, the Federal Government needs to do everything it can
to avoid establishing inconsistent or duplicative reporting
requirements? And you have, like, 45 seconds to answer.
Secretary Granholm. It is important to share information in
real time. And that is what is happening. A lot of that is
through technology. We have direct relationships through our
technology and our overall relationships with the industry. We
know what is happening. Our CESER office is in direct contact
both with CISA as well as with the industry through our sector-
coordinating council. So we take that lead role in this
industry, industry-coordinating sector, risk management sector
very seriously.
Mr. Pallone. Do you think that 24 hours is too long?
Secretary Granholm. I don't think that it waits that long.
I think that is--yes. I do think it is too long. I think it
happens much more rapidly. I think it happens in real time,
though.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you so much.
Secretary Granholm. You bet.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The chairman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mrs. McMorris
Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, you mentioned the drawdown on the
strategic petroleum reserve. And it has been drawn down to
record lows. Nearly 200 million barrels in a single year now
has been drawn down by this administration. And I believe that
this is reckless. It is dangerous. This is a strategic asset.
And depleting the reserve risk our energy future. It adds to
emboldening Russia and China.
I wanted to ask. This latest unprecedented drawdown will
mean that we will have about a quarter of the stockpile
projected for 2030. And that means we will be down at 100
million barrels in our strategic petroleum reserve. That is
about enough--enough for a week. I would like to ask what are
your plans to replenish the reserve.
Secretary Granholm. We will be replenishing the reserve.
There are plans----
Mrs. Rodgers. What is the plan?
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. To do that.
Mrs. Rodgers. What is the plan? congressional Democrats
have walked attempts in the past. When gasoline prices, oil
prices were low in 2020, attempts which would have made sense
to replenish the reserve then were blocked.
Secretary Granholm. No. Well, I am telling you we will be
asking. We will be replenishing the reserve----
Mrs. Rodgers. I am anxious to see----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Because it is important.
Mrs. Rodgers. I am anxious to see the plan.
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Mrs. Rodgers. I have----
Secretary Granholm. Happy to----
Mrs. Rodgers. I have introduced legislation, the American
Energy Independence from Russia Act. Would restore American
energy leadership, and it would secure our strategic petroleum
reserve releases. It would make sure that they are offset by
American production. Do you support the goal of that bill?
Secretary Granholm. I support the goal of replenishing with
American production. Yes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. I wanted to move to nuclear.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine has exposed the risk of weakening
American energy security. And it does extend beyond oil and
gas. It includes our vulnerabilities in the nuclear sector. We
are leading an exciting nuclear technology, advanced nuclear
technology, in the United States. However, we do not have the
uranium that we need.
Yesterday, Republican Leader Upton and I wrote you for a
more detailed information on your work to accelerate domestic
nuclear fuel resources. And do you agree that the Russian
invasion increased urgency to develop domestic nuclear fuels?
Secretary Granholm. I do. I do, and I look forward to
briefing you both or whoever wants to be briefed on the plan,
which we are finalizing within the next couple of weeks.
Mrs. Rodgers. Well, it feels like, at times, the
Administration is speaking--the left hand doesn't know what the
right hand is doing because when it comes to critical minerals,
we have had this administration shut down mines, shut down a
mine in Minnesota, shut down a mine in Arizona, at the same
time that we are in an urgent place for the Administration to
act. We continue to talk about energy prices soaring. I am
concerned about blackouts because of this Administration's
harmful energy policies. You started by focusing on clean,
renewable, reliable, and affordable energy, secure. I agree.
In my home State of Washington, the four Lower Snake River
Dams generate approximately 1,000 megawatts of power, on
average, annually. They have the capacity of 3,000 megawatts of
power. This provides Bonneville Power Administration with the
capability to meet peak energy demand loads at affordable
prices. Would you agree that these dams provide grid
reliability and reduce the chance of blackouts with the
increase of weather-dependent wind and solar generation in the
Northwest?
Secretary Granholm. I will say that I definitely agree that
hydroelectric power is a critical component of our clean energy
future. I agree that we have got to make as many dams as is
environmentally sane, available, and hopefully, through the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, be able to invest in additional
creation of dams, removal of the ones that don't work,
restoration, etc., like the Dam Good Bill that many of you
supported or are supporting also calls for.
Mrs. Rodgers. Only three percent of the dams in the United
States actually produce electricity. There is huge potential.
Would you agree that dams also help reduce carbon emissions?
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. OK. The Hanford site is adjacent
to my district. I just wanted to ask--well, maybe I will just--
I will ask this. I will ask the questions on Hanford in
writing. I wanted to ask if you would commit to a written plan
on the strategic petroleum reserve in your plans----
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Mrs. Rodgers [continuing]. To replenish. That would be
great.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Doyle--Mr. Peters for 5
minutes.
Mr. Peters. I RSVP'd remote. That is why I am out of order
down here, sir.
So thank you so much for being here, Secretary Granholm,
for speaking with us. And I am really grateful for DOE's
climate leadership and clean energy commitments. You are
invested in scaling carbon-removal technologies, in rapidly
building interState transmission lines and recent successes
that the loans program office are helping us develop a clean
energy economy.
And I am also encouraged by your focus on sustainable
aviation fuels and specifically algae biofuels. And I look
forward to continuing to partner with you and expanding next-
generation clean technologies and addressing the climate
crisis. But today, I want to talk about a less positive
development. And that is the threat to the United States solar
industry by the consideration of imposing tariffs on solar
panels.
This case could cost us 100,000 American solar jobs and
jeopardize our common clean energy goals. Already, 318 projects
are being canceled or delayed. And if the Administration
decides to impose tariffs, it could cause solar capacity to
fall 75 gigawatts short of the pace needed to reach the
President's solar goal. Tariffs can also affect reliability. In
California, we are using energy storage to help provide grid
reliability and the avoidance of blackouts. But these projects
are often solar combined with storage projects. So if you can't
get the panels, you can't build the storage.
So Madam Secretary, in September 2021, DOE released the
Solar Future Study which argued that the U.S. must install an
average of 30 gigawatts of solar capacity per year between now
and 2025 to reach the President's goal of having solar power 40
percent of the Nation's electricity by 2035.
Yesterday, the Solar Energy Industries Association said
that solar installation forecasts for 2022 and 2023 are being
cut by 46 percent due to consideration of tariffs. So instead
of doubling our solar deployment, we are cutting it in half. Is
the Department of Energy researching how this potential loss in
solar deployment could affect energy reliability and our
climate goals and planning what steps the Administration needs
to take to offset the solar project losses if they decide to
impose tariffs?
Secretary Granholm. Share your deep concern about this. As
you know, the decision is an adjudicative decision that rests
with the Department of Commerce. The Administration--I know the
climate office also shares the deep concern about the potential
inability to complete and deliver on the President's goals of
getting to 100 percent clean electricity by 2035. So yes. It is
safe to say that there is an awful lot of effort around how to
address this given that it is an adjudicative proceeding.
Mr. Peters. Well, I feel like you are in a very difficult
position. I understand the situation. I would also just note
that, as we sit here, we sit here in the room that makes the
laws. We have got paperwork that is in the way of policy now.
And so, you know, I really think we have to look at how we
shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing this kind of stuff to
happen. This is the tail wagging the dog.
And I am fully supporting, by the way, of expanding
domestic manufacturing of solar panels and components. And it
is encouraging to see the solar industry's target of
manufacturing 50 gigawatts of domestic production annually by
2030. But even if we are to pass the necessary incentives to
expand solar manufacturing in the U.S. and offset imports from
other nations, it is going to take us five to ten years to
scale up.
So investing in domestic manufacturing in the long-run
cannot be an excuse to stop solar deployment in the short-term.
So Madam Secretary, can you tell us more about DOE's efforts to
expand domestic manufacturing of solar components and whether
there is any way to get around this long lead time for scaling
up?
Secretary Granholm. Well, we clearly have to accelerate.
There is no doubt about it. One of the components of the budget
is a solar manufacturing accelerator that we are asking you to
approve. And this would help to achieve what the manufacturing
processes are that can be accelerated in the solar realm in
addition to the additional research that is necessary on
advanced components.
So whether it is the use of technology, the use of
integrated systems, the bottom line is we have to accelerate.
Clearly, the congressional action on getting the Solar Energy
Manufacturing Act passed would be a tremendous assist because
we want the private sector engaged on this, and we want to
build out that full supply chain.
But in the meantime, we recognize that we also have to make
sure that we are not--that we are not slowing down our efforts,
but we are also not--and I think you would probably agree--not
installing panels that are circumventing or that are
potentially built with labor from--you know, that--from the
solar industry in Xinjiang, etc. So both sides of those----
Mr. Peters. I would just say I think, you know, we face--we
call it an existential crisis. We need to act like it is an
existential crisis.
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Mr. Peters. And I think the notion that we have these
laws--I imagine maybe Secretary Raimondo is equally concerned.
Imagine we have set up these laws that shoot us in the foot
this way and put our plan at risk is of great concern to me.
And I just wanted to let the Administration know that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has----
Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
Mr. Peters [continuing]. Expired.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Dr. Burgess for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
Welcome, Madam Secretary, to our--our humble subcommittee.
Listening to your discussion with Mr. Peters, I just went to a
groundbreaking in my district at Alliance--Alliance Airport
Corridor for a battery manufacturing--or I'm sorry--a mica
manufacturing plant that is being built that is going to be
pretty rapid turnaround. I was impressed. They talk about being
in production in a little over a year's time, which is truly
phenomenal given that they were just moving the first dirt. But
it is that type of commitment that is necessary.
And just as I was--wasn't really the purpose of my being
there but the concept of available real eState, a State that
is--has a favorable tax profile and the corporation around
Alliance, Texas that is willing to--I mean, in fact, Ross
Perot, Jr., has challenged companies that want to move there.
Say I challenge you to outgrow us because we will keep up with
you.
And it is that kind of can-do spirit that really is
absolutely what is going to be required. Now, I would encourage
your comments to Ranking Member Upton on the--on the waivers
for liquefied natural gas. And your statement we want to get
every molecule into commerce, you know, we have a problem in
Texas in the Permian Basin. There is more natural gas than can
be used on an average day.
So procedures such as venting and flaring, which, I think
we both agree are undesirable, have happened. The way to
prevent venting and flaring is to get it into commerce. But if
that does require the ability to get, as you said, every
molecule of gas down to Freeport, Texas where it can be frozen
and sent overseas. So what do you see as the future for that?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. I know that the--obviously the
permitting of this and the EPA, etc., are all part of this
conversation. We do not want to see flaring. We don't want to
see methane exposure. I am glad you agree on that as well. I
think a lot of the industry agrees and has--is enthusiastic
about the technology associated with preventing methane leaks.
But of course, you have got to be able to take it, associated
gas somewhere. So there is no doubt that this particular issue
is one the Administration is focused on because we have to both
be efficient about the use of natural gas as well as prevent
methane flaring.
Mr. Burgess. Sure.
Secretary Granholm. So both need to happen.
Mr. Burgess. So both your office and President Biden have
called on oil companies to step up the drilling, step up
domestic production. Obviously, you do that in the Permian
Basin. And this stranded gas phenomenon is going to become a
more pressing issue. So I guess I would just ask the question.
Do you stand by those statements, view the President made to
ramp up energy production domestically?
Secretary Granholm. Absolutely.
Mr. Burgess. So will you commit to enforcing policies that
make it easier for these companies to do as you and the
President have requested?
Secretary Granholm. We want to make sure that we have no
methane leaks and that we increase our oil and gas production
at this moment. At the same time, as I will say--and I think
the oil and gas companies agree with this. It is important to
transition to clean energy as well. And many of them becoming
more diversified energy companies see this as an opportunity
for themselves as well. So both, I think----
Mr. Burgess. To be----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Need to happen.
Mr. Burgess [continuing]. Sure. But I think we have all
seen the danger of too rapid a transition, the sudden spike in
energy prices coupled with the inflationary pressures that were
out there really damaged American families in a very
significant way. We should be mindful of that as well because
it does affect people.
Secretary Granholm. Well, I will say the inflationary
issues right now are not as a result of clean energy. They are
as a result of the supply chain crunch coming out of COVID, the
fact that----
Mr. Burgess. Yes.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Almost----
Mr. Burgess. Yes. But we--right. Well, let's not get----
Secretary Granholm. OK.
Mr. Burgess. That is too long a discussion, the
inflationary pressures because of the American Rescue Plan. But
we will deal with that another day. So let me just ask you a
question about the Federal Regulatory Electric Commission. I
think I asked you a question last time when we were all on a
Zoom call with this. I led a bipartisan letter to FERC
requesting a decision that it provide a stable, thoughtful,
long-lasting basis to build out our Nation's essential energy
infrastructure. So could I ask you to commit to working with
FERC to ensure that the regulatory certainty for the oil and
gas industry is available during this crisis?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. And I think he's--I think the
chairman and FERC itself have been listening and have pulled
back a bit to be able to take into account the concerns of
those who want to see certainty for the oil and gas industry.
And we will be--from what I have seen, again, they are an
independent agency. But I believe that they are very concerned
about making sure that they are responsive to this moment as
well.
Mr. Burgess. I have a lot of other questions. But in the
interest of time, I am going to submit them as questions for
the record. I thank the chairman for his indulgence.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the retired member from
Pennsylvania, my good friend, Mr. Doyle.
Mr. Doyle. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking
Member Upton for holding this hearing.
And thank you, Secretary Granholm, for joining us. I have
been very pleased with the direction that you are taking the
Department of Energy, and I look forward to getting you up to
Pittsburgh so that you can see all the innovative work that is
going on in that region. Let me ask you a question. If we are
to lead the world in EV manufacturing and in deploying
renewable energy resources, we are going to need a robust
domestic battery supply chain.
So that is why I was proud to author and work with a number
of colleagues on this committee, to include battery
manufacturing grants in the Infrastructure Bill. I am glad that
the Department is moving quickly to deploy this funding that my
office is hearing some concern from industry that the
Department is focusing too heavily on lithium batteries and not
leaving much room for alternative technologies like zinc
batteries being built in my district by EOS Energy. I want to
ask you do you agree that DOE should be supporting all types of
battery deployment, and how do you intend to ensure a level
playing field for non-lithium batteries as you deploy the
infrastructure funding.
Secretary Granholm. We are very bullish on technology all
around, and we want to make sure that we are not prioritizing
one technology over another. We know that lithium obviously has
been one of choice from a majority of automakers, at least in
the electric vehicle supply chain. However, we are interested
in technology related to energy storage overall. You'll see we
have done requests for information on the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, battery components, $7 billion in two
chunks.
We will be issuing a funding opportunity announcement very
shortly on that as a followup. We have taken in the input from
industry, and we will be issuing a funding opportunity
announcement. And you will see that we are very eager to get
technologies that allow for us to move forward on electric
vehicles and the best technologies.
Mr. Doyle. Yes. I would just add the zinc battery
technology is much better for long-duration storage, being used
by--being used by a lot of utilities.
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Mr. Doyle. And we know that is important too if we are
going to get more renewables on the grid. So I hope that we
have a level playing field there. I am also pleased to see the
efforts you are taking to make and roll out these hydrogen
hubs. Is DOE taking a regional approach so that places like
Southwestern Pennsylvania and West Virginia could combine their
strengths, or are you taking a more targeted approach?
In Southwestern Pennsylvania, we have lots of production
capability, storage capacity and industrial end users. So what
do you see as the most important building blocks for getting a
hub set up?
Secretary Granholm. We are not biasing any particular
strategy. We want the best proposals to come in. We will be
issuing those funding opportunity announcements later. It is--
every region of the country has risen--raised their hand and
said we want to be a part. Some in the--inside of a community,
some inside of a State, some inside of a region. And we are
not--what we are saying is we want a solid proposal that is
holistic, that takes into account the regional considerations,
particularly communities that have been left behind, that it
has a workforce development strategy related to hydrogen.
Some of the hydrogen hubs will be associated with natural
gas, and we would like to see zero carbon-emitting projects. So
that would--might be coupled with carbon capture and
sequestration and methane, of course, abatement on the front
end. Some of it will be with nuclear. Some of it will be with
clean renewable energy. So we are not biasing. We want to see a
variety of proposals and we wanted the best proposals.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Decarbonizing heavy industry and
transportation is a difficult challenge. How important is it
for Congress to support direct efforts to help the Department
of Energy and private industry find new innovative technologies
and deploy them?
Secretary Granholm. It is extremely important. It is
extremely important, which is why we are grateful for
Congress's support of the labs, for those technologies, for
potentially considering this Bipartisan Innovation Act, which
would be more funding for advanced technologies, some of which
would come to the Department of Energy. But if--we cannot cut
technology investment, even as we also do the spectrum from
research to deployment to--you know, research to deployment and
the spectrum in between of development and all of the--the
entire spectrum is important.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield you
back three seconds.
Mr. Rush. The Chairman certainly thanks the gentleman for
yielding back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you, Madam Secretary, for being with us today. Madam
Secretary, January of this year, you tweeted, quote, nuclear
energy is clean energy, and it is vital to creating good-paying
jobs, supporting our energy transition, and saving our planet,
unquote. You said something similar last year when you were in
Glasgow. At that time, you stated, quote, the U.S. views
nuclear energy as a pivotal technology in the global effort to
lower emissions, expand economic opportunity, and ultimately
combat climate change, unquote. I agree with you on the
importance of nuclear energy. However, I was disappointed to
see that these broad statements of support were not followed up
with action. In particular, given these statements, I was
surprised to see that President Biden's budget proposal for
Fiscal Year 2023 failed to provide any funding for the
Department's Uranium Reserve Program. This program is designed
to strengthen the United States national security and restore
its competitive advantage in nuclear energy by securing our
nuclear fuel supply chain.
Congress previously appropriated 75 million for DOE. They
implement this reserve, and yet we have heard that the
Department has not utilized it. This issue has taken on greater
urgency given the unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine. The
United States is too reliant on uranium and fuels imported from
Russia and its allies, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. I believe it
is essential for the United States not to be reliant on--and on
an isolated, repressive and unpredictable Russian regime for
critical reserves like mined, enriched and converted uranium.
Question: Wouldn't you agree that it is better for the
United States both from an economic and security perspective to
obtain uranium right here in the United States and from our
steadfast Western allies?
Secretary Granholm. Yes, sir.
Mr. Latta. We ask this. Given your comments about the
importance of nuclear energy and the need to create jobs here
in the United States, why didn't DOE request funding for the
Uranium Reserve Program for the second Fiscal Year in a row?
Secretary Granholm. Because you gave it to us last year,
and we are issuing a funding opportunity announcement in June
for a uranium reserve. So we carried that over for that
purpose. So that 75 million is still there.
Mr. Latta. OK. So that--yes, that will be out in June. You
said that--that's going to come out?
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Mr. Latta. All right. Would you also commit to working with
me to help the United States reduce our reliance on Russian
uranium, invest in American nuclear leadership, including
through legislation like my H.R. 7403, which is the NO RUSSIA
Act?
Secretary Granholm. I'm not familiar with that, but I
definitely would work with you on that. I would very much like
to see us develop our own resources here.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. On another separate--separate
subject, as Americans continue to grapple with high energy
costs, we should be avoiding any actions that restrict the flow
of energy products across our country. Energy restrictions
could result in even greater costs to consumers. And following
up with the ranking Republican, Mr. Upton's questions on Line
5, let me ask this. You know, Line 5 is a absolutely crucial
energy artery in the Midwest. Will you commit to ensuring it
remains in operation given the fact it has been deemed as safe
and secure?
Secretary Granholm. You know, again, this is not in the
Department of Energy's purview. It is in court, and it lies
with the State Department and Canada.
Mr. Latta. Is the Department of Energy working with the
Department of State to tell them exactly what--because you've
got the expertise on it, what the--how important this line is?
Secretary Granholm. The State Department has expertise as
well, as was identified by Mr. Upton earlier. They have got a
lot of people, and they know this very well.
Mr. Latta. Well, let me followup. Does the Department of
State know that--how reliant Ohio and Michigan are, especially
Northwest and Southeast and especially Upper Peninsula are on
Line 5? And it is a $5 billion economic impact that it has on
our economy and our region?
Secretary Granholm. I suspect they know.
Mr. Latta. I beg your pardon?
Secretary Granholm. I suspect they know.
Mr. Latta. But the Department of Energy, in your opinion,
is not relaying that information to them?
Secretary Granholm. Well, I mean, the Department of State
is well aware of the economic issues related to the Upper
Midwest and our relationship to Canada and the desire of
Enbridge to get this line done. But again, it is in the courts.
It is not----
Mr. Latta. OK. Well, let me--let me ask this question
because, having been the former chief executive of that of your
State, would you say that Line 5 plays a massive economic
impact on the State of Michigan?
Secretary Granholm. I am not going to----
Mr. Latta. I beg your pardon?
Secretary Granholm. I am not going to respond to that one
because, again----
Mr. Latta. You are not going to respond to that----
Secretary Granholm. No.
Mr. Latta [continuing]. Question.
Secretary Granholm. I am not going to get into that because
it is in court.
Mr. Latta. Well, I tell you when I talk to people in the
State of Michigan, in the State of Ohio, they say it does have
a major economic impact. But you are not going to respond to
it?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. It is just--again, I am not going
to get----
Mr. Latta. I find----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Ahead of the Governor----
Mr. Latta. I find that----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. In Michigan----
Mr. Latta. I find it unbelievable.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Or the Administration.
Mr. Latta. And Mr. Chairman, I will submit my other
questions to the record since my time has expired, and I yield
back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman with the bow tie,
the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Someone has to set
standards around here, so appreciate the acknowledgment.
And I appreciate you coming and testifying to us today,
Madam Secretary. And I am going to ask a question similar to
what Mr. Pallone asked earlier. Over the past few years, we
have seen increasing threats to the grid from natural hazards,
wildfires and hurricanes that are climate-related, from cyber
attacks and even from kinetic attacks. Given these increased
threats, how does the Department's CESER office, reorganization
and budget request, reflect a renewed attention on grid
security?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. There is an increase in there for
CESER, about nine percent, just slightly short of that. CESER
is fundamental to us and to the entire country in making sure
that we are integrated both on technology but also with the
private sector and the utilities to ensure that we are aware of
every single action that is happening out on the wires across
the country.
We are in a shields-up posture right now. And that means
that industry is on high alert, especially in light of what is
happening overseas. And the technology that CESER has worked
with industry to deploy allows us to have some real-time
information if there is some kind of cyber attack on the grid,
for example, but also making sure that we are distributing and
giving best practices, technology, training, etc. on cyber
attacks but also on anything that makes the grid unreliable.
And that includes extreme weather events.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Madam Secretary, I have worked for
years on the intersection of energy and water issues. So I was
reassured to see the energy-water nexus crosscut line listed as
one of the priority crosscuts in the proposal. This is
particularly timely with the developing Western mega drought
and the research at DOE to improve modeling of water resources
and more use and reuse of water rather than just use and
discarded water. So can you elaborate how the DOE is planning
to prioritize this crosscut and how the program has been
upgraded to give new directives under the Energy Act of 2020.
Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thank you so much, and really we
are grateful for the opportunity and hopefully get approval for
this cross--200 million in this crosscut because precisely of
what we are seeing drought-wise across the West. One of the
components of it that I am particularly interested in seeing is
additional work on desalination and making sure that we have
this massive resource of the Pacific and the Atlantic too, but
obviously Pacific is a little more relevant.
How do we take advantage of that and borrow some best
practices from places that do desal in a much more aggressive
way than we do? So there are a lot of exciting technologies
that that water-energy nexus will cover. And hopefully we can
get the support of this committee for it.
Mr. McNerney. Well, regarding desal, it is energy-
intensive. And I know they are doing some great work at
Lawrence Livermore Labs on making that better so let's----
Secretary Granholm. Yes. Exactly.
Mr. McNerney [continuing]. Continue that effort. I am going
to followup a question that Mr. Latta and the ranking member
asked on uranium, which shows that there is a bipartisan push
to do nuclear. The Energy Act of 2020 established a DOE program
to support the available high-assay low-enriched uranium for
use in civilian advanced nuclear research and other areas. This
was based on legislation that I co-led. What is the status of
the HALEU Availability Program? What is DOE's current vision
for achieving a reliable domestic supply?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. We have to have more HALEU and LEU
as well across the board, both for advanced and for the
existing civilian reactors and for any additional nuclear power
that we want to bring on. We cannot be subject to supply coming
from Russia. So we have a--we are in the final stages of
developing a holistic strategy on a U.S. HALEU and LEU effort
and making sure we have the sufficient supply. And as soon as
we are--we can put the final bow on that strategy, which should
be very soon, happy to come and brief you about it.
Mr. McNerney. Very good. What about the discussions between
the Office of Nuclear Energy and NNSA on efforts to down-blend
highly enriched uranium?
Secretary Granholm. Yes, that is--that is ongoing. There is
a component of what is in the NNSA's purview that is being
down-blended now, and that is certainly one strategy that we
are pursuing as well.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes my good friend from the great
State of West Virginia, the man with the mustache, Mr.
McKinley, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always good to
see you here.
Madam Secretary, let's try to get to the point. The U.S.,
as you know, has been sanctioning Russia over its aggression in
Ukraine. If we are not buying their gas or the oil--but we are
buying their uranium--uranium. And that is all thanks to
Hillary Clinton's 2010--2010 Uranium One deal that allowed
Russia to control 20 percent of our uranium production.
So to counter this, as you have heard the discussion,
Congress established uranium reserve in 2010, the fall of 2010.
But according to an article written by Senator Barrasso in the
Wall Street Journal recently, DOE has not purchased a single
ounce of uranium in the last year and a half. So my question
is, is Senator Barrasso wrong?
Secretary Granholm. No. As I was saying earlier, we are
issuing a funding opportunity announcement in June for the
creation of----
Mr. McKinley. This has been----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. A strategic----
Mr. McKinley. I just----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Petroleum reserve.
Mr. McKinley. All respect----
Secretary Granholm. I mean a strategic----
Mr. McKinley. Claiming my time----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Uranium reserve.
Mr. McKinley [continuing]. Ma'am. Madam Secretary, it has
been a year and a half since that has happened. I thought we
might move on that. President Biden has signed an executive
order requiring a zero emission by 2035. But the head of global
research at General Electric in Albany, New York, when we met
with Paul Tonko--and I met with him--unequivocally, he said
that such an ideologically driven goal of going to 100 percent
renewables by 2035 will, in his words, cause the grid to
collapse.
Robert Bloom, a member of NERC, said the same thing. He
said an all-renewable power grid is destined to collapse. You
aren't talking about a blackout over a weekend or an overnight.
But this is a long-term grid failure, possibly years. Any of us
that understand anything about the grid would understand that
means schools and stores would close. Hospitals would
jeopardize. Commerce would cease. We would be virtually thrust
back in the 1800's.
We also know that only ten percent of PGM's grid is
renewables. They would have to replace 90 percent of their
power profile in that length of time. And researchers at
Harvard said permitting put the--has put--that Biden has put in
place, permitting process that he has put in place put 2035 out
of reach. So streamlining permits should be a priority for the
grid, yet the Administration has established new NEPA rules,
NEPA rules this last week making it harder to permit grid--
pipeline--sorry--grid lines. So Madam Secretary, do you agree
that achieving 100 percent emissions by 2035 is still
scientifically possible?
Secretary Granholm. With respect, it was 100 percent clean,
meaning zero-carbon energy. And that includes nuclear, for
example. That includes decarbonized fossil fuel.
Mr. McKinley. My question is do you still think it is
possible by 2035.
Secretary Granholm. I absolutely do think it is possible.
Mr. McKinley. Interesting. And for the material for
batteries we have heard somewhere referenced to, in the last 3
years, the cost of nickel has gone up 85 percent. The cost of
lithium has gone up 670 percent. Copper is at a ten year high.
We know from the United Nations report the Congo uses child
labor to mine cobalt. So we are going to need to have more
mines here in the United States to meet these demands for
electric vehicles and grid batteries.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies expect
that we will see--need 500 to 1,000 percent jump in demand by
2050. So has this Administration granted any new permits for
mining critical materials in the United States?
Secretary Granholm. This Administration definitely believes
that we have to sustainably mine for the critical materials and
minerals, including rare earth minerals----
Mr. McKinley. Have you----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. That we have.
Mr. McKinley [continuing]. Granted any permits? That is
what I'm saying.
Secretary Granholm. That is not under my jurisdiction.
Mr. McKinley. OK.
Secretary Granholm. I don't do the permits for those. But I
think this is an area of bipartisan support.
Mr. McKinley. I hope----
Secretary Granholm. Is that----
Mr. McKinley. I hope we have it. So Chairman, this
committee has been known for years trying to incorporate
science into its decisions. And I applaud that. But in the past
year, evidence overwhelmingly suggests the Democrats are keen
on using artificial, ideologically driven timelines, not
reality. In fact, we are still buying uranium from our
adversaries, setting regulatory roadblocks for our grid with
additional requirements and counting on countries other--
foreign countries to provide us our critical minerals.
Madam Secretary, I admit--and Mr. Chairman, I just hope
that the United States isn't going to have to experience a
blackout before we change this course of action. We are headed
down the wrong road, Madam Secretary.
Secretary Granholm. And in the 5-seconds, I respectfully
disagree. I think we can do it all. We can mine for critical
minerals here in a responsible way. We can build out the supply
chains that are necessary. We can get a uranium stockpile here
so that we have energy independence, energy security, and we
can also build out clean energy as well. We can do all of that.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the chairman of the Environmental Subcommittee, the
gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Granholm,
welcome, and thank you for your leadership of a great agency. I
know you are working hard to make certain that we have the
personnel, the organization and the resources necessary for our
Nation to seize the economic opportunities that will come from
a clean energy transition. I also want to thank you
wholeheartedly for visiting New York's capital region to
highlight the amazing research, the workforce development and
manufacturing jobs that are resulting from our commitment to
offshore wind.
Before I ask questions, I want to repeat a statement I made
in this room just days ago. According to the nonpartisan Energy
Information Administration, domestic oil production was only
9.7 million barrels per day during President Biden's first full
month in office. Since then, production has grown to 11.4
million barrels per day. That means oil production has gone up
almost two million barrels per day since President Biden took
office.
So it is patently false to say that oil production has
decreased under President Biden. The Weatherization Assistance
Program received significant funding in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law. We know this program is intended for low-
income households. But sadly, many of the people who need this
help most cannot access these funds due to their homes being in
such poor condition. Can you discuss what the Department is
doing to support these households through weatherization
readiness and other ways to complement on the traditional
Weatherization Program.
Secretary Granholm. I am so happy that you asked this
because I think this weatherization readiness $30 million
request is so important, and I hope we will be able to increase
it. Right now, there is almost--there is 39 million homes that
are eligible for weatherization. But far fewer get weatherized,
and far fewer of those that get weatherized--many, 40 percent,
are turned away when they come to ask, up to 40 percent. Why?
Because their house is moldy or their roof is insecure. So this
weatherization prepare--preparing homes for weatherization
allows for families who need it most to be able to access
weatherization funds. So we are grateful for the support in
2021, and we hope that we can achieve that in 2022 and--excuse
me--2022 and then in 2023.
Mr. Tonko. Awesome. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also
provided significant funding for grid infrastructure, which
will be critical to making our electricity system more
reliable, resilient, and clean. We know there are major
investments needed for all parts of the grid, new interState
and interregional transmission lines, upgrading existing lines
with grid-enhancing technologies and modernizing the
distribution system to make it smarter and more responsive. Can
you provide any insights on how DOE is thinking about this
range of grid needs and how you might allocate the available
grid funding from the IIJA?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. We have created a Grid Deployment
Office. We created it last year. We have moved it over to our
Undersecretary for Infrastructure because grid is so important
of an infrastructure need. We need to essentially double the
capacity of our grid if we are going to be able to add all of
the clean energy and energy needs, energy growth needs that we
are going to need in the United States. That means both
capacity increases. That means technology, making sure we have
got the technology associated so that the grid can, in fact,
send energy, talk to other parts. We can generate energy in one
part of the country and deliver it where it is needed in
another part of the country. Both the technology, the capacity,
making sure that it is resilient to extreme weather impacts are
all part of what this grid deployment office will take care of,
including cyber infrastructure to ensure that we are safe from
cyber attacks.
Mr. Tonko. Well, those demands on our grid system become
even more complex as we become even greater in our efforts to
electrify other sectors. So there will be new potentially
significant electricity demands from EV charging in locations
that simply were not planned to have major loads in the past.
So DOE and the national labs have amazing expertise. What
capabilities does DOE have that may be helpful to a utility,
State, or region that is working to assess and plan for these
evolving EV-charging needs?
Secretary Granholm. Yes, we have--we have proposed, again,
another almost $20 million in the budget to help us to work
with utilities and the labs to ensure they have the technical
assistance to be able to do the modeling and get best-in-class
technology to be able to move electrons along the grid. And so
that program, which has not been in place before, would also be
under the Grid Deployment Office to ensure that we are doing it
right.
Mr. Tonko. Wonderful. And earlier this month, Congressman
Casten and I introduced a bill, the EV Grid Act, which would
have DOE take a leading role in studying this challenge and
assisting so that inadequate planning does not result in
slowing down EV adoption and charging infrastructure buildout.
So I just share that with you. And again, I thank you for your
leadership. It has been outstanding. And with that, I yield
back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the great State
of Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As members of this committee will recall, in early 2011,
the Department of Energy subrogated $75 million of U.S. tax
dollars for Solyndra Solar Panels Project in violation of the
law governing the Energy Loan Program, specifically Subrogation
Section D3. And in the end, it cost the taxpayers more than $95
million.
The Energy Act of 2020 included the DOE loan program, and
it included reforms in an effort to ensure taxpayer stewardship
and project--and protect against repeats of what we saw with
Solyndra under President Obama's economic stimulus program.
This included language requiring the Treasury Secretary to
conduct analysis on Department of Energy loans as well as
report language requiring periodical reports to Congress
assessing the status of projects sponsored by the Department of
Energy.
Secretary Granholm, has DOE worked out a memorandum of
understanding with the Treasury Department to conduct the
analysis required by law? Yes or no?
Secretary Granholm. I am going to have to check with the
LPO to see----
Mr. Griffith. And I appreciate that. If you could get me an
answer, I greatly appreciate it.
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Mr. Griffith. Likewise, have any loan guarantees been
denied as a result of Department of Treasury analysis? And if
you don't know, if you could give me an answer to that as
well----
Secretary Granholm. All I can tell you is that there are
three that have been approved in the recent--in recent months
which are very exciting. But I do not have the date on what has
been denied.
Mr. Griffith. And can you provide us with the Department of
Treasury's analysis on those, even if it is just a simple, ``We
don't see any problem.'' I'd like----
Secretary Granholm. Sure.
Mr. Griffith [continuing]. Appreciate getting that.
Secretary Granholm. Sure.
Mr. Griffith. This committee issued a report in August 2012
detailing our findings on the Department of Energy's failed
management of the Loan Guarantee Program, which was in clear
disservice to taxpayers' interest. You have been secretary for
about 14 months now. Are you working with the Inspector General
to address the issues identified during the Obama stimulus
program in order to assure the American people that the law is
currently being followed? And again, if you need to get it to
me later, I understand.
Secretary Granholm. Yes. I know the new head of our Loan
Programs Office, Jigar Shah--I don't know if you have met with
him yet, but he has revamped the entire program. Now, I am
assuming that he did so in consultation with the Inspector
General report. But I cannot say that to you at this moment so
I----
Mr. Griffith. And I appreciate that, and if you could give
me an answer----
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Mr. Griffith [continuing]. At a later time, I would greatly
appreciate it. Would you agree that as stewards of taxpayer
funds, we should not be subsidizing loans where the projects
have little to no skin in the game and are low likelihood of
reaching full market acceptance?
Secretary Granholm. We should be subsidizing loans that--I
mean, the reason Loan Program Office exists is because a
commercial bank is not going to--which are very, very risk-
reverse is not going to take it. We also should be guardians of
the taxpayer dollars. So that balance is what the Loan Program
Office strives to achieve. It is why the vetting process of
loans takes a year to be able to make sure is this right. Is
this going to pan out? Are we going to make sure that the
taxpayer gets their money back? And so I agree it has got to be
carefully done. But it also is set up to take on these new
technologies that inherently are risky because they are brand-
new and haven't been done before. We fill in that Valley of
Death in the--in the research/development/deployment spectrum.
And that is what the Loan Program Office does.
Mr. Griffith. So it is fair to say that you have taken
steps to ensure that the projects you are funding are actually
going to be deployed at some point or that you have great hopes
that they will.
Secretary Granholm. That is the expectation, certainly.
Mr. Griffith. And that was one of the problems with
Solyndra Project. It went into default in December 2010, and
they wouldn't let go of a project that had gone bad. All right.
That being said, let me switch gears and just say that I am a
big proponent of parity between fossil fuel research and
research for renewables. I have got no problem with renewables.
But I also think there is a huge amount of technology that we
can do.
The Chinese are selling outdated equipment for coal-fired
power plants to Africa. If we develop ways to burn coal, the
world is going to burn it. You know that, and I know that
because of India, Africa and, frankly, the baseload in the
United States will continue to some extent. As a result, the
cleaner that we can burn coal, the cleaner that we can use our
fossil fuels, the more likely we are to have both an impact on
the air quality and the ability to sell to countries in other
parts of the world because they, too, want cleaner air. But if
they can't get it from us, they are going to get the cheap,
dirty stuff from our colleagues in China. That is my opinion. I
give that to you. I look forward to working with you to resolve
some of these issues, and I look forward to making sure that
the Loan Guarantee Program does what it is supposed to and that
the laws follow.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Schrier from Washington, DC.
for 5 minutes. Ms. Schrier?
Ms. Schrier. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. You are----
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Granholm, for being here today. It is so nice to see
you again. And I first want to thank you for your efforts to
help us remain energy-independent and help us provide resources
to Europe to minimize their dependence on Russian oil and gas
during this time of war. And I am very proud of our country's
leadership and your leadership.
I want to talk about two things today, starting with the
program you know I am very excited about, which is Department
of Energy's regional clean energy hubs. And funding for these
hubs was included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, which
I was proud to support. Green hydrogen is one important element
in policies to cut carbon emissions to net zero by 2050 or
sooner.
And compressed hydrogen can be stored and transported
similar to the way that oil and gas are today. And it has the
capacity to decarbonize large energy-intensive industries like
heavy-duty transportation and steel manufacturing which account
for about a third of domestic carbon emissions. In Washington
State, as you heard from my colleague, we are blessed with a
wealth of affordable, non-emitting hydropower.
And Washington's clean electricity provides a great
laboratory for generating green hydrogen. In fact, Douglas
County Public Utility District has a pilot project right now to
harness the excess hydropower generated overnight to
electrolyze water and store hydrogen. And Tacoma Power is the
first utility in the Nation to introduce a special lower power
rate for electric fuels to encourage hydrogen production.
So we are laying the groundwork already in Washington with
legislation in the State led by Senator Carlyle and others
aimed at accelerating the development of renewable and green
electrolytic hydrogen, including bills already passed to
streamline siting and permitting. We also have a long tradition
of strong private sector and public and private utility
districts working together and research organizations like the
Pacific Northwest Smart Grid Demonstration Project at PNNL and
world-class research institutions at University of Washington
and Washington State University.
Our State has already committed to entirely eliminating
fossil fuel-generated electricity by 2045 and to reach net-zero
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Private industry is ready to
go to pilot hydrogen-powered cargo ships at our ports,
airplanes, delivery vehicles and 18-wheelers. And--in other
words, our State is ideally suited to be a truly green hydrogen
hub. So I wanted to know, as we are thinking about regional
efforts and these hydrogen hubs and, you know, really a process
that is still in development, what does success look like ten
years from now to you, and how do you think we get there?
Secretary Granholm. Thank you for the question. You are a
great salesperson for your region. Of course, these hydrogen
hubs, I have to say, are competitively bid, but we are excited
that so many are raising their hand and really want to be part
of it. I do think this hydrogen economy that could be created
across the United States is an amazing opportunity for us.
Every country is look--especially countries that don't have the
wealth of resources that the United States has in terms of oil
and gas and technology. They are all looking for this hydrogen
solution to be able to have clean, dispatchable baseload power.
So I see a hydrogen economy emerging. I think ten years
from now, there will be thousands, if not, millions, of people
in the United States who have the opportunity to work in or
adjacent to hydrogen hubs. I think a hub itself is an ecosystem
that is an opportunity for a community to remake itself using
the energy resource that it has and for places that have an
awful lot of hydroelectric power or ability to have solar feed
into that to create green hydrogen--we often don't like to use
the colors because it may be misleading but zero carbon
hydrogen. It is a very exciting economic opportunity in
addition to being an opportunity for energy independence and
for the climate.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you. I share that vision. I would just
like to touch, finally, in my remaining seconds, just on the
clean-up efforts at Hanford. We were going to visit together,
and that trip--for very good reasons, were in Europe. And so I
just look forward to continuing to engage with you and visiting
Hanford together, and I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Johnson of Ohio for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Madam Secretary, for being here today. It is good to see you
again. I am sure you saw the news that Russia has now cutoff
gas shipments to Poland and Bulgaria, both NATO members. So
Vladimir Putin, a dictator, using his energy dominance as a
weapon to try to subjugate his neighbors. Now, let's think
about this for a minute. Put it into context. I think many of
us don't realize that only four out of the top 15 natural gas-
producing countries in the world are liberal democracies, four
out of 15. The world needs natural gas in increasing amounts.
And LNG demand is skyrocketing.
And folks, we talk a lot here about democracy versus
autocracy. Are we satisfied to allow energy to be provided at
the whims of the worst people on earth, or will America
continue to be the guardian of the gate of freedom for the
world and fuel the world with our resources and our values?
This is the choice that we need to make. So Madam Secretary, I
want to applaud you. It was encouraging to see DOE finally
approve two LNG export permits yesterday, one of which sat
there for at least 16 months, however, after FERC had approved.
So I just want to get this straight, just to make sure. Let
me ask you unequivocally. Do you support expanding U.S. LNG
exports, and why does it take DOE so long to approve these
permits?
Secretary Granholm. The two permits that were approved
yesterday----
Mr. Johnson. No. Do you----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. As you know----
Mr. Johnson. Do you----
Secretary Granholm. We have been----
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Support----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Support----
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Expanding----
Secretary Granholm. This is what----
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. LNG exports?
Secretary Granholm. We have--as an----
Mr. Johnson. That's a yes-or-no----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Administration----
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Question----
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Madam Secretary.
Secretary Granholm. Of course because that is what the
President has done. He has----
Mr. Johnson. No. I ask----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Made an agreement.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. You do you support expanding----
Secretary Granholm. Of course.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. LNG----
Secretary Granholm. I work for an administration that
supports helping our allies in this time and that does not want
to see Russia weaponize----
Mr. Johnson. Do you support expanding LNG exports? That's a
yes-or-no----
Secretary Granholm. I said yes----
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Question.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. I think twice now, maybe
three times. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Great.
Secretary Granholm. And that is why.
Mr. Johnson. All right. So why does it take DOE so long?
Secretary Granholm. What I am saying is that the two
permits that were approved yesterday, one of the facilities is
not even under construction.
Mr. Johnson. OK. I am going to----
Secretary Granholm. The second one----
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Get to that in just a second----
Secretary Granholm. And the second one----
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Because I want to talk about
that.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Is in the middle of
construction, so there wasn't an urgent moment until we wanted
to send a signal to our allies that we----
Mr. Johnson. All right.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Are--we want to partner
with them. I also----
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Approved----
Mr. Johnson. Great.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Two other ones.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I have got legislation called the
Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act, which would end this
export permit bottleneck in your agency, which I would urge my
colleagues to support. So Madam Secretary, in response to
Russia's--in response to Russia's aggression, President Biden
reached an agreement with the EU that said we will, quote,
strive to ensure additional LNG volumes of at least 15 billion
cubic meters in 2020--2022. That is this year.
And you have just acknowledged, and I appreciate that, that
the approved permits that came out yesterday are for new
facilities that haven't even been built yet. So what is DOE's
plan to help expand LNG exports now, to reach that 15 billion
cubic meters in 2022? Given your previous public stances
against domestic production, pipeline expansion in oil and gas
in general, how are you going to do that without reversing
course on some of these policies? How are we going to get more
resources out the door if you don't change some of the
policies?
Secretary Granholm. No. 1, there is enough LNG facilities
to meet the President's goal. Some are completing construction
this year, and it will be up and running by the time. There are
30 billion cubic feet of permitted facilities that are waiting
to be constructed. This is not a permitting question for
liquified natural gas. We have permitted almost three times as
much as we currently are exporting, and they just haven't begun
construction yet. This is not a President Biden issue, nor is
the issue of oil.
In fact, the Fed, the Dallas Fed, canvassed the oil and gas
executives in March and asked them what is it that is
preventing you from increasing production, particularly on oil?
Ninety-four percent of them said something other than
government policy. The No. 1 thing is Wall Street, that Wall
Street is constricting their ability to invest and increase
production. It is a false statement, with all due respect, to
say that the Biden policies have caused production to go down.
President Biden has issued more permits for oil and gas leasing
in his first year than the Trump Administration did in their
first year or their second year or their third year----
Mr. Johnson. Madam Secretary----
Secretary Granholm. They are sitting on----
Mr. Johnson. I----
Secretary Granholm. --9,000.
Mr. Johnson. My time has expired. My time has expired. We
were energy-independent under the last administration. We are
not now----
Secretary Granholm. And we are today.
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Under the Biden Administration.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time----
Secretary Granholm. We are today, sir.
Mr. Rush [continuing]. Has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman--gentlelady from
Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chairman Rush.
Secretary Granholm, thank you for your service to America.
I truly appreciate everything the Biden Administration is doing
to lower the energy bills for American families and businesses.
And you are doing it at a time where we must cleanup the air
that we breathe, create jobs, good-paying jobs in the energy
sector and reduce the harmful and costly and escalating impacts
of the climate crisis.
And fortunately, in this committee, the Department of
Energy has often received strong, robust bipartisan support for
what the Department of Energy's missions are. I mean, just
look, for example, at the Bipartisan Infrastructure and--
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. What we have provided
to DOE and what President Biden, under his leadership, is--has
charted the course, is true energy independence and security
for America. Some of my favorite provisions, I am going to ask
you about, upgrading the electric grid, transmission,
everything that you talked about on the new technologies and
expanding capacity.
I want to dig into this a little bit more. Just over the
last few months, DOE issued a new report. No, it is the
Building a Better Grid Initiative. There is also another report
out there that says we have the technologies to do this. Now
with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, you have got funding,
but do you have all the authorities that you need from the
Congress to be able to fully implement it to help move America
toward energy security and independence?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thank you for asking that. I
really appreciate the support that this--those on this
committee who voted for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law gave,
the funding for the Grid Deployment Office that we would be
using to shore up the grid. The ability to build out additional
capacity of that grid as we move toward more electrification,
hugely important. One of the pieces of that that I think is the
most important is called an anchor credit where the government
can take a position on the build-out of transmission to ensure
that we can build that out so that we can have a fully robust
grid across the country.
There is two other little pieces that I started to mention,
which is there is a wholesale electricity market technical
assistance grant that is embedded in the budget this time,
which, again, is to help build out a, for example, regional--
RTOs. We want to make sure that we have got a bulk power system
that talks to one another. And in the West, there--we don't
have that, for example, and so building out the connectivity
between the ISOs and the RTOs and each other is important.
And places where we don't have that ability is going to be
a piece of it. And then the interregional offshore and offshore
planning for a grid, particularly along the Atlantic seaboard
right now, because that is most imminent, that too is part of
what the Grid Deployment Office will be doing. So all of those
pieces will be under the umbrella of this Grid Deployment
Office, and thank you so much for the support and the interest
in making sure we have a secure and effective grid.
Ms. Castor. Because we have to do it all. And this--you
really have such an important charge here to work with states
and utilities and those RTOs to improve the grid, make it more
resilient, make sure we bring those lower-cost, abundant,
affordable renewables onto the grid. But we also have to build
from the ground up. And there is such enormous interest in
community solar and weatherization. And now we have some of
those funds available. You have already talked about
weatherization, putting money back into the pockets of our
neighbors back home, just in the--in Florida through insulation
so we can save on air conditioning bills and then more
efficient appliances.
But community solar, all the small business owners,
everyone that is able to lower their electric bill and then,
after a hurricane or some other extreme event, you know, they
can come onto the--they can plug back in and enjoy a cooler
home or a heated home much faster. So tell us what does the
future hold. What are you doing to really engage communities,
front-line communities, to make sure that the resources get to
the folks who could really use the community solar resources
right----
Secretary Granholm. Yes. We have a goal of getting 5
million homes connected with community solar. We want to do
that quickly. It is the way for communities that maybe don't
have roofs or don't own the places where they live to be able
to tap into the cheapest form of electricity in most places in
this country, which is solar. I would like to see more of that
in Florida too.
Ms. Castor. Wouldn't that be great in the sunshine State.
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Ms. Castor. Which, right now, the Sunshine State, they are
looking at huge increases in cost because we are 75 percent
reliant on electricity from natural gas and not the power of
the sun. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Bucshon, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Secretary Granholm, for being here. Today,
Americans across the country are paying extraordinarily high
prices at the gas pump. That is not a revelation. We all know
that. In my home State of Indiana, regular gasoline costs over
one dollar more per gallon in the last year. And diesel costs
more than $1.80 more per gallon than last year, dramatic
increase. Unfortunately, rather than unleashing American
energy, facilitating increased domestic production to address
these high prices, the Biden Administration and your agency
continue to pursue an energy strategy that I believe punishes
American energy producers and prioritizes energy from sources
championed by your allies on the political left.
I support an all-of-the-above energy approach to ensure
that our constituents have access to energy that is reliable,
affordable and, of course, environmentally sustainable. I
support the development of renewable energy sources like wind
and solar and new technology innovations in those spaces as
well as new technologies utilizing nuclear power and
traditional fossil fuels to deliver safer, cleaner, more
reliable energy at a reasonable cost.
However, I am concerned that the Administration is getting
too far ahead of the market in its efforts to, quote,
decarbonize the grid by prioritizing less reliable, more
expensive energy sources that will require huge investments
just to become operational. Some people estimate the electrical
requirements and the grid, for example, may take 30 years to
build out what the proposals are as it relates to electric
vehicles.
Ultimately, in this top-down approach, the ratepayers, our
constituents--and they are already seeing it--will end up
footing the bill for an overambitious--attempts to overhaul
this grid. Madam Secretary, DOE has highlighted the
importance--the billions of dollars for transmission and other
grid upgrades including--included in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act. But I am worried that much of this
money could be wasted through aimless spending meant to merely
check off a box rather than make real needed improvements in
the grid. Can you confirm that the Department is taking steps
to ensure transparency and wise use of taxpayer resources and
protection of consumers' access to affordable energy in this
process?
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Mr. Bucshon. I like that answer. And now I--we need the
followup. Madam Secretary, as you know--I guess it is 2JA gives
the Federal Government authority to overrule State agencies in
designing an area of the U.S. as a--designating an area of the
U.S. as a national interest electric corridor. Is the
Department engaging with the State and local regulators on this
issue?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. We are planning full stakeholder--
we have been engaged in stakeholder briefings. We will be
issuing both notices of intent, which we have issued notice of
intent, to be able to get feedback. We have been having
regional dialogs. It has been a full-on partnership to ensure
that, as we plan, we plan in a smart way and plan in a way that
is most responsive to your point to the ratepayers. We make
sure we don't increase costs. But we give them access to the
cheapest forms of power. And in many places, as I was just
saying, that really is solar or wind.
Mr. Bucshon. Understood. Well, I--and let me just say on
that one it is solar and wind because of massive Federal
Government subsidies. I would argue that--I would argue that as
it is--if you factor in the taxpayer costs, there is a little
bit of a debate about whether it is actually the most
affordable form of energy. Again, and I support solar and wind.
Don't get me wrong. So you are taking into consideration State
and local concerns, it sounds like.
I mean, and what about if states make decisions on siting
and rate-setting? Will you respect some of their decisions on
that or overrule them?
Secretary Granholm. Well, obviously it is very context-
specific.
Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
Secretary Granholm. But we want to work with State and
locals. And honestly, we want to be able to site any
transmission. If we can, the first preference would be to site
in areas where we may have a Federal right-of-way or where it
is on a public land so that it is the course--the path of least
resistance, if you will----
Mr. Bucshon. Sure.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. To be able to do that.
That would be our preference. But obviously that may not always
be necessary. So we want to work with the State and locals to
ensure acceptance and unity.
Mr. Bucshon. OK. Thank you. Do you believe the private
sector should be taking the lead and modernizing the grid and
the transmission system?
Secretary Granholm. I do think the private sector has a
huge role to play, and it is one of the reasons why it would be
terrific to see some of the tax provisions passed by Congress,
which would include and incentivize the private sector to be
able to build out the transmission, build out the energy
assets, nuclear power. That should have offtake and that
should--there should be a tax credit associated with zero-
carbon----
Mr. Bucshon. OK.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Power like that.
Mr. Bucshon. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman----
Does the Federal Government own any gas stations in the
United States?
Secretary Granholm. Probably they have a couple on Federal
property.
Mr. Bucshon. I would argue, then, we shouldn't be owning
the plug-ins for electric cars either. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Barragan , for 5 minutes.
Ms. Barragan . Thank you, Chairman Rush, for holding this
important hearing on the Fiscal Year 2023 budget for the
Department of Energy.
Secretary Granholm, welcome. Thank you for being here today
and for your visit to the Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator last
week. I have worked closely with the LA Cleantech Incubator to
support electric vehicle carshare programs at public housing.
The incubator has a pilot project in my district at the
Rancho San Pedro Public Housing Complex so that lower-income
residents can be part of the electric--even if they can't
afford a car. How can electric vehicle carshare programs
support of the--support the Administration's electric vehicle
equity investments and Justice40 goals?
Secretary Granholm. Great question. Obviously, the
Administration very much wants to ensure that the charging
stations, which, again, this Congress supported in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, are located in places where they
do not already exist. And often that is in poorer communities
and communities that have been left behind and communities
where there isn't a large degree of electric--a large number of
electric vehicles and in rural areas and along the main
corridors. So the first step was to issue guidance, which we
did in February.
That guidance is resulting in a lot of feedback from
communities. And we will then issue--we will--the first chunk
of the funding is by formula. And that will be to create these
corridors, transportation corridors in places, again, locating
these charging stations in places where they don't already
exist. And the second chunk will be competitive. And we will
want to make sure that, in those, we locate specifically in the
communities that you are talking about so that, in every pocket
of America, people who want to be able to access electric
vehicles and charge them, they have the opportunity to do so.
Ms. Barragan . Thank you, Madam Secretary. I have a bill
called the EVs for All Act to create a grant program at the
Department of Energy to establish electric vehicle carshare
programs, public housing for public housing residents. It would
be great to work with your staff to make this happen.
Secretary Granholm. We would love it.
Ms. Barragan . Thank you. My next question is I am leading
a House appropriations letter to support your budget request of
105 million for the new Energy Future Grants Program to support
community clean energy projects and reduce energy cost for
residents. Part of my ask is to prioritize these investments in
environmental justice communities and help these communities
build clean energy microgrids to provide energy resilience from
climate-driven weather disasters. Can you share how Energy
Future Grants can help further these goals?
Secretary Granholm. Thank you for your leadership on this.
We have the same concern, which is in a lot of communities in
the country that simply don't have the resources to be able to
do a strategic plan on their energy future. You know, they got
mayors who have two jobs. There is a lot of communities where
the community organizations simply don't have the resources to
be able to do this.
These Community Future Grants really are giving them a
chance to plan their future. We have a small pilot called
Communities LEAP Program, which is a precursor of this where
the communities actually sent in a plan and said, ``This is
what we would like to do, but we need technical assistance to
be able to make that happen.'' We want every community, not
just the bigger ones, not the big--not just the big cities,
although of course we want them to participate too but the--you
know, the small, the mid-sized cities that simply don't have
the resources to be able to think about their benefiting from a
clean energy future, and that is what these clean energy grants
are all about. Certainly, front-line communities are at the top
of the list of communities that may not have the resources to
do this, so I completely share your vision and your values
underneath the grants for local communities.
Ms. Barragan . Well, thank you. And you mentioned a topic
that's in really my next question. It is about the--your
recently released equity plan and the inclusion of LEAP, the
Local Energy Action Program. Can you maybe share if there is
anything more you want to share on that how LEAP--how--how can
LEAP help communities of color transition to clean energy,
reduce energy costs, and create good jobs?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. LEAP really gave us the ability to
see this in action where communities--for example, there is a
community near Pittsburgh that wants to use, as a demonstration
project, weatherization and next-generation building materials
to secure the homes in that community. They didn't know how to
access any of the technical assistance from the labs. We are
going to embrace them and help them to access the lab
information as well as any grants that they might be qualifying
for, not just in DOE but across the Federal Government.
So it is really giving communities access to the Federal
Government and often the Byzantine process by which you have to
access it. You might have to hire a consultant to be able to
get access to it. So the bottom line is we really want to make
sure that all communities have access to the benefits of the
things that you all are passing.
Ms. Barragan . Great. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Duncan, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Madam Secretary, thanks for being here today. You are
anti-fossil fuels, aren't you?
Secretary Granholm. I would like to transition away from
unabated fossil fuels to a clean energy future.
Mr. Duncan. How did you transit over here today?
Secretary Granholm. I have a--I got a ride in the fleet
vehicle that we have.
Mr. Duncan. And that is a Suburban, probably, with a chase
vehicle for your security detail?
Secretary Granholm. My preferred vehicle is the one fleet
vehicle----
Mr. Duncan. I don't care about your----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. That is----
Mr. Duncan [continuing]. Preferred vehicle. That is not
what I----
Secretary Granholm. Well, I have--in my fleet vehicle, we
do have an electric vehicle. We had----
Mr. Duncan. Did you drive the electric vehicle over here
today?
Secretary Granholm. Not today because we had too many
people in the car.
Mr. Duncan. OK. So just for the record, they have fossil
fuel vehicles within the fleet that moves----
Secretary Granholm. Yes. We do.
Mr. Duncan [continuing]. The Secretary around. And I am
glad you have electric vehicles. That is fine. We will knock
that for the record too. Is that a Tesla or is that a Ford
product? Do you----
Secretary Granholm. A Ford product.
Mr. Duncan. OK. Thank you. So I want to thank you for
approval last month and yesterday of the pending LNG export
facilities. Just a quick question. Why have no wind and solar-
produced energy export facilities been approved by your agency?
Secretary Granholm. Wind and solar are energies right now
that are deployed onsite and that are generated onsite.
However, if we are able to do----
Mr. Duncan. They are not exportable.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Clean hydrogen----
Mr. Duncan. Let's just----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Hubs, hydrogen would be
able to----
Mr. Duncan. Renewable energy is not exportable beyond
transmission lines that cross borders. You could provide
Ottawa, Canada or Tijuana electricity produced by wind and
solar, but you can't export it to Ukraine. So you guys are
supporting LNG exports, and I appreciate that. That is helping
our allies.
Germany literally just announced a little while ago that
they are going to not import any sort of Russian oil or gas. We
need to replace that with American-produced energy. It is
cleaner-burning anyway, so if you believe in man-made climate
change, you should support American LNG burning everywhere. It
is hypocritical, though, because you sat here and touted the
Administration's--wrongly, I believe, but number of oil and gas
leases when the President ended all oil and gas leases on
Federal land, onshore and offshore, in January of last year,
canceled existing leases, onshore and offshore, last January.
And that shrunk domestic supply.
The Administration definitely responsible for an increase
at the price at the pump for mom and dads. Trying to blame
Vladimir Putin for it, but gas prices were already going up.
They were up 50 percent before Russia ever invaded Ukraine. And
so I just think that is--that is wrong, that--to be proud of
those efforts but at the same time, not liking fossil fuels. So
let me ask you this. In your opinion, what are the best sources
of energy production to provide the 24/7/365 baseload power
supply that our Nation needs?
Secretary Granholm. I think nuclear is an important
baseload power. I think hydroelectric is an important baseload
power. I think that you can pair renewables with storage and
have that be a baseload power. I think that we will see----
Mr. Duncan. Pair it with----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. The baseload power----
Mr. Duncan [continuing]. Storage, battery storage?
Secretary Granholm. Pardon me?
Mr. Duncan. You are going to pair it with storage. How are
you going to store it? Battery storage?
Secretary Granholm. Battery storage. Yes.
Mr. Duncan. We don't have that capability yet.
Secretary Granholm. Yes, we do.
Mr. Duncan. It would take an enormous amount of space and
other minerals----
Secretary Granholm. It is being done----
Mr. Duncan [continuing]. We talked about.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. In places across the
country right now, sir.
Mr. Duncan. Yes. Well, they are also building hydro storage
projects, which are battery storage. I get that. But 24/7
baseload power is needed. We talk a lot about energy. We think
about transportation fuels, but we need to focus on the
baseload power supply that manufacturing needs in this country
to produce the widgets and other things, provide the jobs.
Nuclear has got to be a part of that. I appreciate you
mentioning that. We produce about 55 percent of our power in
South Carolina from nuclear power. Ninety-five percent of our
carbon-free electricity is produced by nuclear. Nuclear needs
to be a big part of this. So what does the future look like for
that baseload power?
Secretary Granholm. That has got to absolutely be a part of
our power structure. It is right now, and it should continue to
be, and hopefully it grows.
Mr. Duncan. Yes.
Secretary Granholm. Including with advanced nuclear
reactors, which----
Mr. Duncan. Absolutely.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Can be--can be paired
with----
Mr. Duncan. Thank you for mentioning that. Well, there is
thorium or SMRs or anything. Advances got to be a part of that.
I want to see the Department of Energy--and I applaud you for
that, for being a part of that.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission commissions new reactors.
I have got a bill, H.R. 1559, Modernize the Nuclear Reactor
Environmental Review Act, to try to expedite the environmental
review process so that we can get more nuclear power online. I
would ask your Department to also work with NRC to keep nuclear
power in relicensing, keep those power plants and our fleet
online to provide that carbon-free electricity for the Nation.
There is just a lot of different policies that affect that.
One is going to be waste. And we are going to have to have some
sort of policy on the waste strain, whether it is advanced
nuclear or whether it is the current nuclear fleet. Can you
reply in detail for the record--well, my time is up. I will
submit another question for the record, ask you to reply.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield----
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr.
Welch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And Madam Secretary, welcome. I appreciate the good work
that you and your team are doing. I am going to just focus on
four areas that I think are of interest to you and I know
important component, performance contracting, appliance
standards, weatherization, and EV charging. Performance
contracting is something that a lot of us have been working on
for a very long time. And there have been snags along the way,
but it has really, as you know, been very effective. And a
basic question is where are we on performance contracting, and
can you confirm that DOE will continue to leverage the EFEC
program and the infrastructure funds through performance
contracts.
Secretary Granholm. Absolutely. It is an incredibly
important and smart way of making sure that we are energy-
efficient.
Mr. Welch. Yes. And we have had some challenges with OMB. I
mean, this pays for itself; right? I mean, the----
Secretary Granholm. Utterly.
Mr. Welch [continuing]. Companies are putting the money up
front. It is all local jobs, and it results in savings to the
taxpayer and results in reduced carbon emissions. Is there any
bad--downside----
Secretary Granholm. I don't see the----
Mr. Welch [continuing]. Downside----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Downside to it either.
Mr. Welch [continuing]. To doing more of this?
Secretary Granholm. I do not see a downside. I think it is
a very smart way of proceeding.
Mr. Welch. OK. Thanks. Appliance standards. Again, one of
the ways, obviously, to save on carbon emissions is to have
appliance standards and have those apply and then manufacturers
can compete to do the best job in producing them. I was glad to
see you have new efficiency standards for light bulbs. And the
appliance standards, as you know, are an easy way for the
reduction of carbon emissions and saving money.
It can be about a hundred bucks a year, which, you know, is
real money. How will DOE work to ensure necessary staff and
processes are in place to continue expediting appliance
efficiency standards because the practical challenge is getting
a standard that makes sense, doesn't go too far but is not
lacking in ambition? It is a very practical one that requires
good staff, good expertise, and good responsiveness to
industry.
Secretary Granholm. You obviously know this very well and,
yes, we need the right amount of staff to be able to process
all of the--particularly the backlog. We inherited about 57
actions that were behind. We are committed to processing 100
standards by the end of this year. But it is--no doubt it is a
huge workload, and I applaud my staff for doing it. And we want
to make sure that we recruit people who have the expertise to
be able to----
Mr. Welch. No. I appreciate that because it is easy for us
to say let's have efficiency standards. But the actual doing of
it is----
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Mr. Welch [continuing]. Hard work.
Secretary Granholm. It is.
Mr. Welch. And we pontificate, and you actually have to
produce. So let us know what the staff requirements are you
need to be successful. Weatherization, the--the newly formed
Office of State Community Energy Programs now has the
Weatherization Assistance Program. Can you explain how the
proposed pilot, LIHEAP Advantage Program, can help further the
mission of the Weatherization Assistance Program and support
residential efficiency, decarbonization.
Secretary Granholm. Yes. This is something that had
bothered me back from when I was Governor that we would spend a
lot of LIHEAP money paying people so that they could pay their
bills, paying their--people--people's bills, but we wouldn't be
spending the money to weatherize their home so we wouldn't have
to spend as much paying the bills. So now we have combined
that. And in partnership with DHS, we are--I mean, Health and
Human Services. No, with HUD--excuse me.
In partnership with HUD, we are addressing that head-on by
identifying the homes that are most likely to be using a lot of
LIHEAP money so that we can weatherize them and then be able to
really leverage the additional dollars that would result in
doing more homes. So it is a----
Mr. Welch. Yes. Thank you.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Really exciting----
Mr. Welch. It has been----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Development.
Mr. Welch [continuing]. A great jobs program too in
Vermont, but thank you for that. And then finally, EV charging,
obviously absolutely critical if we are going to give people
the confidence they need in order to make that transition to an
electric vehicle as well as trying to make those electric
vehicles available.
Rural areas like Vermont, we need them. And my question is
your focus on--how it will ensure that rural and underserved
communities are prioritized and do get the adequate EV charging
funding to allow these communities to transition into clean
energy transportation.
Secretary Granholm. Right. We have a shared office with the
Department of Transportation, as was guided in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law. We sent out the first--first set of
guidance, which is transportation corridors for the seven-and-
a-half billion dollars that were funded for EV charging. The
next--excuse me--the first part was for five billion. The next
part will be for two-and-a-half billion. That would be more
competitive, and that will go directly to underserved areas.
There may be transportation corridors right now in rural areas.
But underserved areas are maybe a different category because
they may be in urban neighborhoods that simply don't have a
high volume of electric vehicles but need to if we are going to
make sure that we give people the opportunity to electrify. So
two chunks that will all be out hopefully by the end of this
year.
Mr. Welch. That is great. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Walberg, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and tempted to say
Governor Granholm. Secretary Granholm, good to see you. Thanks
for being here. Frankly, we ought to do it more often.
Secretary Granholm. We should.
Mr. Walberg. Thanks so much. As we have talked about today,
we are in the midst of a ongoing energy crisis. And while we
are grateful that you have come before the committee, I am
disappointed that, right now, we aren't seeing a strong
emphasis coming from the Department of Energy on concerns that
we have both in Michigan and the United States, Canada. And we
have talked a bit already about the issue of Line 5. But I want
to go back to that, and I certainly want to be as respectful as
I ought to be on it. But listening to the response to
Representative Latta about Line 5, my thoughts went to the fact
that you are the energy czar for this country.
It is not Secretary Blinken. It is not State that is
responsible for energy. As a natural-born Canadian, a
naturalized American citizen, Governor of Michigan, the answer
to the question of does Line 5 have an economic impact upon the
State of Michigan, I thought the answer would be absolutely and
not, ``I can't answer that.''
And then the response that--to the question of whether you
are keeping in constant contact with State to let them know the
energy issues, you couldn't answer that as well. That is
concerning to me because I don't want--I don't want Secretary
Blinken, who was in Ukraine when I was there this weekend. I
don't want him dealing with anything but Secretary of State
issues.
And though the courts are dealing with, right now, Line 5
because we have an attorney general in our State and a Governor
in our State right now that, for some reason, want to have a
war on energy and really a war on Canada and Michigan itself to
move forward, I think Energy--Department of Energy ought to be
standing loud and proud and saying, ``No. This must continue.''
I got to admit I almost came down and sat next to you to answer
the question and saying, ``Well, I am not the Governor of
Michigan, but I am a representative of Michigan, and, yes, it
has tremendous impact on the economy in Michigan.'' It has
tremendous impact on the economy in Ohio. It has tremendous
impact on the economy in Canada. It has a relationship to our
two nations that are important. There is a treaty that is there
that, really, right now, Michigan is attempting to violate.
And with what we saw with the Colonial Pipeline and the
impact there, I mean, I will be flying home on a flight
tomorrow that has fuel most likely that came from Line 5 that
is in my plane and the number of jobs that could be impacted by
that. That gives me concern, in all honesty, about what Energy
is doing--the Department of Energy is doing for energy. Could I
give you a chance to answer again that question? Does Line 5
and what it brings through have an economic impact on Michigan
and the country?
Secretary Granholm. I have learned in my years in politics
that sometimes it is best not to get in front of a state's
Governor or President especially if you are in that
administration and if something is in the courts, which it is.
Mr. Walberg. What advice are you giving to the President
about the necessity of having resources that come in
partnership with Canada and impact the United States
significantly?
Secretary Granholm. In fact, Canada--the--my counterpart in
Canada, Jonathan Wilkinson, who is their energy minister, and I
signed an MOU about the importance of working together on
energy issues. We were specifically referring to critical
minerals. But it is important. Canada is a huge ally, and they
have similar goals as we do.
Mr. Walberg. Well, critical minerals are important,
especially as we are thinking of the electrification of
vehicles, etc. But right now, we don't have that up and running
as complete as it will be. And we need the resources that come
from our natural resources right now. I am over time. I
appreciate you letting me do that, and I hope we can talk
further and ultimately see Energy take a stand on energy. I
yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California,
Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Secretary Granholm. It is really nice to see
you. I have some specific questions I would like to ask you
about the Store Nuclear Fuel Act, which is my bill. Due to the
impasse over the Yucca Mountain repository, spent nuclear fuel
at decommissioned nuclear plants continues to burden
communities nationwide, including my home district of
Sacramento. And so for this reason, I have been a long-term
champion of the Store Nuclear Fuel Act, which would establish a
legislative framework to develop or consolidate energy storage
for CIS Program at the Department of Energy. I also have helped
secure $20 million in the Fiscal Year 2021 omnibus to jumpstart
this initiative.
I was encouraged to see the Department utilize these funds
and advance efforts on a CIS consent-based signing process as
well as increase budget requests for Fiscal Year 2023 to
support these efforts. Could you tell me more about the
Department's plans for the Fiscal Year 202022 funds and the
2023 increased budget requests?
Secretary Granholm. Excuse me. Obviously, the management of
the Nation's spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive
waste is ultimately the Department of Energy's responsibility,
which is why we have taken very seriously this notion of--and
following the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations of
consent-based siting. We have issued requests for information
on that in December and received back over 230 responses.
Those are posted from communities listening to
stakeholders, making sure that we do it right. Ultimately, this
notion of making sure that there are communities that are
willing to take on the interim responsibility for siting
nuclear fuel is very important strategy that our Nuclear Energy
Office is undertaking, and we hope to be able to have some
initial window into that. And we know it is complicated, and we
know that communities who raise their hand would have to have
the transportation infrastructure associated with it, would
have to have the storage infrastructure built in it. And they
would have to be compensated for their willingness to serve the
country in this way.
So it is a complicated process, but we are proceeding down
the path, and we are doing it in a way that is respectful of
the communities, and hopefully we will find some agreement
among one, two--we don't know how many communities that are
willing to take on this responsibility.
Ms. Matsui. Well, thank you, Secretary. I hope to work with
you even more on this. Last year, I co-led the POWER ON Act
with bipartisan colleagues from California and Texas to create
a new Department of Energy program to help states fund grid
resiliency upgrades for extreme weather events. I was thankful
to see the $2.5 billion for similar efforts included in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Madam Secretary, what additional
investments does this agency need during Fiscal Year 202023 to
complement the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law grid resiliency
efforts?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. We are asking for an additional
$90 million to be able to ensure that we complement, as you
say, the Bipartisan Infrastructure investments. We want to make
sure it is done right, and that means that you have to have, in
addition to the anchor tenant component that I referred to
earlier as an incentive for the buildout of transmission. You
also have to have--make sure that we have a grid that is
resilient to high-impact weather events.
So, for example, the funding that came from the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law with respect to resiliency, undergrounding
wires where that makes sense in a targeted way, making sure
that we have technology attached to the grid in a way that is
giving notice of impending events or the dropping of wires in a
high wildfire area, for example, or in a hurricane area so that
you don't impact the entire grid.
All of those kinds of advanced technologies are a part of
what the Grid Deployment Office will undertake, that
resiliency, the expansion of capacity and making sure that we
are responding and listening to communities who want or may
have concerns about the expansion of the grid. All of that will
be undertaken as we give the technical assistance that is
necessary to both communities and utilities.
Ms. Matsui. Well, I thank you very much because, as you
know, in California, there is wildfire season. Every time we
hear an alert, we wonder about it. So really, really appreciate
your efforts on this so----
Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
Palmer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, we are here to talk about budgets. So
let's talk about the budgets of American families and budgets
of American small towns and rural communities and how your
Department and this Administration's policies have impacted
those budgets. December 2020, the average price for a gallon of
gas was $2.14. Today, it is four dollars. That is a difference
of $1.86 a gallon.
Considering that the average person consumes well over 650
gallons of gas per year, that is over $1200 that they are
having to pay an additional cost just for gasoline for the car.
That doesn't take into account the fact that U.S. Census Bureau
reported that one of every four, fully a quarter, of all
families' households in the United States had reduced what they
were spending on food and medicine in order to pay their
household utility bills.
We have seen the price of food go up. And what I want to
point out is that energy cost is the single most inflationary
component of the entire economy. There is an energy cost in
everything. Everything that we have eaten, everything that we
consumed this morning, today, has an energy cost. And I just
want to ask you what did you pay for the last tank of gas that
you put in your vehicle? Does your personal vehicle use gas?
Secretary Granholm. My personal vehicle is located in
California, and I pay close to--well, actually, my personal
vehicle is electric, but my daughter's vehicle, who is with us,
pay close to five dollars a gallon.
Mr. Palmer. Yes.
Secretary Granholm. It is expensive.
Mr. Palmer. Well, they are paying 4.62 in Winslow, Arizona.
They are paying 4.94 in Caliente, Nevada. And North Conway, New
Hampshire, it is 4.29. In Benton Harbor, Michigan, your former
State, it is almost four dollars. Milford, Pennsylvania is
4.25. People are paying high, high prices for gas. And what I
want to ask you is your predecessor--one of your predecessors
in the Obama administration in 2015 made the comment that--it
was Steven Chu, by the way. Wanted to get gasoline prices up to
the same level as they were paying in Europe. Had that been the
case, it would have been six dollars to gallon. Do you support
that?
Secretary Granholm. No.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you for that answer. I also want to point
out how this is impacting small towns. There is a city in my
district, Clanton, Alabama. We estimate they consume about 60--
people buy about 60,000 gallons of gas, you know, in the city.
When you consider that in December 2020, gas prices had gone up
two dollars a gallon over what they were paying then, that is
$120,000 that that small town no longer has to be spent in the
local grocery stores, in their local businesses, on
entertainment. These people aren't saving that money anymore.
Does that concern you?
Secretary Granholm. Absolutely, it concerns me.
Mr. Palmer. Why are you pushing policies that are making
life miserable for people? You have the power to unleash
American energy. And I see you have got that American-
Lithuanian flag on your lapel.
Secretary Granholm. Ukrainian.
Mr. Palmer. I mean Ukrainian. I am sorry. I have been in
contact with people on the ground and the government over
there. And I spoke to you directly about them asking that you
unleash what is probably right now the most powerful weapon in
the arsenal of democracy. That is American energy.
Secretary Granholm. So, No. 1, totally agree with your
concern about the price of gas. I think you are completely
right to focus on that because it is hurting people. The
Administration is very concerned about this too.
Administrations across the world are concerned because the
price of oil, which gas comes from, is traded on a global
market. Right now----
Mr. Palmer. Engineering so I know----
Secretary Granholm. Well----
Mr. Palmer [continuing]. A lot about----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. So right now, Russia's
actions have taken oil off----
Mr. Palmer. No, ma'am.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. The market. Yes, sir.
Mr. Palmer. No, ma'am.
Secretary Granholm. It has taken 1.5 million barrels off
the market because countries like the United States have
rightfully said, ``We will not finance this.''
Mr. Palmer. Your----
Secretary Granholm. Countries like Canada have said, ``We
will not finance this war.''
Mr. Palmer. Members of your party, my Democrat colleagues,
held a hearing last October, called the CEO of Exxon a liar and
demanded that they reduce production. We had a hearing just a
few weeks ago on this committee and accused them of reducing
production so that they could increase prices. You can't have
it both ways. I----
Secretary Granholm. Sir----
Mr. Palmer [continuing]. Worked in engineering. I have a
pretty good understanding about how this works and what it
costs to get gas--to get oil out of the ground, get it to a
refinery, turn it into gasoline and sell it to the public.
And what your--what this Administration is doing and what
your agency is doing is not doing the things they need to do to
open up these resources, which would not only bring down the
price of energy but would help defeat Russia in Ukraine.
Secretary Granholm. With respect, sir, the talking points
are not accurate.
Mr. Palmer. Yes, they are.
Secretary Granholm. We have done everything we can to
encourage the oil and gas community to increase supply at this
moment. We have called upon them to do it. We have issued more
permits under this----
Mr. Palmer. These members----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Administration----
Mr. Palmer [continuing]. Demanded they reduce production
last October. Then you turn around----
Secretary Granholm. Under this Administration right now,
there is a concern about supply because of the war. The war has
caused prices to escalate----
Mr. Palmer. Prices were already----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Yes, sir----
Mr. Palmer [continuing]. Going up.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. By pulling oil off the
market.
Mr. Palmer. They were really----
Secretary Granholm. I understand that is not what you want
to believe, but the truth----
Mr. Palmer. No.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Is if you ask any----
Mr. Palmer. It is not.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Oil executive----
Mr. Palmer. You are misleading----
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. They say----
Mr. Palmer [continuing]. The American public.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. That it doesn't involve--
--
Mr. Palmer. Misleading the American public. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire,
Ms. Kuster, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you very much, Madam--Mr. Chairman. And I
am so grateful for you to organize this annual oversight
hearing. And thank you to Secretary Granholm. You are doing a
great job. I really appreciate all the efforts that you are
making and of course for Ukraine and Russia's actions having an
impact. I do want to say he said the price at the pumps in New
Hampshire and in my town of Contoocook, it is under four
dollars. So I want to make sure that is in the record as well.
Well, I am going to jump right in by stating the obvious. Many
Americans are experiencing high energy costs. And it is a
result of our reliance on fossil fuels, which are vulnerable to
disruptions, as we are discussing here today, by petrol State
dictators. But renewable energy resources like wind and solar
and hydro are available right here domestically.
And I am particularly interested in harnessing our Nation's
untapped hydropower resources and finding new ways to retrofit
existing dams to help lower energy prices. Last year, I
introduced the bipartisan Twenty-First Century Dams Act to
reimagine our Nation's dam infrastructure by rehabilitating
dams to improve dam safety, remove dams that have outlived
their useful life and retrofit dams to increase hydropower
production.
We call it the three R's, and it's a damn good idea,
rehabilitating, retrofitting, and removing dams. I was also
proud to collaborate with Senator Hassan and Portman to secure
$2.4 billion for the three R's and the Infrastructure
Investments and Jobs Act, including $753 million for grants to
retrofit dams to increase hydropower production.
Madam Secretary, the DOE has yet to release any of this
funding for hydropower retrofits. The initial timelines
published by DOE show that the guidance documents for the
Section 247 retrofit program, a key source of funding, won't be
completed until next spring. And this means that Hydro
operators can't make investment decisions to increase clean
energy output for yet another year. What can the Department of
Energy do to expedite this hydro funding to our local community
operators?
Secretary Granholm. Are you referring to the 754 million
that was part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law?
Ms. Kuster. Yes, exactly.
Secretary Granholm. Great.
Ms. Kuster. I----
Secretary Granholm. Great.
Ms. Kuster. Yes.
Secretary Granholm. Yes. I believe that they are planning
on issuing requests for information first and--but I need to
get back to you directly on the exact date of the funding
opportunity announcement. I hear what you are saying. We feel a
great sense of urgency about this because we do want to be part
of your damn good idea.
Ms. Kuster. Great. Thank you very much. And particularly
the discussion we are having right now about vehicles and your
reference to electric vehicles, we want to make sure that we
have plenty of safe renewable energy, and hydro is such a great
opportunity for that. Now, the Department of Energy has
estimated up to 12 GWs of our capacity at existing non-power
dams, enough electricity for nine million homes, and yet
hydropower resources are slow to come online, and dam owners
have to navigate the FERC hydro licensing process and
regulatory inconsistencies at agencies that manage dams like
the Army Corps.
So Secretary Granholm, should Congress consider reforms to
make it easier to retrofit non-power dams as part of a long-
term strategy to reduce energy loss?
Secretary Granholm. Yes, it should. And I would also add,
along with that, the tax credits associated with generating
electricity from hydropower that would be part of the Energy
Tax Credits Act. Both would be very important.
Ms. Kuster. Great. So I think it is a win-win-win. I
applaud your leadership. I want to thank you for everything
that you are doing in this Administration to bring down energy
costs. And I think renewables are the direction that we should
head. And we should do so with great urgency to give consumers
a break from these high energy bills.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from the great
State of Arizona, Mrs. Lesko, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Secretary Granholm.
Secretary, battery storage facilities or battery energy
storage systems are often used by utilities to store energy
generated from renewable power sources, including solar. Your
budget request includes over $6 billion for battery grants and
programs. In April 2019, Peoria, Arizona Fire Captain Hunter
Clare, along with seven other firefighters and one police
officer were sent to the hospital after a battery energy
storage system caught fire and exploded. In fact, it shot them
through a fence.
On April 21st, just the other day, 2022, firefighters were
called to the Dorman battery storage system in Chandler,
Arizona that caught fire. They put in a robot to check that one
out. I met with Captain Clare, who is still not able to work
full-time. And he said that the fire departments aren't always
told what materials and chemicals are used in these battery
storage facilities, so they don't know how to address putting
out the fires. What are you doing to make these facilities
safe, and has your Department had any discussion with battery
storage manufacturers, utilities and first responders to ensure
that first responders are able to effectively respond to
incidents without giving up proprietary information?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. I know CESER does a lot of work
with utilities and training with respect to grid resiliency,
etc. On the battery-specific question, I am going to have to
get back to you about what they are doing on ensuring that
batteries--that firefighters, in particular, have the training
necessary and know what equipment and what responses they
should be providing in the event of an incident like that.
Mrs. Lesko. Yes. I would--thank you. I would highly
encourage you to--your office to check into that because they
are becoming--I meet with mayors in my district every month.
And this issue has come up as more and more battery storage
units are put in neighborhoods, that the risk of fires,
explosion--I mean, we need to make sure that they are safe. So
thank you for that.
My next question is, in Arizona, the peak time for solar
energy generation is at about 3 p.m. in the afternoon while the
peak time for energy consumption or demand is at 6 p.m. when
people come home from work. The amount of power that must be
generated from sources other than solar to meet this increased
demand produces a graph that resembles the silhouette of a
duck, which is called a duck curve. I want to make sure that,
while we are exploring hydrogen's fuel benefits, we are
simultaneously working to correct the intermittency issues that
are disruptive.
With regards to the Hydrogen Hub Program, I understand you
may be going through a multistep process to select the
projects. Are you taking into account where the greatest need
is to address the so-called duck curve that happens when
intermittent energy sources are not available?
Secretary Granholm. Clearly, hydrogen is a great solution
for that. And especially in states like Arizona, which have
massive capacity for renewable energy, particularly in sun,
that opportunity to transform, through electrolyzers, that
energy into dispatchable baseload power is exactly what
addresses that duck curve, including the storage of it. So I
think the hydrogen hubs are a great solution, one great
solution, in addition to energy storage, safe, to that duck-
curve issue.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. I am going to end, since I only have
51 seconds left, with just a statement. You have said today
that you are in favor of mining in the United States to meet
the Administration's climate goals, yet the Biden
Administration has shut down mines that would provide jobs and
minerals that would be used for renewable energy and electric
vehicles.
For example, the Resolution Copper Mine in Superior,
Arizona was approved by the Trump Administration but was shut
down by the Biden Administration not even 2 months later. This
mine would produce up to 25 percent of our Nation's needs for
copper and would help allow our Nation to stop relying on
foreign nations like China for our mineral needs. You have also
said today that you are in favor of encouraging U.S. oil and
gas production, yet the Biden Administration had stopped
Federal land lease sales for new U.S. oil and gas production on
almost day one that he was in office and has now increased the
royalty rates for new Federal land lease sales. I hope you
understand why Republicans are skeptical of what you are seeing
in light of what the Biden Administration has done. And with
that, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady's----
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rush [continuing]. Time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
McEachin, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being with us today.
Madam Secretary, as you know, the Biden Administration's
Justice40 Initiative identified at least five programs as
covered programs pilot to maximize benefits to disadvantaged
communities, the Weatherization Assistance Program, Solar
Energy Technologies Office, Vehicle Technologies Office, the
Advanced Manufacturing Office, and Environmental Management at
Los Alamos. Kindly please tell me how these pilot programs are
integrated with principles laid out under the Justice40
program, and what other programs can we expect to be covered by
Justice40 at the Department of Energy?
Secretary Granholm. Our ED office is actually infusing the
principles of Justice40 and environmental justice in all of our
practices. These are particularly offices where it is prime to
be able to do that, but we feel it is a whole-of-agency
approach. In fact, I think the Biden Administration considers
it a whole-of-government approach.
The deployment of solar, the deployment of--or the ability
to hire people in advanced manufacturing, making sure
businesses have an opportunity, minority businesses.
Weatherization program overwhelmingly helps communities that
are communities of color. So we want to make sure that the
benefits of the investments in not just the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law but in the rest of the--the whole of the
Biden Administration, 40 percent of which should go to
communities that have been at the back of the line, and that
should be now in prime consideration for the benefits of these
investments. So we are excited to see this thread through all
of these offices but not just these five. Those may be the
prime targets, but we want to see it throughout the entire
Department and throughout the entire Administration.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you for that, Madam Secretary. As the
White House--to move forward on additional guidance relating to
Justice40 Initiative, I noticed some of DOE, such as the Loan
Program Office, are already beginning to look at how we can
ensure that we are making the investments to move us to a clean
energy future with equity in mind. And that, of course, is good
news. How is the Department at large taking equity into account
as we implement the significant investments made under the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law?
Secretary Granholm. This is a great question because it
really--it relates a little bit to the question that was asked
by Mrs. Lesko before she left today. But it is really--if you
are doing a significant investment, whether it is a hydrogen
hub or a mine, that--that investment should be done in
partnership with the community. It shouldn't be done over top
of the community. It shouldn't be done in a way that violates
the values of that community. And so making sure communities
are at the table in these decisions are a part of what this is.
That is true with respect to, you know, our critical
minerals. I was just at the Salton Sea, which is an extremely
poor area of California that has the highest COVID rate but
also has the huge potential to be a lithium--a site for massive
amounts of lithium sustainably mined. When I say
``sustainably,'' I mean that is what communities want. They
want to not have extraction happen, somebody else take the
money away and them be left with nothing or worse.
And so those externalities are important when you consider
these investments. And that is very important to us at the
Department of Energy and very important to the Biden
Administration.
Mr. McEachin. In about the minute or so that I have left, I
am interested in how clean energy demonstrations will support
emerging technologies and their adoption, deployment, and
large-scale commercialization of the technologies we will need
to meet our commitment to becoming zero-carbon--to becoming a
zero-carbon economy by 2050.
With this in mind, how would this budget support
collaboration between OCED and apply to energy offices in the
Loan Program Office?
Secretary Granholm. That is a great question. Thirty
seconds. The Department of Energy historically has been an
agency that does a lot of research and development. And now we
are exercising a whole new muscle, which is major
demonstrations and deployment. That side of things must connect
to the research and development side because, as you deploy new
technologies, there is still more research and development in
the next generation of that technology or other technologies
that come behind. So it is a continuous seam.
The budget supports both sides of the equation. In fact,
they inform each other. The technology side informs the
deployment side. The deployment side informs the technology
side. We have a number of joint strategy teams to ensure that
each side is connected to the other, and that is why this
budget is so exciting.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time----
Mr. McEachin. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota,
Mr. Armstrong, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On the campaign trail, President Biden said that he was
going to end oil and gas development and that he would use a
whole-of-government approach to do so. And Secretary Granholm,
the last time you testified in front of this committee and
stated that pipelines were essential infrastructure--which I
appreciate, by the way--was the same week that the
Administration's climate czar, Gina McCarthy, issued a report
stating that the Federal Government should not invest one
Federal dollar to expend--extend the life of a single carbon
molecule.
Now, a lot has happened since then. But in February, in the
middle of Ukrainian invasion and strain on world prices, FERC
issued a rule or issued a mandate that they were going to now
start requiring any FERC approval to have upstream and
downstream mitigation. And in March, the SEC chair proposed a
regulation mandating climate-based financial reporting, which
would green-light activist investors and groups to bring
shareholder lawsuits.
And not to be outdone, this committee had a hearing in
April called ``Gouged at the Gas Station: Big Oil and
Americans' Pain at the Pump.'' So I agree with you because I do
talk to oil and gas executives at least three or four times a
week. And I believe that Wall Street and access to capital is a
huge part of the problem.
But when the entire Federal Government is telling you that
they are going to starve off an industry--and these processes
take an incredible amount of time to get the infrastructure
down--it is true, but it is definitely not the entire part of
the story. So at the hearing--well, let me just ask. Do you
agree with the Democrat members of this committee that oil and
gas companies are engaged in price gouging?
Secretary Granholm. I don't--I haven't heard them say that
they are engaged in price gouging. I have heard people say that
it is something to be looked at. As the former attorney
general, I looked at that when I was the attorney general of
Michigan, make sure that it happened. And there were some
isolated instances where that was happening. So for the sake of
the people that we all care about, we want to make sure there
is no gouging at all. But I am not saying--and I don't know
that anybody is saying that there is wholesale gouging.
Mr. Armstrong. We had an entire hearing with an entire
group of people on this dais absolutely accusing----
Secretary Granholm. I didn't see.
Mr. Armstrong [continuing]. Companies of price gouging.
Well, let me ask you a second question. Two of the witnesses
that were involved in that hearing actually do no refining
whatsoever and have zero involvement in refining or retail sale
of gasoline. Do you think an oil company who is not engaged in
refining or sale of gasoline can be involved in price gouging?
Secretary Granholm. I don't have an opinion on that.
Mr. Armstrong. All right. And you were talking about
everything you are doing to have people increase production at
this very time. And I actually agree with that. But in order to
do that in my State, we are going to have stranded gas. There
is no other way in which we can produce more oil and gas. And
so I am assuming you and the Administration wouldn't agree to
more flaring of natural gas to increase production.
Secretary Granholm. I don't think flaring is a wise use. I
think it is inefficient, not to mention a terrible practice for
greenhouse gas emissions. So I think this issue has to be
something that we work on together.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, I agree completely. But the only way
we can increase production at any level right now in the State
of North Dakota is to increase flaring. There is no other
option for that. We are stranded. We are the geographic center
of North America. When the Administration is accusing companies
that do business in my State of withholding production in order
to do these things, we come back with that.
First of all, they don't want to flare either. It is
wasteful. It is an environmental process. We are one of the
only states with EPA primacy. So we don't want to lose that.
But we cannot increase production in North Dakota because of
strategic infrastructure projects that have existed across this
country that we can't get our gas to market. So we can't
increase--you would agree--I mean, you know enough about North
Dakota. We can't increase production substantially without
flaring gas. Is that true?
Secretary Granholm. I am not going to argue with you. You
are there. I don't--I certainly wouldn't second-guess what you
are saying on that.
Mr. Armstrong. So in March, there was an interview on CNN.
And you made a statement about wondering--or concerns about
profiteering happening at the gas station level. Do you have
any evidence that that is actually occurring?
Secretary Granholm. That is what I was referring to when I
just spoke about it a minute ago. This is all because of my
experience as attorney general when stations, individual
stations, were jacking up the price after 9/11 because they
were playing upon the fears of people that everything was going
to be shut down. So I am just saying that nobody should be
profiteering at a moment of war or in a moment of crisis. I am
sure you would agree.
Mr. Armstrong. War profiteering is a crime. And to be
saying it in any kind of absolute because it may have happened
sometime in the past, I think is incredibly----
Secretary Granholm. I am just saying----
Mr. Armstrong [continuing]. Irresponsible.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Everybody should be aware
that that is not the right thing to do, whether it is legal or
not. We don't want to see people profiteering at the expense of
people who are just buying gas.
Mr. Armstrong. Passive accusations are still accusations.
And with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Delaware, Ms.
Blunt Rochester, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking
Member Upton, and welcome, Secretary Granholm.
I want to begin by complimenting you on your consistently
clear, practical, and knowledgeable--knowledge-based way of
leading and also communicating at both a challenging time in
our history as well as an opportunity for innovation. I want to
thank you for that. We in Delaware were particularly
appreciative of your visit to our State when you came to
celebrate the Energy Star Program and also highlight energy
efficiency and weatherization successes in our State as well as
our country.
Madam Secretary, you and I have also had the conversation
previously about my legislation, H.R. 1485, the Open Back
Better Act, which directs DOE to provide grants to retrofit
public buildings, making them more energy efficient and more
resilient. This legislation requires that grantees use at least
40 percent of funding to implement projects in environmental
justice communities. And this is an important provision because
we need to ensure that clean energy is affordable and
accessible to all Americans regardless of race, income, or ZIP
Code.
Grant programs like these help the U.S. lead by example and
guide the clean energy transition. It shows that we can provide
good-paying union jobs that will help us solve the climate
crisis. Clean energy jobs and technical advances are integral
to the future of work, and we are grateful to the Department of
Energy for leading the country toward a more sustainable and
prosperous future.
As we are witnessing the electrification of the
transportation sector, it is rapidly accelerating. Electric
cars, trucks, public transit vehicles are more common than
ever. Range anxiety is decreasing, but electric vehicles, as my
colleagues, Ms. Barragan and Mr. Welch have mentioned, and
charging stations are still not accessible to everyone,
sometimes due to cost, other times due to geographic isolation.
And you mentioned the important work that DOE is doing with
the Department of Transportation's Joint Office of Energy and
Transportation. But can you elaborate on how the President's
budget would complement and further the EV infrastructure work
outlined by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thank you for that. Because the
technology associated with both charging decisions, planning,
etc., all have to flow from that initial investment that you
voted for, which is to ensure that every pocket of the country
has access to charging. So we can't just leave it at that. We
have to make sure that it is done well. We have to make sure
that it is done in partnership with communities. And that is
why that State and Community Energy Program is part of the
budget that we are asking you to support. We have to do this
listening. We have to do it knowing that there are communities
that may be--for whom it may not be an obvious hand raise
because they don't have access to the information. So this is
why it is critical to have a two-way dialog and that we have an
office that is able to carry that conversation forward to make
sure it is done in an equitable way and that the next-
generation technologies are the ones being used.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Excellent. And as a followup, can you
elaborate on how the DOE's hydrogen hub initiative can assist
in decarbonizing the heavy-duty transportation sector as well
as the manufacturing industry?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. Great question. I mean, we know
that these hydrogen hubs are of all flavors. But one of the
most important areas for us to focus on is decarbonizing that
heavy-duty sector, whether it is heavy-duty transportation or
heavy-duty industry. And industry--heavy-duty industry
comprises about 24 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions. So
the hydrogen, as a solution to be able to help decarbonize
those, is absolutely one of the pieces of the hydrogen hub
competition, if you will, that we will be putting out.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you. And earlier this year, the
Department created two new undersecretary roles, including an
undersecretary for infrastructure, which will oversee the new
State and Community Energy Program Office. How will this new
structure boost local clean energy deployment, and how does the
President's budget support it?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. This, too, is a great question.
When we created the undersecretary for infrastructure, it was
really about making sure that the $62 billion from the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is spent by experts in the best
way possible and that we have a column of our responsibility
that focuses now on major demonstrations and deployment. As I
said before, we usually had been--in the past, our DNA really
had been in the labs and in research and development.
But now we are taking that technology, and we are putting
it out. And so creating people who--creating offices that have
expertise--for example, the Office of Clean Energy
Demonstrations, that has demonstration--that has people who are
experts in project management and doing big construction
projects so that we do it right and that we respect the
taxpayer dollars.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. O'Halleran, as there are no
more Republican members of the subcommittee. The Chair will now
recognize Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Upton for holding today's meeting.
Good to see you again, Secretary Granholm. And I want to
thank you for coming out to Northern Arizona earlier this
month. A little less dust today, a little less wind. So I am
glad we are a little bit more comfortable. I am glad you got to
see firsthand the investments Navajo Nation is making in
renewable energy and the opportunity it holds for jobs and
economic growth.
There are multiple renewable projects across Arizona in
District 1, like in Pinal County and Coconino County and Navajo
County. And there is enormous potential there as well as the
rest of the Southwest for solar and wind capacity. While I was
proud to support the vital programs for clean energy, the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, only through sustained Federal
investment can we ensure adequate research, development, and
development for technology that enables a carbon-free future
for our children. I am glad that you were also able to see
firsthand the challenges that the transition for communities in
my district and across America where coal-fired power plants
have been or are scheduled to be decommissioned.
It is one thing to talk about jobs and community, but it is
another thing entirely to meet with the communities impacted
and hear directly from them. Thank you for doing that while you
were out in Arizona. The economic future of our region is
dependent on the successful transition to diversified
industries once coal plants closed. This will take the support
of Federal, State, and local governments. So I am glad we were
able to have a productive dialog with the people that were
going to be affected at every level of government.
As you know, a key part of my bill, the New Promise Act,
was enacted last year with the creation of the interagency
working group for coal communities, which is administrated by
the Department of Energy. What work is being done by the
working group to support communities like those in Arizona's
1st District as coal generation for power plants are set to be
decommissioned? Thank you, Secretary.
Secretary Granholm. Thank you. Thank you for being my
navigator to--as we went in Northern Arizona. I have great
respect for the size of your district and how much time that
you have to spend in a vehicle all day to be able to meet your
constituents. We are very focused on programs that make sure
that tribal but rural areas as well are able to plan
effectively. We have an energy transition initiative pilot that
is in the budget for $5 million that helps to provide technical
assistance to rural and remote sort of islanded communities. We
are doing this as well with this community's LEAP program that
I was talking about earlier. We are looking for every way to
ensure that communities like the Navajo have additional
opportunity to be able to participate through our tribal loan
guarantee program.
But we also want to make sure that the plans are available
and the technical assistance is provided. And that is what
these rural programs are all about in the budget. And I am
hopeful that in Northern Arizona, we will be able to make that
happen to--for--I mean, I know we visited the Hopi community.
We visited, I think, the Saint Johns. I am excited to see those
communities take advantage of the technical assistance that we
are willing to offer.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Secretary. Another question
would be, first of all, to thank you. In the Fiscal Year 2022
omnibus, Congress provided the ability for DOE to allow tribes
to access direct loans for the energy--Tribal Energy Loan
Guarantee Program. In December 2020, Congress passed the
bipartisan Energy Act of 2020. It included a bill I introduced
with Congressman Burgess known as the EASE Act, which created
an energy storage and microgrid program for electric
cooperatives. Can you update me on the progress of the
Department's work to make that and implement that program?
Secretary Granholm. I am sorry. Are you referring to the
Direct Loan Program? Is that what you said?
Mr. O'Halleran. No, the first--the EASE Act, the Energy
Storage and Microgrid Program--cooperatives.
Secretary Granholm. Yes. We are--this again refers to rural
and local communities like cooperatives, making sure that they
have the technical assistance and the funding to be able to do
microgrids, especially for communities that may not be attached
directly to a grid. It is a priority of our Energy Electricity
Office. It is a priority as well of EERE, our Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy Office, to ensure that they can take
advantage of clean energy as well, even if they are remote and
not particularly connected to a grid.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Crenshaw, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
ranking member for holding this hearing.
And thank you, Secretary Granholm, for joining us in
person. I want to talk mainly about our domestic energy
production and exporting more natural gas. You have been saying
a lot of the right things today, and we appreciate that,
appreciate that you have stated very clearly that you want to
do everything you can to support domestic energy production. So
let's assume that the Department of Energy is doing exactly
that, which is, of course, what you represent.
But the Administration is really what I have questions
about. Does Gina McCarthy feel the same way? Does John Kerry
feel the same way? Does Administrator Regan agree with your
statement that we need to be increasing our exports to Europe
by 65 percent, that we need to do everything we can to
encourage domestic production? Is there consensus in the
Administration?
Secretary Granholm. The President has said we need to
increase domestic production, and we all work for the
President. So there is consensus.
Mr. Crenshaw. The reason I ask and the reason I am
skeptical, of course--again, I--Department of Energy seen--
let's take it--let's take you at your word there. And you don't
oversee the SEC. You don't oversee NEPA regulations, but the
EPA does. So I am skeptical that the Administration actually
feels this way because I have a long list of things that make
it very difficult for anyone to want to invest in more
production, SEC climate disclosure rules, restricting U.S.
overseas fossil fuel investments, State Department nationwide
permitting, nationwide Permit 12, gas turbine rules, NEPA
regulations, gas plant GHD standard updates, post--natural gas
emissions, methane rules at the EPA, FERC changing pipeline
requirements for natural gas, CWA 401. It is a long list. I
want to know are you getting--is your message getting through
to these other members of the Administration? I think clearly
fight--fights you on this.
Secretary Granholm. We recognize as an administration right
now that we are in--on war footing. And we have to increase
supply to help our allies and to be energy-independent. Now, we
are the No. 1 exporter of LNG. We are the No. 1 producer in the
world of LNG. We are the number--we are almost record of oil.
We are the No. 1 producer of oil. So we are producing. The
question is can we use some of that to help our allies. And I
am sure you would agree that it is important for us to think
medium/long-term to accelerate our movement toward clean
energy, which makes us also energy-independent. So we
understand we have got an emergency need right now. The entire
Administration understands that and that we also have to
accelerate the clean technologies that will allow us to be--to
decarbonize and address climate change.
Mr. Crenshaw. Of course, and I am all about the
accelerating innovation and cleaner technologies, especially
nuclear energy, carbon-capture technology. But let's talk about
reducing global emissions for a minute too and how that is
related to natural gas. I mean, half the world's emissions are
because of foreign coal. In the last 12 months, the growth in
international coal emissions basically had the impact of wiping
out all of the emission benefits of 50 years of wind and solar
in the United States.
So if you are looking at low-hanging fruit, you are
looking--how do you displace this dirty fuel that developing
countries are burning at extraordinary rates? And the answer is
very clearly natural gas. So look. If the Administration is on
board, great. It doesn't seem to be the message for the last
year and a half. But if that has changed, that is great. But if
you need more arguments, please use that one. Please. The
quickest way to reduce emissions in the short-term in a way
that doesn't trap people in poverty is to displace foreign coal
with natural gas. I am sure you would agree with that.
Secretary Granholm. We are--as I say, we are exporting
record amounts of natural gas. And we have permitted everything
we can permit within our four corners of our country to be able
to do that. It is a step. But it would also be great. And I
know the natural gas community believes this. If we can button
down the methane leakage, the methane flaring, make sure--and
these hydrogen hubs will be an opportunity to be able to also
do--address the CO2.
Mr. Crenshaw. Fully agree. A great----
Secretary Granholm. Technology can really make it cleaner.
And let's not send the message that we don't also want to
expand clean energy solutions in those countries as well. I
think that we can do that. We can decarbonize, and we can also
deploy clean technologies for these countries.
Mr. Crenshaw. Agree. Look. A key part of also reducing
things like flaring is allowing ourselves to build more
pipelines. I have run out of time, but I really wanted to ask
about what the Department of Energy is doing to really foster
nuclear innovation and production in this country, but I am out
of time, so I yield back. The chairman wants to let you hit
that----
Secretary Granholm. I can submit----
Mr. Crenshaw [continuing]. Love it.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Something in writing too.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. All right. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Ruiz for
5 minutes.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is great to see you again, Madam Secretary. Thank you
for visiting my district last Wednesday to learn more about the
massive supply of lithium extracted through geothermal energy
production at the Salton Sea. This lithium deposit, the fifth
largest in the world, has the national security and strategic
priority potential to propel our country into a clean energy
future by providing one of the critical raw materials needed
for lithium batteries that power our electrical vehicles.
I was pleased to bring you to North Shore at the Salton Sea
so you could hear directly from local residents, especially
moms, about the environmental and public health crisis at the
sea and our clean energy opportunities in the region. We also
visited many community leaders from Imperial County at
Calipatria High School to discuss how lithium could be
transformative for the region but only if it was done right.
That means doing it with meaningful consultation with
residents, labor union, environmental justice advocates and
public health leaders. That means doing it in a way that
protects the environment and public health around the Salton
Sea.
That means doing it with transformative community
development benefits in infrastructure, healthcare, education
and workforce development so that the people working in these
lithium extraction facilities are the local community members
who need and deserve these jobs. We need to make sure that the
companies do not simply come in, extract the wealth from the
community, and leave.
That also means we should manufacture the batteries in the
United States. My question is in what ways will your budget
ensure that when the critical minerals are mined here
in America, like the lithium underneath the Salton Sea,
that they aren't just shipped to China but that the
manufacturing, supply chain and, frankly, jobs stay here in the
United States.
Secretary Granholm. Great. Thank you for that. There is--I
loved visiting. It was so eye-opening. You were amazing.
Really, really enjoyed hearing from the community as well and
the importance of that community consultation process but not
just consultation but really incorporating the concerns as we
decide where to spend, for example, the money from the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
We will be issuing a--the funding opportunity announcement
shortly on batteries. Part of component of that solicitation
will be making sure that communities, environmental justice,
etc., have been taken into account. So it is going to be
embedded in what we are doing going forward. And we are very
excited about that. So stay tuned to see those.
Mr. Ruiz. Wonderful. Wonderful. So while this
Administration and your Department have been trying to ensure
that our electrical vehicles have a domestic supply chain and
that is reflected in this budget, I want to know how you plan
to implement these programs in a way that guarantees meaningful
consultation because meaningful consultation is not just the
initial visit, listening, incorporating. It is a partnership
throughout the whole process that also addresses any potential
risks with any potential resources that may mitigate those
risks in a way that guarantees this meaningful consultation
with local communities, provides transformational community
development benefits, and protects the local environment,
public health.
Secretary Granholm. Yes. We hope that, by embedding it into
the funding opportunity announcement as a requirement with a--
you know, a percentage of weight associated with whether a--
somebody who is soliciting the grant will qualify, they have
got to show that they have engaged in a meaningful way with the
community. And I, again, appreciate the chance to visit because
you really made that clear as we visited Salton Sea about the
importance of doing that for the community. It is one thing to
know intellectually. It is another thing to be on the ground
and seeing it, and I appreciate your leadership.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. And the local residents appreciated
you and your historic visit to the area. As you saw, it is one
of the most economically under-resourced, underserved
communities in the State of California and possibly in our
Nation. And there is a great win-win for not only our Nation
and our national security, but it is a transformational
opportunity to allow hundreds of thousands to enter the middle
class with good work, with bolstering healthcare, with
education and environmental justice and giving them
opportunities that prior to this was very difficult to imagine.
So I thank you for partnering with me in this, and I look
forward to continuing to work with you and the local residents
on this. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
Madam Secretary, we have one more. I know we are over your
hard stop, but we have one more member who--to ask questions.
We have two more. Sorry. I didn't----
Secretary Granholm. OK.
Mr. Rush [continuing]. See Ms. Dingell.
Voice. Debbie Dingell is going to be the last, I think.
Secretary Granholm. Oh, OK.
Voice. You don't want to say no.
Secretary Granholm. Saving the best for last. No----
Voice. Right.
Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Offense.
Voice. Yes. That is right.
Secretary Granholm. The last two.
Mr. Rush. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Joyce. First, I want to thank Chairman Rush and Ranking
Member Upton for allowing me to waive onto this subcommittee
hearing, and thank you, Secretary Granholm, for appearing with
us today. As we have heard from many of my colleagues, America
is in the midst of an energy crisis. It wasn't long ago that
our Nation was energy-dominant, not just energy-independent but
energy-dominant.
And for the first time since 1952, we were a net energy
exporter. And now, my constituents are suffering from
skyrocketing inflation caused, in part--in large part by the
rapid increase in energy prices. What America needs, we need
right now, is more affordable and reliable baseload power. We
need to invest in innovative technologies that take advantage
of the energy reserves beneath the feet of my constituents in
Pennsylvania.
So to that, we can keep our natural gas, our coal, our
power plants online. Natural gas production in Pennsylvania not
only led to America becoming energy-dominant. But it led to a
significant decrease in our Nation's emissions. This is the
real green technology that we should be talking about here
today. By unleashing our gas industry, we would be able to move
forward toward the goals that my colleagues across the aisle
espouse and especially powering America and America's allies.
This is the only way forward.
In speaking to grid operators just this week, they made it
clear that renewable energy programs simply do not have the
capabilities to meet American energy needs. This isn't a
political statement. This is a statement of fact. With new
technology development, Pennsylvania has become energy that
allows us to get out of this crisis and give Americans the
economic futures that they deserve.
Secretary Granholm, at present, a lack of pipeline and LNG
capacity is hampering our ability to respond to the global
energy price spikes and support our allies in Europe. There is
a growing list of pending projects that have been delayed by
the DOE. They would create jobs and encourage additional energy
production, allowing the U.S. to deliver several billion cubic
feet more, seven billion--several billion cubic feet in
addition of natural gas to our allies in Europe and around the
world.
The authorization of two more LNG export projects is a step
in the right direction. But it is not enough. Madam Secretary,
do you see the strategic need for America to be able to supply
our allies with liquefied natural gas?
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Mr. Joyce. Would you commit here today to supporting
increasing the export of American liquid natural gas?
Secretary Granholm. We have already permitted 30 billion
cubic feet of natural gas that has not even been constructed
yet. In other words, it is almost three times what we currently
export. We export about 12 billion cubic feet. We have
permitted an additional 30 billion cubic feet. There is no
permits that are waiting that have--that are on the U.S. soil
that I am responsible for. We have permitted everything in the
United States for liquefied natural gas because we want to
assist our allies, even as we want to, as well, move to clean
energy.
Mr. Joyce. It is a great point that you make. We need to
support our allies. Given the current international
circumstances and Putin's energy blackmail--that is what it
is--of Poland and Bulgaria. Will you commit to working with
industry to expedite future LNG projects and pipelines to
respond to that need that our allies need right now?
Secretary Granholm. As I said, we have permitted already an
additional 30 billion. I just permitted--we, the Department of
Energy, just permitted two more that will allow for those
volumes to go to Europe as a non-free-trade agreement. We did
the same thing in March with two other facilities. There are no
more permits inside of the United States that are waiting for
us to be able to act because we have got so much already
permitted.
Mr. Joyce. But as those additional permits arise, I think
we both recognize the need for that, for supporting our allies.
Today, it perhaps couldn't be even more important.
Secretary Granholm. Very important.
Mr. Joyce. And I appreciate your commitment to expanding
that liquid natural gas export to support our friends and our
allies. What Putin has done and the fact that our allies are
funding the aggressive war in Ukraine today, this allows us to
once again be that energy dominant force. I thank you for
agreeing with me on that point, and I see my time has expired.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs.
Dingell, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Rush, for holding this
important hearing, my dear friend, the ranking member of this
committee, and to see my dear friend testifying before the
committee today.
And I want to say that when you took over a year ago, I
said you couldn't be a better leader at a time when we needed
to transition to a new era and a new economy, one that is going
to be built on clean energy and by American workers. And you
and President Biden have delivered in many ways to accelerate a
massive shift to electrification and clean energy here in the
United States, which, by the way, will help us not be dependent
on autocratic leaders who are using fossil fuels as a weapon
around the world. I commend you and the Administration's hard
work. But I want to now ask you some questions about--that--
what the work we continue to do to be a world leader. I am glad
that you again reaffirm to my colleagues on the other side
there are no permits pending, none, on LNG. But I would like to
ask you--build on some of the questions my friends have asked
on critical minerals.
Currently, the auto industry is experiencing significant
challenges in the semiconductor supply chain--in both product
disruptions and inventory shortages. And Flat Rock is closed
today because I don't have those chips for a couple more days.
There is a huge backlog, but it was exciting to see the F-150
vehicle come off the line this week.
At the same time, the auto industry has made significant
commitments to vehicle electrification with automakers planning
to invest $515 billion globally over the next five to ten
years. As the markets for EV grow, will the demand for EV
batteries and battery materials, many--which we know are
currently sourced overseas and could be subject, again, to the
kind of supply chain issues we are seeing at the moment.
Can you provide more details on how the recent decision by
the Administration to invoke the Defense Production Act as
supporting domestic sourcing and processing of these critical
minerals----
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Mrs. Dingell [continuing]. That will help?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. I believe, while we have been
sitting here talking, there has been a proposal by the
Administration released to fund the Defense Production Act
component of--that he previously issued an executive order on
to help us become energy-independent through--partially through
batteries for electric vehicles.
And that means that the Department of Defense will take the
lead on that component. I think it is $500 million, if I am not
mistaken, that he announced today. In addition to that, though,
we are focused at the Department of Energy in releasing the
funding opportunity announcements for batteries. And of course
the precursor to which is the critical materials.
We have got a strategy both as a whole-of-government, an
intergovernmental group that is working on critical minerals as
well as the Department of Energy. And that effort is being led
by the Department of Energy. It is about responsible--it is
about the full pipeline, as you are aware. It is about
responsible extraction. It is about processing, which is one of
the funding opportunity announcements that will go out very
soon from the Department of Energy. We do no processing of
critical minerals in the United States. We have got to do some.
And so we have got to--if--take those--that lithium from the
Salton Sea and make sure it is processed in a responsible way
so that we don't have to send it to China and have it come
back. So those components are all part of that Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, the pieces of which we will be--we will be
executing on. I am very excited about it.
Mrs. Dingell. And I'm going to work with you on that. I
have got about 1 minute left. And I do want to talk about
electric vehicles because the critical condition for consumer
acceptance is access to a reliable charging infrastructure and
their affordability. You know where we are right now. The
Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill gave a significant down payment
but not enough. As EV market grows, the United States looks
rapidly to expand EV charging.
It is important to ensure we are investing in the right
type of things that have to be done. Can you give this
committee an overview of the work to date of the joint office?
You have talked about already but deploy a nation-wide network
of charging stations. Highlight the investments that are going
to be needed if we are going to make this long-term objective
work. Thank you.
Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thank you so much. Thanks for the
seven-and-a-half billion dollars in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law for the vehicle charging infrastructure. The
first $5 billion is going to be out this summer to communities
in a formula manner after we have heard responses from a
funding--excuse me--a request for information from those
communities. We have gotten that back.
The second chunk--the first five billion will go out over
the summer on a first-come, first-served basis from
communities. And the second chunk of it will go out on a
competitive basis later in the year. Both pieces are super
important. Every community should have access to electric
vehicle charging infrastructure. And I applaud the communities
like in Michigan that have also leveraged additional State
funding to fill in additional pockets of places where there
isn't charging infrastructure. States can be a good partner in
this.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. We are going to need more money,
though, as you know, to make this totally work.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady's time has expired. The gentlelady
yields back.
Madam Secretary, you have been most gracious with your
time, and we certainly appreciate you being here once again.
This concludes the witness questions. And thank you, Madam
Secretary, for your participation in today's hearing. I want to
remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they have ten
business days to submit additional questions for the record to
be answered by the witness, who has appeared. I ask the
Secretary if she would respond promptly to any such questions
that you may receive.
Before we adjourn, I request unanimous consent to enter a
previously agreed-upon list of documents into the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Rush. At this time, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:34 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]