[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 DOE BUDGET
=======================================================================
VIRTUAL HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 19, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-33
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-295 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
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 DEBBBIE 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
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, 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........................................... 2
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Witness
Jennifer M. Granholm, Secretary, Department of Energy............ 12
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Answers to submitted questions \1\
Submitted Material
Letter of May 17, 2021, from Center for American Progress, et
al., to President Biden, submitted by Mr. Dingell.............. 85
Editorial of May 15, 2021, ``To protect all of us, government and
business had better step up cybersecurity,'' Chicago Sun-Times,
submitted by Mr. Rush.......................................... 87
Article of May 14, 2021, ``Solar panels are key to Biden's energy
plan. But the global supply chain may rely on forced labor from
China,'' by Clare Duffy, CNN Business, submitted by Mr. Upton.. 91
Letter of May 3, 2021, from Craig Piercy, Executive Director/
Chief Executive Officer, American Nuclear Society, et al., to
Jennifer Granholm, Secretary, Department of Energy, submitted
by Mr. Duncan.................................................. 104
Report of the Government Accountability Office, ``Critical
Infrastructure Protection: Actions Needed to Address
Significant Weaknesses in TSA's Pipeline Security Program
Management,'' December 2018, submitted by Mr. Upton \2\
Article of May 13, 2021, ``Calif. sees risk of summer
blackouts,'' by Anne C. Mulkern, E&E News, submitted by Mr.
Upton.......................................................... 106
Blog post of May 18, 2021, ``Colonial Pipeline Cyberattack
Highlights Need for Better Federal and Private-Sector
Preparedness,'' Government Accountability Office, submitted by
Mr. Upton...................................................... 108
Letter of April 26, 2021, from Senator John Barrasso to Teri L.
Donaldson, Inspector General, Department of Energy, submitted
by Mr. Upton................................................... 111
----------
\1\ Ms. Granholm's answers to submitted questions have been retained in
committee files and are available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/
IF/IF03/20210519/112638/HHRG-117-IF03-Wstate-GranholmJ-20210519-
SD001.pdf.
\2\ The report has been retained in committee files and is available at
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20210519/112638/HHRG-117-IF03-
20210519-SD007.pdf.
THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 DOE BUDGET
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:32 a.m. via
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Bobby L. Rush
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle,
McNerney, Tonko, Veasey, Schrier, DeGette, Butterfield, Matsui,
Castor, Welch, Schrader, Kuster, Barragan, Blunt Rochester,
O'Halleran, Pallone (ex officio), Upton (subcommittee ranking
member), Burgess, Latta, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith,
Johnson, Bucshon, Walberg, Duncan, Palmer, Lesko, Pence,
Armstrong, and Rodgers (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Dingell, Trahan, Fletcher,
and Joyce.
Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Waverly
Gordon, General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff
Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital
Assistant; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Lino Pena-Martinez,
Policy Analyst; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez,
Clerk; Kylea Rogers, Staff Assistant; Sarah Burke, Minority
Deputy Staff Director; Michael Cameron, Minority Policy
Analyst; William Clutterbuck, Minority Staff Assistant/Policy
Analyst; Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for
Environment; Theresa Gambo, Minority Financial and Office
Administrator; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff Director; Sean
Kelly, Minority Press Secretary; Peter Kielty, Minority General
Counsel; Emily King, Minority Member Services Director; Bijan
Koohmaraie, Minority Chief Counsel, Oversight and
Investigations Chief Counsel; Mary Martin, Minority Chief
Counsel, Energy and Environment; Brandon Mooney, Minority
Deputy Chief Counsel for Energy; Clare Paoletta, Minority
Policy Analyst, Health; Peter Spencer, Minority Senior
Professional Staff Member, Energy; Michael Taggart, Minority
Policy Director; Everett Winnick, Minority Director of
Information Technology.
Mr. Rush. The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to
order.
Today the subcommittee is hearing--is holding a hearing
entitled ``The Fiscal Year 2022 DOE Budget.''
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and all witnesses
will be participating via video conferencing.
As part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise. And
Members and witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone
each time you wish to speak.
Documents for the record can be sent to Lino Pena-Martinez
at the email address that we have provided to staff. All
documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion of
today's hearing.
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the
purposes of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Today the Subcommittee on Energy will hold a hearing on the
President's Fiscal Year 2022 discretionary budget request and
the Department of Energy's critical mission to transform and
secure the Nation's energy system.
It is my distinct honor and high privilege to recognize and
welcome Ms. Jennifer Granholm, the 16th Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Energy, to our subcommittee for the first time.
Madam Secretary, we sincerely thank you for joining us for
today's discussion.
This hearing comes at a critical time, as much as the east
coast continues to struggle with fuel shortages following the
cyber attack on the Colonial Pipeline and after extreme weather
events left millions of our Nation's citizens in Texas without
power just a few months ago. Madam Secretary, again, I want to
thank you and the entire DOE team for your steadfast leadership
amid these crises.
These events and their grim consequences demonstrate the
importance of our energy system and how DOE's sector-specific
expertise is indispensable to the resolution of these
questions. That is why I, along with Ranking Member Upton and
other esteemed colleagues of this subcommittee, have introduced
bipartisan legislation to further strengthen DOE's ability to
respond to physical and other cybersecurity threats. And I am
also working on legislation to prevent future incidents.
We must take a hard look at Federal strategies to prevent
attacks, enforce best practices and compliance, and also to
discourage bad actors.
Moreover, it is critical that we--as we consider the
budget, that we prioritize the U.S. energy security and
resilience. That is why I am pleased by this year's funding
request, which includes $46.1 billion for DOE, a 10.2 percent
increase from DOE's fiscal year 2021 enacted budget. This
sizeable investment will advance crucial energy--clean energy
priorities, good-paying jobs, and the U.S. efforts to deploy
technologies to tackle the climate crisis.
I look forward to our continued partnership, and the
subcommittee stands ready to work with you and the Biden
administration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush
Today, the Subcommittee on Energy will hold a hearing on
the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Discretionary Budget
Request and the Department of Energy's (DOE) critical mission
to transform and secure the Nation's energy system. It is my
distinct honor to welcome Ms. Jennifer Granholm, the 16th
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, to the Subcommittee
on Energy for the first time. Madame Secretary, thank you for
joining us for today's discussion.
This hearing comes at a critical time, as much of the East
Coast continues to struggle with fuel shortages following the
cyberattack on Colonial Pipeline and after extreme weather
events left millions in Texas without power just a few months
ago. Madame Secretary, I would like to thank you--and the DOE
team as a whole--for your steadfast leadership amid these
crises. These events and their grim consequences demonstrate
the importance of our energy systems and how DOE's sector-
specific expertise is indispensable to the resolution of these
matters.
That is why I, along with Ranking Member Upton and other
esteemed colleagues, have introduced bipartisan legislation to
further strengthen DOE's ability to respond to physical and
cyber security threats. I am also working on legislation to
prevent future incidents. We must take a hard look at Federal
strategies to prevent attacks, enforce industry best practices
and compliance, and discourage bad actors.
Moreover, it is critical that--as we consider the budget--
we prioritize the United States' energy security and
resiliency. That is why I am pleased by this year's funding
request, which includes $46.1 billion for DOE--a 10.2 percent
increase from DOE's FY 2021 enacted levels. This sizeable
investment will advance crucial clean energy priorities, good-
paying jobs, and U.S. efforts to deploy technologies to tackle
the climate crisis.
This funding request, in addition to your installment as
Secretary, and President Biden's American Jobs Plan has
delivered this Nation a long-awaited dose of optimism. This is
in addition to the LIFT America Act and CLEAN Future Act. I
look forward to our continued partnership and the subcommittee
stands ready to work with you and this administration.
And with that, I yield the balance of my time to the vice
chair of the subcommittee, Mr. McNerney.
Mr. Rush. And with that, I yield the balance of my time to
the esteemed vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you, Chairman, for yielding.
And Secretary Granholm, welcome. I want to thank--I want to
start by thanking you and the Department of Energy for leading
the whole-of-government approach in restoring operations of the
Colonial Pipeline following the recent cyber attack. This
attack is another wake-up call about the growing cyber threats
that our Nation faces, and it comes on the heels of a major
cyber attack that SolarWinds identified.
The need to address growing cyber threats is something that
I have been talking about for years, both on this committee and
in my role as cochair of the Grid Innovation Caucus. I hope
that we can all work together to make sure that we are doing
everything possible to address future cyber threats our Nation
faces, and our Nation's infrastructure, in particular.
Secretary, your budget shows an ambitious agenda to build
up our Nation's energy and science infrastructure to meet the
challenges we face, from cyber threats to workforce
development, to foreign competition, and climate change. Our
job is to provide guidance and support.
Secretary Granholm, I look forward to your testimony today
about how the DOE plans to address these challenges and what
resources are needed, and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Upton, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy,
for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.
[Pause.]
Mr. Rush. Mr. Upton, you are--unmute, Mr. Upton.
Mr. Upton. How is that? Does that work?
Mr. Rush. That is great.
Mr. Upton. I got to do this for--I had to change--they
updated the app last night and didn't pass it along to us.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Let me begin again by saying thank you, and also welcome to
Secretary Granholm to our committee. It is always a pleasure to
see a fellow Michigander once again at the helm of the
Department of Energy. And certainly, I know we all look forward
to--I look forward to continuing a close working relationship
with her, our former Governor.
You know, as you know, this subcommittee is responsible for
overseeing virtually every aspect of the energy sector for--and
all of our Members take this job very seriously. We focus on
energy supply, including exploration, development, and
generation of fuels and electricity, energy distribution,
including the grid and the pipelines, energy imports and
exports, and energy use, including energy efficiency and
conservation standards.
We are also responsible for overseeing the management of
DOE. Over the last two administrations we have been examining
steps to modernize the Department of Energy to reflect the
national economic and energy security challenges that will
confront the Nation over the coming decades. This committee has
led the charge, from lifting the ban on crude oil exports, to
the FAST Act amendments to help DOE address emerging hazards as
well as cyber threats.
I am particularly focused on consumers and the impacts that
the Federal energy policy is going to have on competitiveness,
jobs, and energy prices. I also believe that it is important to
recognize that over the last decade the U.S. has become the
world's leading producer of oil and gas, creating millions of
good-paying jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenues to
States and local governments.
The U.S. has also reversed a decades-long trend of rising
imports and dependence on the Middle East. So we are now self-
sufficient when it comes to natural gas, which has helped the
U.S. reduce its greenhouse gas emissions more than any other
country. We also have become the world's leading LNG exporter,
pushing back on Russia, helping our trading partners reduce
their emissions at the same time. We are more energy secure
today than at any point in our Nation's history. However, we
have got a lot of challenges ahead.
First I want to focus on critical minerals. As the COVID
pandemic has shown, we have become too dependent on the
unstable global supply chains and imports from China.
Amazingly, China controls 80 to 90 percent of the critical
minerals used in solar panels, batteries, and other advanced
technologies.
It is also imperative that we get a handle on the supply
chain, or we are going to end up in the same position that we
were in before America's shale energy revolution. I introduced
the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act to increase
the domestic supply of critical minerals and alternatives, and
I look forward to working with you on that legislation.
Second, we need to talk about permitting reform. As we all
know, it has become virtually impossible to build large-scale
infrastructure projects in this country, especially pipeline
and transmissions that cross the State lines. Putting--pouring
Federal dollars onto the problem is not going to solve it. We
need real reforms, strong lead agencies, timelines, real
certainty to encourage project developers to take the risk. DOE
has a very important role to play here, and we are going to
rely on your leadership, especially, when it comes to providing
the energy analysts to inform our decision-making.
Finally, I have always been focused on cyber. And given
what happened last week with the Colonial Pipeline ransom
attack, I believe that Congress and the Department have an
opportunity to work collaboratively to improve cyber response
and harden our Nation's critical energy infrastructure.
Chairman Rush and I introduced our bipartisan bill, the
Pipeline and LNG Facility Cybersecurity Preparedness Act, to
provide DOE with strong authorities. Chairman Pallone and
Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers are original cosponsors of that
bill, and we look forward to working with you on that
legislation.
You know, this last week's Colonial cyber attack revealed
that a secure, reliable, and affordable supply of energy is
absolutely critical to our economy, our way of life, and for
the first time since the 1970s we saw widespread supply
distributions with long lines at the pump as fueling stations
ran out. So we need to know what happened last week with
Colonial and certainly appreciate your willingness to provide
us answers, including in a classified briefing at some point in
the near future, so that we can begin to address the many
shortcomings to prevent such happening again.
We all support new technologies that allow us to use energy
more efficiently. We look forward to your testimony, and I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton
Thank you, Chairman Rush. Let me begin by welcoming
Secretary Granholm to the Energy and Commerce Committee. It's
nice to see a fellow Michigander once again at the helm of the
Department of Energy, and I look forward to continuing a close
working relationship with you.
As you know, the the Subcommittee on Energy is responsible
for overseeing virtually every aspect of the energy sector and
our Members take this job very seriously.
We focus on energy supply, including exploration,
development, and generation of fuels and electricity; energy
distribution, including the grid and pipelines; energy imports
and exports; and energy use, including energy efficiency and
conservation standards.
We are also responsible for overseeing the management of
the Department of Energy.
Over the past two administrations, we have been examining
steps to modernize the Department of Energy to reflect the
national, economic, and energy security challenges that will
confront the Nation over the coming decades.
This committee has led the charge--from lifting the ban on
crude oil exports to the FAST Act amendments to help DOE
address emerging hazards and cyber threats.
I am particularly focused on consumers, and the impacts
that Federal energy policy will have on competitiveness, jobs,
and energy prices.
I believe it is important to recognize that, over the past
decade, the United States has become the world's leading
producer of oil and gas creating millions of good-paying
American jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenues to States
and local governments. The United States has also reversed the
decades-long trends of rising imports and dependence on the
Middle East.
We are now self-sufficient when it comes to natural gas--
which has helped the United States reduce its greenhouse gas
emissions more than any other nation. We have also become a
world leading LNG exporter, pushing back on Russia and helping
our trading partners reduce their emissions at the same time.
We are more energy secure today than at any point in our
Nation's history. However, there are still many challenges that
lay ahead.
First, I would like to focus on critical minerals. As the
COVID pandemic has shown, we have become too dependent on
unstable global supply chains and imports from China.
Amazingly, China controls 80-90% of the critical minerals used
in solar panels, batteries, and other advanced technologies.
It is absolutely imperative that we get a handle on the
supply chains or we could end up in the same position we were
in before America's shale energy revolution. I introduced the
Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act to increase the
domestic supply of critical minerals and develop alternatives,
and I look forward to working with you on this legislation.
Second, we need to talk about permitting reform. As we all
know, it has become virtually impossible to build large-scale
infrastructure projects in this country, especially pipeline
and transmission that crosses State lines. Pouring Federal
dollars on the problem will not solve it. We need real
reforms--strong lead agencies, timelines, and real certainty to
encourage project developers to take the risk. DOE has an
important role to play here, and we will rely on your
leadership, especially when it comes to providing the energy
analysis to inform the decision making.
Finally, I am very focused on cybersecurity, and given what
happened last week with the Colonial Pipeline ransomware
attack, I believe Congress and the Department have an
opportunity to work collaboratively to improve cyber response
and harden our Nation's critical energy infrastructure.
Chairman Rush and I have reintroduced our bipartisan bill,
the Pipeline and LNG Facility Cybersecurity Preparedness Act,
to provide DOE with strong authorities. Chairman Pallone and
Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers are original cosponsors of the
bill--we all look forward to working with you on this
legislation.
The Colonial cyberattack revealed that a secure, reliable,
and affordable supply of fossil energy is absolutely critical
to our economy and our way of life. For the first time since
the 1970s, we saw widespread supply disruptions and long lines
at the pump as fueling stations ran out of gas.
We all support new technologies that allow us to use energy
more efficiently, but we must ground our thinking with the
realities that we face today. I look forward to working with
you on realistic solutions to the real problems that are
emerging today.
With that, I look forward to the testimony and I yield
back.
[Pause.]
Mr. Pallone. I couldn't hear Chairman Rush. Did he--it
sounds like he--reading his lips, it seems like he is asking me
to speak. So should I just proceed?
Mr. Upton. Bobby, you are still on mute.
[Pause.]
Mr. Rush. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Pallone. Yes, we can.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, the
chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes for the purposes
of an 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 let me welcome
again the Secretary.
It is so great to see you here before our committee, Madam
Secretary. We have so many issues that we can work on within
the Department. You know, I am just thinking of clean energy
deployment, cybersecurity, overseeing our Nation's nuclear
weapons stockpile, cleaning up the legacy sites where those
weapons were produced, so many things.
But I wanted to begin by addressing, as many of my
colleagues have, the recent Colonial Pipeline cyber attack that
shut down a critical piece of our Nation's energy
infrastructure and led to both gasoline and jet fuel shortages
along the east coast.
And the committee has a longstanding history of bipartisan
work--I am sure you are aware of that--on the energy
cybersecurity issue, including through the pipeline
cybersecurity legislation that was already mentioned, that was
reintroduced last week by Ranking Member Upton and Chairman
Rush.
So last Congress this subcommittee held a hearing on
pipeline safety and security, and I spoke about my concern that
the Transportation Security Administration's pipeline security
program lacks the resources and expertise to protect our
country from attacks like the one we saw with the Colonial
Pipeline. And this incident shows we have to do more to protect
our Nation's energy infrastructure.
Fortunately, the electric sector has a rigorous framework
for mandatory reliability standards developed by the North
American Energy Reliability Corporation and enforced by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. But no similar rigorous
program exists for pipelines, just a set of voluntary
guidelines overseen by TSA. And this is a big gap, and I
believe it is time to consider mandatory, enforceable
reliability standards for our Nation's pipeline network.
So we have to ensure our Nation's energy infrastructure is
not just secure, but reliable and resilient, and that requires
robust investments. And also, as you know, President Biden's
American Jobs Plan does just that. It prioritizes funding for
the clean energy infrastructure we need to tackle the climate
crisis and creates good-paying jobs right here in the U.S.
Along with Chairmen Rush and Tonko, I introduced the CLEAN
Future Act earlier this Congress. We have had several hearings
on this in the--both the Energy and the Environment and Climate
Change subcommittees. And the CLEAN Future Act would achieve
net-zero greenhouse gas pollution, combat the climate crisis,
put Americans back to work, and rebuild our economy.
And the CLEAN Future Act and the American Jobs Plan share
similar goals and policies. Both plans make substantial
investments in transportation electrification, including the
deployment of electric vehicles, charging stations, and zero-
emission school buses. They both invest billions of dollars in
clean energy deployment, upgrading the Nation's grid, and
making homes and buildings more energy efficient.
And the rest of the world, particularly China, is already
making major investments in clean technology and jobs that
could and should be created right here at home. We can't watch
from the sidelines as other nations surpass us. We must invest
in our workers and the growth of our clean energy economy.
After 4 years of the Trump administration flouting the law
by refusing to update and revise efficiency standards for
appliances--this is another issue that we were very concerned
about--I know you have a lot of work to do. I questioned your
predecessor Secretaries Perry and Brouillette several times
about the Department pushing out anti-efficiency rulemaking,
such as the rollback of the LED light bulb standards, and
ignoring scores of appliance efficiency upgrades mandated by
law. That is a program that saves a lot of money and helps
reduce consumer consumptions, and we have to get this back on
track, and we want to help you with these appliance standards,
as well.
I also wanted to mention the nuclear security mission. I
have always believed in the principle of civilian, not
military, control over our Nation's nuclear weapons. The
National Nuclear Security Administration is a critical part of
DOE's mission. It is too important to be left to its own
devices. And that is, obviously, a major issue.
So the last thing I wanted to say is that the committee has
conducted years of oversight on the Department's environmental
management program, which cleans up the legacy waste sites
where nuclear weapons were developed, and taxpayers spent
billions of dollars every year on this program. The
Department's--but the Department's environmental liabilities
continue to grow. And I think that a more cohesive and
consistent management of this program is critical to speeding
up cleanup at these sites.
So, again, we have a long history of bipartisan cooperation
on both the NNSA governance, environmental management, and I
look forward to working with the Department and my colleagues
on this committee on critical issues.
It is really good to see you. I listened to your--so what
you said yesterday at the Progressive Caucus. It was very
impressive. And, of course, we know, you know, the Michiganders
on this committee have been speaking highly of you on both
sides of the aisle for a long time. So it is nice to see you in
this new position. Thank you.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Secretary Granholm, welcome to the Energy and Commerce
Committee. We have so many issues that we can work on within
the Department of Energy, from clean energy deployment and
energy cybersecurity, to overseeing our Nation's nuclear
weapons stockpile and cleaning up the legacy sites where these
weapons were produced.
I'd like to begin by addressing the recent Colonial
Pipeline cyberattack that shut down a critical piece of our
Nation's energy infrastructure and led to both gasoline and jet
fuel shortages along the East Coast. This committee has a
longstanding history of bipartisan work on energy cybersecurity
issues, including through the pipeline cybersecurity
legislation that was reintroduced last week by Ranking Member
Upton and Chairman Rush.
Last Congress, this subcommittee held a hearing on pipeline
safety and security, and I spoke about my concern that the
Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) Pipeline
Security Program lacks the resources and expertise to protect
our country from attacks like the one we saw on the Colonial
Pipeline. This incident shows we have to do more to protect our
Nation's energy infrastructure.
Fortunately, the electric sector has a rigorous framework
for mandatory reliability standards developed by the North
American Energy Reliability Corporation and enforced by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. But no similar rigorous
program exists for pipelines, just a set of voluntary
guidelines overseen by TSA. This is a big gap and I believe
it's time we consider mandatory, enforceable reliability
standards for our Nation's pipeline network.
We have to ensure our Nation's energy infrastructure is not
just secure, but reliable and resilient. That requires robust
investments, and President Biden's American Jobs Plan does just
that. It prioritizes funding for the clean energy
infrastructure we need to tackle the climate crisis and creates
good paying jobs right here in the United States.
Along with Chairmen Rush and Tonko, I introduced the CLEAN
Future Act earlier this Congress. We've had several hearings on
this in both the Energy and the Environment and Climate Change
subcommittees. The CLEAN Future Act would achieve net zero
greenhouse gas pollution, combat the climate crisis, put
Americans back to work, and rebuild our economy. The CLEAN
Future Act and the American Jobs Plan share similar goals and
policies. Both plans make substantial investments in
transportation electrification, including the deployment of
electric vehicles, charging stations, and zero-emissions school
buses. They both invest billions of dollars in clean energy
deployment, upgrading the Nation's grid and making homes and
buildings more energy efficient.
The rest of the world, particularly China, is already
making major investments in clean technology and jobs that
could and should be created right here at home. We cannot watch
from the sidelines as other nations surpass us. We must invest
in our workers and the growth of our clean energy economy.
After four years of the Trump administration flouting the
law by refusing to update and revise efficiency standards for
appliances, DOE certainly has a lot of work ahead on this
critical program. I questioned your predecessors, Secretaries
Perry and Brouillette, several times about the Department
pushing out anti-efficiency rulemakings, such as rolling back
LED lightbulb standards, while ignoring scores of appliance
efficiency upgrades mandated by law. This program saves
consumers money and helps reduce energy consumption. We must
get this important program back on track.
I also want to mention our Nation's nuclear security
mission. I've always believed in the principal of civilian--not
military--control over our Nation's nuclear weapons. The
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is a critical
part of DOE's mission and must remain so. It's too important to
be left to its own devices.
Lastly, the committee has conducted years of oversight on
the Department's Environmental Management program, which cleans
up the legacy waste sites where nuclear weapons were developed
and built. Taxpayers spend billions of dollars every year on
this important program, but the Department's environmental
liabilities continue to grow. I think that more cohesive and
consistent management of this program is critical to speeding
cleanup at these sites.
The committee has a long history of bipartisan cooperation
on both NNSA governance and Environmental Management oversight,
and I look forward to working with the Department and my
colleagues on this committee on these critical issues.
Thank you again, Secretary Granholm, for joining us today.
I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The chairman of the full committee yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes for the
purposes of an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Secretary Granholm. It is great to see you today.
And it is good to have you come before our committee. You bring
a wealth of governance experience to the job of Secretary, and
I am hopeful that that will--it will serve the Department and
the American people well in the coming years.
Today we are supposed to be evaluating the proposed budget
priorities for fiscal year 2022, and this is necessary for
committee oversight. But we are at a disadvantage, because the
administration has yet to release a detailed budget for the
Department of Energy. What we have--instead, what we have
instead are general assertions about climate policy priorities
and spending outlined over two pages of text. That is it.
Much of this reflects the administration's rush to green
agenda, which our hearings this year have shown risk economic
harm and deprive people of reliable, affordable energy. The
harm will only increase with a massive push for electric
vehicles and limits on fossil fuel. This creates major supply
chain risk and increases dependence on foreign sources that
abuse human and individual rights for energy system components.
Needless to say, we are anxious to see additional details.
We should focus the aggressive priorities to dismantle our
domestic fossil energy economy and radically transform our
electric and transportation sectors. We should ask if the rush
will do this--will determine--undermine DOE's core work on
national security, both energy and economic security.
While DOE's work spans the energy sector at its core, it is
a nuclear security agency representing some 70 percent of the
budget when counting its Cold War cleanup responsibilities. The
Department and its predecessor agencies designed and produced
every nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal. And now it maintains
the Nation's nuclear deterrent. DOE provides the technology to
power the nuclear navy and serves central roles in nuclear
nonproliferation, international nuclear security.
DOE was organized and now serves as the Nation's energy
security agency. It manages the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,
has established energy emergency programs and works to assure
the reliable supply of energy and power.
The gas supply crisis along the east coast from the
shutdown of the Colonial Pipeline is a harsh reminder of how
important reliable supplies of fuels are for Americans. As you
have noticed, Madam Secretary, it is a reminder of how critical
pipelines are for clean, efficient, secure delivery of the
energy people on our economy need to thrive. This event should
underscore the energy security role at the Department.
DOE also helps assure American energy and energy
technologies serve our strategic geopolitical interests, the
neglect of which would imperil our security and the future.
Of course, to accomplish its work DOE relies upon its
world-class science, engineering, and technological expertise
across a complex of National Labs, production sites, and
facilities. There's nothing like it, really, when you consider
DOE's science and engineering. Its capabilities are enhanced by
a synergy among the labs across the complex. This synergy
serves all of the Department's missions. It produces tremendous
benefits for our security, for advancing science and
innovation, and will ensure American innovation across the
energy landscape.
We should not undermine what is possible with new
priorities that could break this synergy and undermine energy
and economic security. A well-managed DOE enterprise produces
amazing results. Consider, for example, the Agency's science
and supercomputing used for science and weapons programs and
how this was put to service at Oak Ridge to screen compounds
for COVID-19 vaccine development.
The National Security and Environmental Management
Materials Programs at Pacific Northwest National Lab near my
district are advancing cybersecurity protections in the science
to help advanced batteries.
The Hanford Site, the backbone of our Nation's Cold War
nuclear work, is now providing new promise to support
development of advanced nuclear technology.
Last year Congress enacted the Energy Act of 2020, the most
significant bipartisan energy law in more than a decade, to
build on the agency's work to clean energy technologies and the
deployment of those technologies. We should understand how DOE
plans to implement that law and fit it in with its other
missions in a way that maximizes benefits across the complex,
from nuclear security to cybersecurity. This is no easy task,
and it will be undermined if the leadership is distracted by
pursuing policies that turn away from DOE's core mission.
I look forward to talking more about that this morning. And
with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Welcome Secretary Granholm. It is good to see you again and
good to have you before the committee today. You bring a wealth
of governance experience to the job of Secretary and I'm
hopeful that will serve the Department and the American people
well in coming years.
Today we are supposed to be evaluating the proposed budget
priorities for fiscal year 2022. This is necessary for
committee oversight. But we are at a disadvantage, because the
administration has yet to release a detailed budget for the
Department of Energy.
What we have instead are general assertions about climate
policy priorities and spending, outlined over two pages of
text--that's it. Much of this reflects the administration's
rush to green agenda, which our hearings this year have shown
risks economic harm and deprives people of reliable, affordable
energy.
The harm will only increase with a massive push for
electric vehicles and limits on fossil energy. This creates
major supply chain risks and increases dependence on foreign
sources that abuse human and individual rights for energy
system components. Needless to say, additional details would be
helpful.
We should question the aggressive priorities to dismantle
our domestic fossil energy economy and radically transform our
electric and transportation sectors. We should ask if the rush
to do this will undermine DOE's core work on national security
and both energy and economic security.
While DOE's work spans the energy sector, at its core, it
is a nuclear security agency--representing some 70% of the
budget when counting its Cold War cleanup responsibilities. The
department, and its predecessor agencies, designed and produced
every nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal; and now it maintains
the Nation's nuclear deterrent.
DOE provides the technology to power the nuclear navy and
serves central roles in nuclear nonproliferation, international
nuclear security. DOE was organized and now serves as the
Nation's energy security agency. It manages the strategic
petroleum reserve, has established energy emergency programs,
and works to assure the reliable supply of energy and power.
The gas supply crisis along the East Coast from the
shutdown of the Colonial pipeline is a harsh reminder how
important reliable supplies of fuels are for Americans. As
you've noted, Secretary, it is a reminder how critical
pipelines are, for clean, efficient, secure delivery of the
energy people and the economy need to thrive.
This event should underscore energy security's role at the
Department. DOE also helps assure American energy and energy
technology serves our strategic geopolitical interests the
neglect of which could imperil our security in the future.
Of course, to accomplish its work, DOE relies upon its
world-class science, engineering, and technological expertise
across a complex of National Labs, production sites, and
facilities. There's nothing else like DOE's science and
engineering. Its capabilities are enhanced by a synergy among
the labs across the complex.
This synergy serves all the Department's missions. It
produces tremendous benefits for our security, for advancing
science and innovation, and will ensure American innovation
across the energy landscape.
We should not undermine what is possible with new
priorities that could break this synergy and undermine energy
and economic security. A well-managed DOE enterprise produces
amazing benefits.
Consider, for example, the Agency's computational science
and supercomputing used for science and weapons programs, and
how this was put to service at Oak Ridge to screen compounds
for a COVID-19 vaccine development.
The national security and environmental management
materials programs at Pacific Northwest National Lab, near my
district, are advancing cyber security protections and the
science to help advanced batteries. The Hanford site, the
backbone for our Nation's Cold War nuclear work, is now
providing new promise to support development of advanced
nuclear technologies.
Last year, Congress enacted the Energy Act of 2020--the
most significant bipartisan energy law in more than a decade--
to build on the Agency's work in clean energy technologies, and
the deployment of those technologies.
We should understand how DOE plans to implement that law
and fit it in with its other missions in a way that maximizes
benefits across the complex--from nuclear security to
cybersecurity. This is no easy task, and it will be undermined
if Departmental leadership is distracted by pursuing policies
that turn away from DOE's core missions. I look forward to
talking about that this morning. With that Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Rush. The ranking member yields back, and I would like
to now welcome our esteemed witness for today's hearing, the
Honorable Jennifer M. Granholm, Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Energy.
Madam Secretary, I, for one, am excited about your presence
at this hearing, and we want to thank you for joining us today.
We do look forward to hearing your testimony, and, Madam
Secretary, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for the
purposes of an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
Ms. Granholm. Thank you so much, Chairman Rush, and to
Ranking Member Upton, and Chairman Pallone, and Congressman
McNerney, and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, and to members
of the subcommittee. It is really an honor to be here as the
Nation's 16th Secretary of Energy to discuss the President's
2022 discretionary budget for the Department.
So my vision for the Department is really to drive forward
the research and development and deployment of cutting-edge
science and technology in order to advance America's energy
security, economic security, and, critically, national
security. And I am very proud to say that we have accomplished
a lot since January 20th.
I just want to start, though, if I could, with just a
minute on what unfolded last week. As you all are aware, this
ransomware attack happened on May 7th, and it led to the
shutdown of the Colonial Pipeline Company's largest pipe fuel
line on the east coast. And the White House asked my team at
the Department of Energy to coordinate an interagency whole-of-
government effort to ensure that the company had the resources
necessary to resume operations as quickly and safely as
possible while moving fuel supplies to impacted areas by other
means.
So the incident was really a stark reminder of the
imperative to harden the Nation's critical infrastructure, as
you have been discussing, against these serious and growing
threats like ransomware. And in the face of an evolving array
of 21st century risks, we have, I think, to rethink our
approach to security and to reassess the authorities that we
can bring to bear during these kind of emergencies.
As the sector risk management agency for cybersecurity in
the energy sector, DOE is eager to work with this committee in
an effort to ensure that we can be maximally effective in
protecting the energy sector and in meeting the needs of the
American people.
Now, beyond that crisis management we have been really busy
advancing our core science and nuclear security missions while
also driving innovation and decarbonization, in particular,
technologies forward. Since the President's inauguration, we
have announced nearly $1.5 billion in grants and awards and
funding opportunities for clean energy R&D projects that will
help us to achieve a net-zero carbon future. And much of that
reflects what Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, identified as
high priority through that Energy Act of 2020.
So the American Jobs Plan would significantly expand the
research, development, and deployment efforts that were
identified in the Energy Act of 2020, which is very exciting.
And it will ensure that American researchers are the ones who
are making breakthroughs that drive clean energy and our
future. It will ensure, the American Jobs Plan, that American
entrepreneurs take those breakthroughs to scale. It will ensure
that American workers build them right here.
And what is more, that American Jobs Plan calls for
directing 40 percent of the benefits of these investments to
communities that have been left behind and unheard for too
long, to people of color and indigenous people who then--who
have disproportionately borne the burdens of fossil fuel
pollution and are now on the front lines of climate change. It
will help lower-income households that see far too much of
their paychecks eaten up by energy bills and for energy workers
who have powered this country for generations and now stand on
the edge of this transition to clean energy.
This committee, I know, has advanced critical legislation
that is focused on creating jobs that provide a living wage on
an equitable basis. And we share that commitment. We believe,
wholeheartedly, that clean energy will be an engine for such
job creation, and we are holding ourselves accountable to our
promises.
Shalanda Baker, who is my senior advisor, has been helping
us figure out how we can lift these communities up and is
overseeing the development of a Justice40 online mapping tool
that the public can use to see where the Department's spending
relates to environmental justice communities.
President Biden's proposed 2020 discretionary funding
request is going to allow the Department of Energy to take
additional steps toward the equitable, clean energy future we
believe is within reach. It will invest $46.2 billion in the
Department of Energy's key priorities, including deploying
clean, cheap, and abundant power, and a reliable and resilient
and secure grid. It means increasing clean energy research over
4 years to put America at the forefront of clean energy
innovation worldwide. And it means advancing carbon reduction
and mitigation through technologies like carbon capture, and
storage, and hydrogen, and breaking down the barriers to
increased diversity in STEM fields and, of course,
strengthening the Department's nuclear security mission, and
continuing to advance our environmental management program.
So I am humbled by the opportunity to lead the Department
of Energy as we pursue this really ambitious agenda. And I have
seen up close what our amazing workforce can do. I have no
doubt that we can reach our goals, and I look forward to our
continued partnership as we work to achieve them. Thank you so
much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Granholm follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. I want to again thank our Secretary of the
Department of Energy, and now we have concluded the opening
statements for this morning, and we will now move to Member
questions.
Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions of our
witness. And I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Madam Secretary, again I would like to thank you and other
members of the administration for your leadership during the
recent cybersecurity attack on the Colonial Pipeline. This
ransomware attack, and the underreporting of security breaches
generally, is cause for great concern.
It is my understanding that Colonial worked hand in glove
with the Department of Energy and other entities to tackle this
crisis. However, I remain deeply concerned about the use of
ransom payments, especially when paired with untraceable
criminal currency payments, which can make enforcement
difficult, if not impossible, and also incentivize crimes by
their actions. A recent Chicago Sun-Times editorial further
underscores these concerns.
My bill, H.R. 3119, The Energy Emergency Leadership Act,
will assign cybersecurity, energy security, and emergency
response functions to a new DOE Assistant Secretary. Madam
Secretary, how would Congress' creation of this Assistant
Secretary position strengthen DOE's ability to respond to these
sector-specific issues that are of great concern?
Ms. Granholm. Thank you so much for the question. You and I
share the sentiment that CESER, and the responsibilities of
that office inside of the Department and across--and for the
energy sector, in general, are essential.
I have made it a mission of mine to strengthen the office
as much as possible with fantastic new leadership at CESER and
a new focus. And as we have seen with both the Texas winter
weather event and the Colonial Pipeline incident, CESER can
make a difference, a very big difference. And they have
relationships with the private sector and with their sister
agencies across the Federal Government. We want to make sure
that it is as fine-tuned as possible toward that goal, and I
look forward to working with you to accomplish that.
Mr. Rush. Madam Secretary, in light of this recent energy
reliability crisis, it is important to consider what more can
be done to reinforce DOE's response to future threats. As I
have mentioned, I am currently working on legislation to ensure
that cyber attacks do not threaten our energy infrastructure,
moving forward. Are oversight agencies like DOE in need of
additional authorities to ensure the reliability and security
of our energy systems?
Ms. Granholm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. DOE's role as the
sector risk management agency is really to continue and expand
our efforts to make the best solutions available to industry,
and to--with the best information about possible weaknesses.
And it is not a fully regulatory role. And of course, any
decision about the regulatory authorities for any of these
agencies is up to Congress.
But regardless of who has the ball, who has the authority
over pipeline security, for example, DOE remains committed to
supporting security measures like we have been doing through
efforts like deployment of sensors throughout the oil and
natural gas sector, or threat information-sharing with
industry, or supply chain testing, particularly because there
is so much overlap on the industrial control systems used
within the electricity and the pipeline sectors. CESER has been
working on secure manufacturing and innovation, working with
our Office of Fossil Energy to ensure that cybersecurity is
built into the new technologies to support the next generation
of oil and natural gas infrastructure and systems.
Mr. Rush. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary.
The Chair yields back his time. The Chair now recognizes
the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes
for the purposes of asking questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask the
Secretary, in just a few short months, multiple events have
threatened the physical and cybersecurity of our energy system,
and required a significant emergency response. In February we
saw deadly and widespread power outages in Texas, and the
Colonial Pipeline led to almost a complete closure of one of
our largest pipelines.
And so I just wanted to commend you, Madam Secretary,
first, for working hard with other agencies to lead this effort
to help bring the pipeline back online quickly and safety--and
safely. And I know you have been working on that furiously.
But these events underscore both the physical and cyber
vulnerabilities of the energy system, risks that continue to
evolve due to climate change, technological advances, and the
increased interconnectedness of our energy infrastructure.
There is, clearly, more that we need to do.
So my first question is, how can the committee and Congress
best help Department of Energy ensure the reliability of the
energy system in light of these ongoing and continuing
challenges, if you will?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, this is such a great question for, you
know, your role, and what is happening inside of the Federal
Government. So--and what is happening with the private sector,
as well. So there is no doubt that the energy sector, like
other, you know, critical sectors in our society, needs to
continue to do better at defending itself against cyber
threats. We all need to, right? So many of you have been saying
that for years.
And as you know, in this country, our energy sector is
operated by private, not-for-profit, and State and local
entities. There's over 3,000 companies on the electricity side,
and thousands of others in the oil and natural gas sector. So
to try to protect this really complex environment, the U.S.
Government is leveraging a bunch of different tools at our
disposal.
First, you may be aware that, inside the Federal
Government, the President issued an Executive order. And this
is just to set the stage for what Congress' role might be in
this, as well. But the President's Executive order for the
Federal Government creates, for example, a pilot Energy Star
label program that will help the Government identify software
that was developed securely. That is a question that maybe
could be transported to outside of Federal Government, or
certainly that players outside of Federal Government can look
to what the Federal Government defines as secure suppliers for
that software.
The President's Executive order requires information
technology providers that serve the Federal system to share any
breach of information with the Government, so that our
intelligence community can identify where these breaches are
coming from, so they can take action on it.
The President's Executive order directs Federal agencies to
lead by example by adopting these strong, modern cybersecurity
standards that are consistent with the guidelines developed by
NIST, making sure we have trusted architecture inside of our--
of what--of who we hire to do our IT and software work for the
Federal Government.
The President's Executive order establishes a joint
governmental private sector board to review cyber incidents
that occur and to make recommendations to the private sector
and the public sector for improvement. And while a lot of those
efforts are focused on the Government, as I mentioned, they
really do provide, I think, a good signal to industry on what
we, at the Federal level, will purchase and use and, therefore,
may also be guidance for how we might think more broadly.
So you have got existing regulation, as you identified in
your initial remarks, you know, after directing the North
American Electric--NERC--to develop the standards FERC issues,
mandatory cybersecurity standards for electricity owners and
operators. And as you noted, TSA has voluntary guidelines. And
one wonders whether it is time that we match what we are doing
on the electric side with what we are doing on the pipeline
side.
So I--CESER is the--DOE is the risk management agency, as I
mentioned, and I think we need to work on, with the private
sector--this threat information-sharing issue is huge, the
development of research and development, the development of
trusted products that we can use and that the private sector
can use, all very important.
I am sorry I went on too long, because I know your time and
my time is up----
Mr. Pallone. That is all right----
Ms. Granholm [continuing]. But there is more to say, and it
is a really important topic, and I appreciate you raising it.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The Chair yields back. The Chair has made
tremendous--outside of regular order. I failed to introduce my
friend and the eminent subcommittee ranking member for 5
minutes. I ask his forgiveness and his indulgence for the Chair
stepping outside of the regular order.
And it is my honor now to recognize, finally, the ranking
member of the subcommittee, an esteemed gentleman from
southwest Michigan, none other than Chairman Fred Upton.
Mr. Upton. Well, no harm done, Mr. Chairman. I was just
thinking that you were mindfully thinking that you wished that
I was still the chairman of the full committee, so I will
accept that apology.
Secretary Granholm, again, welcome. Welcome to our
committee. Some are saying that the--Colonial's cyber attack
was a wake-up call, but all of us here know better. We have
been sounding the alarm on this for the last couple of years,
which is why I first introduced the Pipeline and LNG Facility
Cybersecurity Preparedness Act three years ago. This committee
has spent a considerable amount of time investigating cyber
attacks across the energy supply chain, both in public as well
as private, classified meetings.
We need to know the facts and circumstances. I know you and
I have chatted about this, and I just welcome your
participation to provide us all the information that you can in
that classified setting, either here on the Hill or just down
the street at your office.
Ms. Granholm. I certainly will.
Mr. Upton. Yesterday--actually, let me ask a quick question
as a followup to Chairman Rush. He talked a little bit about
CESER. When do you actually anticipate the nomination for the
head of CESER might be made public, or moving forward?
Ms. Granholm. Well, we have an acting head that we have
just brought on. His name is Puesh Kumar, and he is--comes from
both DOE in the cyber area and then also at a utility company
in Southern California, as--heading up their cybersecurity
efforts. So he has got great experience.
I hope we can make sure that he comes before you, so you
can meet him and be as impressed with him as I am. I don't know
the exact timing, but I can tell you that, having brought him
on as acting, it was a very good move to make sure that we
amplify and benefit from the expertise, both of his public and
private sector cyber work.
Mr. Upton. Well, great. I look forward to that.
Yesterday--and we have got these facts, State-by-State
facts, that show that nearly 75 percent of the gas stations
here in DC are out of gas. Almost half the gas stations in
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were also out of
gas. Gas prices, obviously, supply and demand, went up. It has
been over a week since the ransomware attack began. Americans
are still suffering. There has been some price gouging, I know.
But what should we DOE--do we really need to have minimum
standards that we should legislatively move, working with--
obviously, on a bipartisan basis? Do we need minimum standards
for critical energy infrastructure? Is that something that we
are woefully inadequate on?
Ms. Granholm. I think we are inadequate on it. And I think
that this is an example, potentially, of that.
I mean, if we had had standards in place, would this
particular ransomware attack have been able to happen? You
know, I am not 100 percent sure. But I do know that, having
good cyber hygiene on the private side, as well as on the
public side, is a critical basic defense. And for entities that
provide service to the public like that, especially critical
services like energy, I think it is an important consideration
for this committee, for sure.
Mr. Upton. So one of the biggest roadblocks to a new
infrastructure bill is the Federal permitting process. I am one
that believes that we desperately need to modernize our
infrastructure. Are you aware that the CLEAN Future Act, the
centerpiece of that climate agenda, would essentially shut down
oil and gas production and new pipelines?
And what are your thoughts as it relates to that?
Ms. Granholm. Well, I am all about an efficient government
and making sure that we streamline where we can, and we do so
in a way that protects what the regulation was intended to
protect, which is often, obviously, our environment and safety.
So, you know, transmission, especially, is an issue that we
have all raised. We have seen so much lag time and so many
hoops that have to be jumped through to get critical
infrastructure in the ground and, again, often adopted at a
time when it made perfect sense. But like anything, we need to
update government processes to make--but make sure that we
still protect what we intended to protect in the first place.
You know, I think on the transmission side, the Department
is using the tools that Congress provided to help advance
transmission development. If I can just talk about transmission
for a second, we recently announced the availability of up to
$8.2 billion in financing from the Loan Programs Office, and
the Western Area Power Administration's Transmission
Infrastructure Program. And we are using analytical tools at
the National Labs to identify transmission needs and
opportunities like the Interconnections Seam Study from NREL.
And it is not something we can do on our own. States have--
obviously, have the primary role in permitting and siting in--
particularly in transmission. I am really looking forward to
working with States and communities collaboratively, but I do
know that there is a huge--you know, for example, there's over
680 gigawatts of clean power that is queued up in the
transmission system alone, waiting for entry into the system. A
lot of that has to do with the lack of capacity, and some of it
has to do with lack of financing, and some of it has to do with
the permitting issues.
So I very much want to work on this, on the whole suite of
issues that seem to be slowing down the movement of permission
of key pieces of energy infrastructure to be in the ground, or
on poles, or however the safest way is for that--the
transmission of that energy to come to us.
Mr. Upton. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mrs.
McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes for the purposes of an
opening--for the purposes of questioning the witnesses.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Rush. Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again, Madam Secretary. As we know, families throughout
the southeast, up into DC and Maryland, experienced a rude
shock last week as the Colonial Pipeline shutdown caused
gasoline shortages, and it still continues. This is a problem
straight out of the 1970s.
But cybersecurity, rather than price controls and--or oil
embargoes directly led to the shortages. This event follows
life-and-death energy shortages in Texas this past winter,
resulted when available generation could not meet sudden demand
during a winter freeze. And of course, there is chronic
electric reliability and affordable issues in California, as
that State pushes for more renewable, weather-dependent energy,
despite its cost and harm to the poor.
California predicts more blackouts this summer. These
issues continue to undermine safety and increase energy
poverty. They hurt people who cannot afford to purchase home
generators or to fuel their cars. So I have three questions
here I would like you to address, Secretary Granholm, and it
really relates to energy reliability, harming people.
Do you agree that DOE has a role to assess these
situations, and help address them?
Are you taking into account the pace of the
administration's greenhouse gas goals that may increase more
blackouts or energy shortages?
And finally, it would be helpful for policymakers if you
direct the Energy Information Administration to model the
impact of these policies, including ratepayer impacts. And I
wanted to ask if you would be willing to direct the Energy
Information Agency to model the impact of these policies.
Ms. Granholm. So with respect to DOE's role, yes. The
price--your question about the pace, excuse me, of the
greenhouse gas emission goals, the pace is urgent, because the
situation is urgent. We are seeing that so many of these crises
are because of--not in spite of, but because of--extreme
weather and climate events. And so we need to do both: provide
reliable and affordable power, and do so in a clean way.
And those--that is exactly what the Biden administration is
focused on. That is exactly why we want to get to 100 percent
clean electricity by 2035 and net-zero carbon emissions by
2050, and use the--all of the great research and development
that you were describing at our National Labs, the great
brains, the technology that is coming out of these labs to
enable us to get there.
So, for example, we want to make sure that we manage
CO2 emissions on natural gas. We want to make sure
that we manage methane flaring, that we reduce or eliminate
methane flaring and CO2, having it--having natural
gas be carbon-free through technologies that are being
developed inside the National Labs and that we want now to
deploy. And it is all about deployment.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK.
Ms. Granholm. This is why the investment that the American
Jobs Plan makes in these kind of technologies will----
Mrs. Rodgers. OK, thank you.
Ms. Granholm [continuing]. Down that cost.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, thank you. So I am sorry to
interrupt, I am going to run out of time here, though, and I
really would like to work with you to get the modeling of all
of that, so that we understand the impact it is going to have
on reliability, as well as cost, affordability, and the impact
on ratepayers.
My second question was around China. And one of the
challenges that we have as a nation is regaining our
competitive edge to beat China. And at the same time, we just
see where the CCP has long exploited openness to advance its
military and its economic goals. So the--China's Thousand
Talents Plan has been--actively recruited U.S. taxpayer-funded
researchers to propel its science and technology. And I note in
your testimony the promised increased grants and spending on
energy research.
I wanted to ask if you would commit to maintaining DOE's
2019 prohibitions on funding researchers associated with the
Thousand Talents Program. And will you maintain or enhance the
restrictions on DOE contractors and employees collaborating
with the CCP?
Ms. Granholm. You know, so I completely acknowledge the
threat that China has been providing to the U.S., both in
making sure that we--that our research is safe and protected
and, obviously, what is happening on the economic front in
terms of the challenge that China has presented in securing
supply chains and manufacturing for critical minerals.
Not just that, but critical supplies for a clean energy
system. You know, there is a huge market for these clean energy
products, that this is why we want to get in the game on and
make sure that we have that research and development capacity.
It is also true that it is sometimes in our best interest
to work with China, for example, on nonproliferation issues and
sharing of scientific knowledge that is not proprietary.
So, you know, if we can work with China to make sure the
work advances our interests and complies with U.S. laws and DOE
regulations, that is one thing. If China or its--and its
efforts are stealing information from our labs, that is another
thing.
So I look forward to working with the committee on this
important goal to get, you know, America to be on top, both
economically but also to make sure that we are secure from
Chinese, you know, efforts, Chinese Communist Party efforts to
infiltrate.
Having taught at UC Berkeley and worked with the Lawrence
Berkeley National Lab, we have seen fantastic--we have
fantastic researchers, fantastic scientists who are from--of
Chinese origin. But I want to make sure that we are careful and
sensitive to the fact that we are talking about the Chinese
Communist Party and not the Chinese people.
And I appreciate the question, and I look forward to
working with you on it.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Granholm, for being here.
Your comments about transmission were music to my ears. One
of our biggest challenges is figuring out how to deliver vast
amounts of zero-emission electricity from rural areas, where
renewables are most generated, areas of high demand, and we
have to expand and upgrade our long-distance, high-voltage
transmission system.
In the wake of the seam study that you mentioned, I
introduce the POWER ON Act to provide FERC with backup
regulatory authority to permit the build-out of these cost-
effective and reliable transmission systems when State-level
opposition or apathy interferes, and there is a Federal
interest in doing this. I shared your--that bill with your
staff, and many of its provisions are included in the CLEAN
Futures Act, and I hope that the budget for DOE can provide
support for that very important work, because the Federal
Government is going to have to take a hand in this.
Today I did--and I will get to the budget question, but I
would like to focus on a climate solution that could act as a
complement to the American Jobs Plan, including the plan's
clean energy standard. And that is--that solution is carbon
pricing. I am not naive to the politics of carbon pricing. Some
of my colleagues say it is too costly, it will destroy the
economy. Others, once champions of the policy, have labeled it
as nice to have but not essential.
But even a modest carbon price is essential. It would
reduce the cost of decarbonization, generate billions in new
revenue, and drive fuel switching to zero-carbon alternatives,
and send a price signal to every economic actor to reduce
carbon emissions and give certainty to the private sector to
build low-carbon investments.
It can be structured to be progressive, but without it it
is hard to imagine how the U.S. will drive the rapid deployment
of new, lower-cost, and lower-carbon technologies across all
sectors. So a couple of points, briefly.
First, a carbon price could complement the American Jobs
Plan by reducing the cost of implementation. Researchers at MIT
found that a climate package that includes a modest carbon
price cuts costs in half, compared to a package that lacks a
carbon price.
In California, which has some of the most ambitious climate
targets in the world, we have determined that combining carbon
pricing with other carbon--with other climate policies cost
four times less than a pathway without a price on carbon.
And the U.S. climate approach has international
implications. The EU's carbon price is near $60 a ton. The UK
is launching a new carbon pricing program. Canada plans to
increase its carbon price to $170 a ton by 2030. China is
continuing to develop a domestic carbon market. And as the
world moves towards ambition carbon pricing, the U.S. risks
losing international credibility and being subjected to
punitive border policies that could affect our industrial
competitiveness.
California has an advanced carbon pricing program, 11
northeast States participate in a regional carbon market, and
in Washington State Governor Inslee and the legislature
recently passed an economywide price on carbon. And there is
significant evidence that it works.
In 2019, more than 3,500 economists, including 28 Nobel
laureates, supported it. In 2020 the CFTC's Climate-Related
Market Risk Subcommittee concluded it is the single most
important step to manage climate risk and drive the appropriate
allocation of capital. In 2021, the National Academy of
Sciences Engineering and Medicine recommended it. And not only
scientists and academics. The Business Roundtable supports a
carbon price.
And finally, I have to say that in 2009 the Michigan State
Climate Action Plan said Michigan should advocate a carbon
price. It is efficient, equitable, economywide, and based on a
Federal-State partnership.
I am not trying to play gotcha here, but I do want to know,
really, from a budget perspective, what modeling do you have to
show that the clean energy standard will be sufficient to meet
our targets on time, with or without a carbon price?
And can you provide that modeling, the support for that
modeling, in the budget, just so we know--we really know--that
this is going to work?
Ms. Granholm. Yes. OK, first, thank you so much for the
question. I appreciate the passion and the sincere goal that we
all have to reach these goals and figuring out the best path to
get there.
So, you know, as you have noted, carbon pricing is one of
many tools for addressing CO2 emissions. We have
seen lots of countries and States try it, as you have
identified. But the American Jobs Plan is really, first and
foremost, this long-term strategy to modernize the economy, to
build this economy for the future with the infrastructure that
we need, and to do it in a way--by, you know, by trying to
incentivize the technology----
Mr. Peters. Right, right.
Ms. Granholm [continuing]. That is necessary to build that
zero-carbon future. And the administration, it is their overall
approach. It is the best----
Mr. Peters. Madam Secretary, I went on too long. But
specifically about the modeling, what resources can the
Department dedicate to show us that this will work?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I mean, we--happy to have those
conversations with you. We just did a model, for example, for
the City of Los Angeles that allowed them to get to a 100
percent clean energy future. There are a number of different
pathways.
As you know, the administration also did an evaluation for
their goal to get to reduce CO2 emissions by 50
percent by 2030 using a number of different pathways. I am
happy to have our team get with your office to show you exactly
what we are looking at, because we are very optimistic and
believe it can be done. But it is an aggressive--it is
aggressive, and it is hard. There is no doubt about it.
Mr. Peters. I appreciate that. Thank you. I have used my
time, and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Dr. Burgess from the
great State of Texas.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Chairman Rush. Thanks, Ranking
Member Upton.
Madam Secretary, let me just join with the others who have
welcomed you to our subcommittee today. I have a question about
the news last night that the President decided he was able to
waive sanctions against the company that is currently
constructing the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline between Russia and
Germany, so a direct economic threat to countries in Eastern
Europe, and certainly has the potential to be destabilizing the
geopolitical balance between Russia and the United States.
Section 14--I am sorry, 1242 of the William Mac Thornberry
National Defense Authorization Act that was passed last
December tightened the existing sanction regimen. In fact,
Secretary Blinken was questioned by my senator, Senator Cruz,
in a Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing. And Secretary
Blinken was determined--whatever he could do to complete the
completion of the last 100 yards of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
So do you have any information for us today about why Vice
President Biden has pivoted nearly 180 degrees away from his
previous position?
Ms. Granholm. I have not been specifically briefed on that.
I understand the State Department soon is going to be releasing
a report regarding the mandatory sanctions that Congress has
imposed in assisting on the building of Nord Stream 2. So I--
and I understand that the State Department is going to notify
Congress soon. So I will leave it at that.
Mr. Burgess. Well, in the language passed by Congress, in
section 1242 of the NDAA last year, there was the ability for
waiver in the national interest, that the President could waive
the sanctions if he determines that the waiver is in the
national interest of the United States. I would just--you know,
I would love to see the argument how this waiver would
benefit--seemingly, to me, it benefits only Vladimir Putin. And
we have already disadvantaged the citizens of the United States
by not completing the last 100 yards of the Keystone pipeline.
So I don't quite follow how that waiver of the national
interest occurs.
But, of course, under the plain language of section 1242 of
the National Defense Authorization Act, the other part of that
section is that the President does need to submit the--to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the waiver and
the reasons for the waiver. And I just hope that you, as the
Secretary of Energy, will commit to providing this committee
with those appropriate reports in a timely fashion. May we ask
you that?
Ms. Granholm. Of course.
Mr. Burgess. Let me just, also--Chairman Upton, or Ranking
Member Upton, brought up an important point about the NEPA
waivers and the importance of--we have got a lot of
infrastructure to catch up with. We have seen the danger from
having infrastructure go down--the pipeline on the east coast--
and the--of course, in Texas, during our one week of winter we
saw a lot of needs develop. And, of course, Texas is also a
fast-growth State, so there's a lot of demands being made on
our energy infrastructure, our energy grid.
So I just underscore Chairman Upton's request that the
environmental streamlining, the waivers, the NEPA waivers, all
of that is going to be an important part, to be sure, of a
clean energy plan, but also just keeping up with what we have
already got. And I would just like to add my name to the list
that includes Ranking Member Upton on, I think, interest in how
we secure our future, in the--in light of the environmental--
some of the environmental restrictions we have to meet.
Ms. Granholm. Noted.
Mr. Burgess. And let me just ask you on nuclear security--I
mean, it is an area where this committee has been focused
historically--just several questions that I can submit for the
record, but I am interested in your commitment to working with
this committee so the Department of Energy can effectively
manage the important commission on the Nation's nuclear
security.
Ms. Granholm. I am sorry, did you--was that a question? I
am sorry.
Mr. Burgess. Well, the current law is imposing challenges
on your ability to effectively manage, and budgeting, and other
decisions about our weapons program in recent years. This
committee has worked to address those deficiencies in a
responsible, effective way. And I am just trying to gauge your
interest in working with the committee on----
Ms. Granholm. Oh, of course.
Mr. Burgess [continuing]. Those important issues of
national security.
Ms. Granholm. Of course, of course. It is a huge mission of
the Department. I am sorry I missed that. That part was the
question. Of course, I look forward to working with you.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Chairman Rush, I will yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Rush and
Ranking Member Upton, and welcome, Madam Secretary.
You know, as you know, we have the opportunity to make
America the leader in developing and building clean
technologies and products of the future. And I know you share a
lot of the goals that I do. And I look forward to working with
you.
I also look forward to you visiting Pittsburgh, because I
want to show you all the innovative work being done to connect
researchers and manufacturers to build the clean energy systems
of the future right here in the United States.
Madam Secretary, Pittsburgh is home to U.S. Steel.
Obviously, the steelmaking industry is--of the future--are
looking to decarbonize sectors like steelmaking and decarbonize
heavy-duty transportation like shipping and freight rail. And
one of the ways I believe we can do this is hydrogen. It is a
clean, sustainable fuel that will be especially helpful in
decarbonizing these sectors I have just mentioned.
We also have in Pittsburgh the National Energy Technology
Lab. Do you agree that we should be developing hydrogen hubs
and demonstration projects?
And I would like to say at this point we would be an
excellent candidate for a hydrogen hub, given the research
facilities we have and the industry we have in steelmaking.
What are your thoughts on hydrogen?
Ms. Granholm. A thousand percent, yes. I mean, hydrogen is
viewed by many as sort of the Holy Grail of how we are really
going to be able to get to clean, reliable, dispatchable power,
whether it is blue hydrogen, which, of course, is derived from
natural gas; green hydrogen, which takes renewable energy and
creates hydrogen--tank hydrogen, which comes from nuclear.
The hydrogen hub idea is a terrific idea. I think my--one
of my predecessors, Ernie Moniz, Dr. Ernie Moniz, has
identified, I think, 18 hydrogen hubs that could exist where--
across the country, where it makes natural, comparative
advantage sense. And, as you are well aware, the American Jobs
Plan has inside of it 15 hydrogen demonstration projects.
And I think--I mean, I say this all the time, because I
have been hearing it all the time from my counterparts in other
countries--that everybody wants to get to this hydrogen future
and to reduce the costs so that everyday taxpayers, everyday
citizens, don't see their energy bills increase. These
demonstration----
Mr. Doyle. Madam Secretary, we have everything you need,
right in Pittsburgh. We are sitting on a bunch of Marcellus
shale gas. We have the research facilities, and we have the
industries there that--all are looking to work together to see
this be a reality.
Let me--I want to ask you some more questions within my
time. You know, to be a leader in clean energy and electric
vehicles and battery manufacturing, we have to ensure we have
robust domestic supply chains. What are your plans for ensuring
that we are onshoring supply chains?
And what is the administration's view on making investments
in the midstream supply chain, such as a grant program that
works with industry to help build or retool facilities for
battery components and materials?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, this is a great question. Let me just
use batteries as an example. I think we should be having the
full supply chain for battery, soup to nuts, and that means,
yes, the anode, the cathode, the separator material, the
electrolyte, and the critical materials that go into it.
Whether it is lithium or whether it is graphite, the bottom
line is we should be rethinking the means to our energy
security in America. And that means responsibly extracting
those minerals. That means responsibly processing those
minerals. And we have no processing capability in the United
States. China has the vast majority of processing of these
minerals. Why would we extract them here, and then send them to
China to process?
We need to develop the entire supply chain of a bunch of
products, but this product in particular, since you raised it.
The batteries need to be assembled and put into cars, but also
the full, early part of the supply chain needs to be developed
here as well. The President is all over that. It is part of
what is in the American Jobs Plan.
Mr. Doyle. That is great to hear, and I agree with you 100
percent.
Let me get my last question in, too. As you know, nuclear
power accounts for over half of our carbon-free power
generation, but the existing nuclear fleet is in trouble. What
is the administration's view on the need to keep these plants
operating, and what types of policies do you support to ensure
that we don't lose more plants?
Ms. Granholm. Yes. First of all, the administration is
supportive, certainly, of keeping the existing fleet open. As
you are well aware, nuclear provides over 50 percent of the
clean energy now in the Nation's portfolio. And just for
everybody listening, it is safe. We--our regimen of regulating
nuclear power is very robust in the United States.
So the bottom line is we need nuclear, and we need advanced
nuclear, as well. So the administration is supportive. The
question is, what is inside of the budget or the American Jobs
Plan to be able to do that. The Department, obviously, is
supporting efforts to get to--not the Department, but the
administration--of including nuclear, as getting to 100 percent
clean energy standard by 2035. That will have to create the
demand----
Mr. Doyle. Well, Madam Secretary, I see my time has
expired, but I am looking forward to hosting you in Pittsburgh
sooner than later. I will follow up with your office and see if
we can make that happen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And Madam Secretary, thanks for testifying before us today.
Madam Secretary, one of my top priorities is making sure that
our electric grid and energy infrastructure are secure from
cyber attacks. Last week's attack on the Colonial Pipeline is a
reminder that more needs to be done to shore up our
vulnerabilities in our energy infrastructure.
Given that disruption of the electric grid would be a
threat to our national security, economic vitality, and the
essential services in society, this should be a bipartisan
issue. I did join with my good friend and cochair of the Grid
Innovation Caucus, Mr. McNerney, to reintroduce two bills to
help better secure the grid: H.R. 2928, which is the Cyber
Sense Act; and H.R. 2931, Enhancing Grid Security Through
Public-Private Partnerships Act.
I also appreciate the full committee chairman and our
Republican leader's support of these two bills. And I hope we
can again move them through the committee and the House in a
timely manner.
Now, Madam Secretary, in the tradition of our former
chairman, Mr. Dingell, and his yes-or-no-answer questions, I
would like to submit a few to you.
Secretary, will the Biden administration support bipartisan
legislation that identifies, promotes, and tests cybersecure
products for use in our power system?
Ms. Granholm. I know that DOE will. I can't speak for the
administration on that, but I don't know why they wouldn't.
Mr. Latta. Well, I will take that as a yes. Thank you.
Ms. Granholm. Excuse me. I am just saying it is part of
what the President put forward in his Executive order for the
Federal Government. So I think it is important.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. Will the administrations support
bipartisan legislation that improves the sharing of best
practices, data collection, training, and technical assistance
between the Government and electric utilities?
Ms. Granholm. Makes perfect sense. Yes, I am sure they
would.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. Since the two bills I described
earlier, Mr. McNerney's bill and mine, accomplish these goals,
will you commit to supporting them and helping us get them to
the President's desk in a--and to his signature?
Ms. Granholm. You are so tricky. I haven't read the bills,
but the concepts I would agree----
Mr. Latta. We will get them to you. We will get them to
you.
Switching gears, another consequence of last week's attack
and shutdown on the Colonial Pipeline was a consumer fallout
when the cost of gasoline increased and large parts of the
southeast experienced shortages.
Madam Secretary, isn't it true that pipelines are the
safest and most efficient way to transport energy products?
Ms. Granholm. Sometimes they are. I mean, it depends on
what the energy product is.
In the case of Colonial, the pipeline was the only way to
be able to transport that exists currently with the existing
infrastructure. They were--there was a redundant pipeline
called the Plantation Pipeline. But in that case, really,
Colonial Pipeline was sort of--had the monopoly on moving the
oil and the gasoline. And unfortunately, in the southeast, the
port system was not--the deepwater water ports, like they are
in the Gulf and perhaps in the northeast, doesn't--don't exist
as readily in the southeast. So that is why the pipeline is
kind of a monopoly in that regard.
Mr. Latta. Well, let me go on. Because of the incredible
destruction that we have had because of these pipeline
shutdowns, shouldn't the decisions be made based on science,
facts, and safety, and not on politics?
Ms. Granholm. I am always in favor of supporting science.
You must be--are you a lawyer, too?
Mr. Latta. So--well, let me continue. I represent
northwest/west central Ohio. So I--my district runs
underneath--right along the Michigan southern border, a large
part of it. And I mention that because we already have seen the
politics supersede safety with the shutdown of the Keystone
pipeline. And as certain politicians have their way, we are
going to see politics win again in the case of Enbridge's Line
5, which has been certified by FEMSA as operating safely and
securely.
And I mention this because, again, this is going to affect
tens of thousands of jobs, not only in northwest Ohio, in our
refineries, but also in Michigan itself. And will you commit to
keeping Line 5 open to make sure that the citizens in Ohio and
Michigan--and help them and save these tens of thousands of
jobs that could be on the line if Line 5 goes down?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, as you probably are aware, DOE does not
have a direct role regarding that project. It is a matter that
is in active litigation.
Mr. Latta. But it is very, very important that DOE--
because, again, when you look at the amount of energy that that
pipeline brings into our region, it is going to be an
incredible effect on us. And so I really will be asking you to
get actively involved in this.
And Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield back.
Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. McNerney,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman.
Secretary Granholm, thank you again for appearing today.
You have a tremendous opportunity to make a real difference in
our Nation's future, and we are with you all the way.
During the pipeline shutdown, many Americans were waiting
in long lines for gasoline, referring to this event as a wake-
up call to cybersecurity vulnerabilities in our system. But
what bothers me is that, each time an incident like this
occurs, it is called a wake-up call. So I am wondering, how
many wake-up calls is it going to take for us to get this
right?
So my question is, what investments need to be made, now
and going forward, to ensure that our increasingly
interconnected energy system is reliable and resilient with
these growing variety of threats?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I think, first of all, we need to invest
in our transmission grid, for sure, because we have seen the
incidents of hacking, like SolarWinds, on it. And the American
Jobs Plan is a huge opportunity to do that, because, as we
invest in transmission capacity expansion, as we incentivize
the resiliency to be added to the grid, resilience also
includes cyber. And so we absolutely have to do this, and we
have to do it now and incentivize those to be able to--
incentivize people to be able to do it.
I would say we also need an investment in cyber on the oil
and gas pipelines as well, because that is a key part of our
infrastructure. The question is, where does that--who pays for
that investment?
Currently, there are, obviously, private-sector entities.
Are there incentives that could be considered by this
committee, by this Congress, to have the private companies up
their game with respect to installing software that protects
them?
Those are all great questions for this committee, right in
your wheelhouse. But I completely agree: How many wake-up calls
are necessary?
And by the way, as we know, the criminals who are out there
are continually improving, if you will, are continually upping
their game. And that means that, once software is installed,
that doesn't mean it is over. We have to continuously improve
our game as well, to protect our citizens. So it is going to
require investment.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. I should know better than
asking an open-ended question like that.
Last year my home State of California witnessed the largest
wildfires in the State's history. This year wildfire season
looks like it is going to be worse, starting earlier. How will
bolstering infrastructure investments in the grid help to
address these challenges?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, again, we have got--the American Jobs
Plan has a significant investment tax credit that would allow
for upgrades to the grid. So in California, in some places,
maybe some of that could be used, for example, to bury the
wires, harden the wires in that way, maybe.
There is an investment in the American Jobs Plan related to
microgrids as well, which are, of course, a critical tool for
modernizing the grid and provide resiliency and redundancy, as
well, in the face of wildfires, or hurricanes, or extreme cold,
and certainly to maximize the benefits of clean energy.
So the Department, our Department, is doing a lot of work
on this. But we also know that it is embedded in the American
Jobs Plan too, which, again, I hope has bipartisan support, for
investing in that critical infrastructure.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. In your testimony you state
that the DOE's goal of spurring innovation in clean energy
technologies will put the Nation on a path to quadruple clean
energy research in 4 years. What is needed to ensure that the
scientific breakthroughs and deployable technologies can be
fully utilized?
Ms. Granholm. Well, what we need to do is to take those
great ideas and research that are happening in these 17 labs
and deploy them. And so the main way we are going to make sure
that we benefit from what is happening in the labs is to invest
in the deployment of these technologies. We have discussed here
hydrogen, for example. There is great work being done in the
labs on hydrogen. It is a solution to be able to decarbonize
our power sector, but we need to make sure we get it deployed.
And that is what the demonstration projects in the American
Jobs Plan are all about.
Similarly, with carbon capture use and sequestration,
technology that has developed in the labs, we have got some
deployment, but we need to deploy it in a much bigger scale if
we are to reach the goals that we want to achieve.
So it combines--you know, you have to do the research, the
basic research as well as the applied research, and then you
have to apply that research to deployment and demonstration out
in the field. And I think that is--really, the American Jobs
Plan does both, because it does a huge amount of investment in
research and development. We know we are way behind in terms of
having let go our investment in research and development. It is
particularly behind other countries, in terms of upping our
game. The American Jobs Plan reverses that, and it invests, as
well, in deployment of these key technologies.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the distinguished gentleman from the great State of
West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Madam
Secretary.
Look, to reduce global CO2, the administration
has been calling for zero-carbon emissions from American power
plants by 2035. And in testimony to Congress, John Kerry stated
that CO2 levels greater than 350 parts per million
are dangerous. So my question, can you guarantee me that the
Biden plan will lower global emissions to less than 350 parts
per million?
Ms. Granholm. Well, what I can guarantee you is that us
getting back into the Paris Agreement----
Mr. McKinley. It really is just a yes or no, please, Madam
Secretary. Can you guarantee me that we will get 350?
Ms. Granholm. I am not in the business of guaranteeing.
Mr. McKinley. OK, thank you. So let me run through just a
series of observations, then.
The Institute for Energy Research and others have testified
that the residential utility rates are expected to increase,
skyrocket to 2,000 to 4,000 dollars if we rely totally on 100
percent renewables. And if we shut down all the coal and
natural gas power plants by 2035, entire communities will be
hollowed out. Millions of jobs are going to be lost in a
transition. Tax revenues for schools, hospitals, and first
responders are going to be slashed. Children and families are
going to suffer. Experts have testified before this very
committee that extreme weather events will still occur, unless
China and India decrease their emissions.
And speaking of John Kerry, just last week before Foreign
Affairs he warned us that trusting China to lower their
emissions would be ``stupid and malpractice.''
So let me get this straight. Utility bills are going to go
up. Our neighbors are going to lose their jobs. Our schools
will lose funding. We will still have extreme weather events.
The CO2 in the atmosphere will still be dangerously
high. And Kerry says we can't trust China, the worst polluter,
to lower its emissions. So it appears to me that this
administration is willing to make sacrificial lambs out of coal
miners, pipeliners, gas workers, just to fit his political and
liberal ideology.
So, Madam Secretary, if you think America would be
providing global leadership that you were starting to hint
toward, that is naive. The rest of the world is not following,
and you know that. In fact, China just announced a few weeks
ago that they are building 250 gigawatts more coal-fired power
plants. That is the equivalent of all the coal-fired power
plants we have in America. And they are also announcing that
they are building 20 new coal-fired power plants in Africa. So
what are you doing?
If this is the administration's definition of environmental
justice, you are ignoring reality.
But let me pivot then, Madam Secretary. According to the
Mackenzie Report, people will be moving around the cities--
moving into cities around the globe at a rate of a million
people per week, from now until 2050. These people are going to
need places to live and work. If the Paris Accord discourages
or prohibits the production of concrete, plastic, steel, and
aluminum because of their CO2 emissions and they
discourage us from harvesting trees because that is such an
obvious sink for environmental contributions, what do we have
left? Straw, mud, clay?
I mean, according to Professor Goldthorpe at MIT, in
responding to this study, he said the most logical material
available to meet this--these demands are products derived from
fossil fuels. These products were being pursued under the Trump
administration's coal-to-products program. But last month the
DOE--the National Coal Council meeting, Jennifer Wilcox of DOE
said you would not be pursuing coal products.
So, Madam Secretary, I am going to say, if Mackenzie and
MIT are correct, how will we meet this global need for
construction material, if we don't use fossil fuels? Can you
elaborate?
Ms. Granholm. I can. So that was a lot, and let me take
pieces of it.
Number one, we are interested in using coal ash and coal
waste to extract critical minerals. We think there is an
opportunity there. And in fact, the National Energy Technology
Laboratory is working on just that. The head of the National
Energy Technology Laboratory, as you probably know, is Brian
Anderson. Brian Anderson has been put in charge of Coal and
Power Plant Communities Work Group because this administration
is so focused on making sure that West Virginia, Appalachia
coal regions get the benefit of this movement of the globe
toward clean energy technologies.
There's a $23 trillion market for products that reduce
CO2 emissions. West Virginia can be at the front and
center of that. West Virginia can be a place where coal miners
are actually installing the carbon capture----
Mr. McKinley. Madam Secretary, if I could, I know our time
has run out----
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's----
Mr. McKinley. Don't just tell me----
Mr. Rush. The gentleman expired.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes the chairman of the environmental subcommittee, Mr.
Tonko, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Secretary Granholm. Congratulations on your
appointment and confirmation. And I wish you much success. I
look forward to working together on the budget and enactment of
the American Jobs Plan.
By the way, the AJP, as we all know, calls for historic
investments through several programs to modernize and
decarbonize our Nation's buildings. The Weatherization
Assistance Program is one of the only DOE programs focused on
assisting low-income Americans. How can the weatherization
program contribute to the Build Back Better agenda?
Ms. Granholm. So glad that you raised that, because the
Weatherization Assistance Program is a vital tool in addressing
the economic and the health and the social justice disparities
and energy burdens faced by low-income households.
It is also, as you know, a huge job creator. It supports
energy efficiency jobs by clearly providing the funding that
flows to States and agencies to hire energy efficiency workers
to perform weatherization on homes of low-income households.
And then, once that--once the technology and the equipment
is installed on people's homes, those improvements alone save a
family, on an average, 300 every year, just for the building
itself, and an additional 300 on appliance efficiency. So we
are very excited about building back better and making sure
that families, especially families--low-income families, get
the benefit of that better build back.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And providing significant funding, I
agree, increases the amount of temporary jobs. But we need to
turn those jobs into careers. How is DOE planning to help
develop the workforce to retrofit these homes?
And do you believe sustained, multiple-year investments in
weatherization can ensure we are retaining newly trained people
in the efficiency workforce out there?
Ms. Granholm. Oh, yes. Programs like the Weatherization
Assistance Program, along with efforts to retrofit homes and
improve building codes and minimum efficiency standards for
appliances, that is all going to have meaningful impacts on
wallets. But it is also going to provide long-term job
opportunities for people who are most in need.
And the Building Clean Energy Projects and Workforce
Initiative is a broader effort in our budget for fiscal year
2022 to ramp up deployment, but also block grants to States, as
well as increased efforts to train people to have, not just a
one-off job, but a career in efficiency.
So we are excited about the combination of the win-win-win,
creating jobs and careers, making sure we reduce people's
energy burdens, and making sure we clean up our CO2
emissions.
Mr. Tonko. Well, you know, Congress reauthorized the
Weatherization Assistance Program last December, and the update
included several provisions to modernize the program, creating
new competitive grant programs. And, hopefully, that funding is
intended to be more flexible, encourage innovative services
such as community, solar, and other neighborhood-wide
approaches.
Madam Secretary, if you don't know offhand, can you please
follow up with an update on the implementation status of the
new competitive weatherization grant program?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I will follow up with--our team will
follow up with your office----
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Ms. Granholm [continuing]. After the hearing.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And I know you, as a former Governor,
understand the role States can play in the energy transition.
When I was at NYSERDA in New York State, we relied on DOE's
State energy programs for flexible funding. SEP has supported
many successful State-level clean energy and efficiency
programs, including those in Republican-led States.
What do you see as the role for the State energy program in
the effort to support increased ambitions in State energy
agendas?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I think--I mean, clearly, because I am a
Governor, I really strongly believe in giving authority to the
States to design their programs in a way that best suits their
needs. No--we are not one size fits all, in many ways. So I am
a big believer in the ability to offer flexible grants to
States. Sometimes flexible grants with goals attached, that
they would be able to access those grants if they achieved
certain milestones, is important.
I know the States were very grateful for the energy
efficiency grants that came out of the Recovery Act, and I hope
we can be able to continue to do that kind of effort as well as
even more on the block grant side through the American Jobs
Plan.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Well, while States are critical,
innovative work is also happening at the local level. The City
of Cohoes, New York, in my district, is developing a floating
solar array on its municipal reservoir. According to a 2018
NREL report, there are some 492 reservoirs in New York State
deemed suitable for floating solar, and Cohoes is on the
cutting edge of this big deployment opportunity. And I hope
this project is able to access the funding necessary to become
a model for the rest of the country. And I would hope that
DOE--you know, I have kind of exhausted my time here, but I
would love to hear back from the agency about how you can----
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Tonko [continuing]. Innovative concepts----
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes----
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rush [continuing]. The gentleman from the great State
of Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Madam Secretary, thanks for being with us. I really
appreciate it.
You recently commented that the administration now believes
that Federal support for the existing nuclear fleet is key to
our climate goals. And I agree that we need to support these
plants and the thousands of good-paying jobs. I have four
nuclear generating stations in the 16th district of Illinois.
And unfortunately, due to nonmarket government forces giving
preferential treatment to certain renewables, two of these
plants, Byron and Dresden, are now slated for closure.
If they shutter, the lost revenue would be devastating to
my communities and make it extremely difficult to pay for high-
quality schools, hospitals, emergency personnel, and other
critical services. All this, not to mention the prospects of
blackouts, unreliable electricity costs, increased carbon
emissions, and job losses.
Preserving the existing nuclear fleet will take a concerted
national approach. But we are doing what--I am doing what I can
on my part. In December I introduced the bipartisan Preserving
Existing Nuclear Energy Generation Act, which would help save
nuclear plants that are on the chopping block, including Byron
and Dresden, by providing financial credits through an
emissions avoidance program. It would also soften the blow to
impacted communities by providing resources to help shore up
municipal budget shortfalls, preserve critical services, and
promote economic development.
And last month I reintroduced the Nuclear Licensing and
Efficiency Act, which builds upon recent congressional efforts
to modernize nuclear fees and licensing procedures.
Recent studies make it clear that the existing fleet is
essential to achieving the administration's climate goals in
the most efficient and cost-effective manner. So I would like
to ask you and follow up on what Mr. Doyle began to touch on.
In your own words, can you share the administration's view on
the need to keep these plants operating?
What is the administration actively doing to make sure we
don't lose any of these additional plants?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I mean, the administration does believe
that we should do what we can to keep these plants open,
because, as I was noting, they take us so far along in our goal
to get 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 and they should be
included within the clean energy standard that is being
proposed by the American Jobs Plan.
You know, the American Jobs Plan is also supporting
advanced nuclear. I mean, it might--you know, we are in
negotiations on it, and there may be an opportunity to include
some of what you have proposed in that. I am not speaking for
the administration on that, but I do know that there is a
commitment and a desire to see these plants remain open.
I personally, actually, called Governor Pritzker about this
very issue, because we are concerned about the closure of the
plants that are slated in Illinois. And I know he is working on
it as well. And we certainly support the efforts at the State
level.
New Jersey did the same thing to be able to assist to keep
these plants open.
So whether it is through State or Federal resources--and I
appreciate your leadership in trying to do everything you can
to help be creative about how we might be able to ensure they
stay active.
Mr. Kinzinger. Great, and I look forward to working with
you on that, if I can be helpful.
And recent bipartisan and bicameral proposals, including
one of my own, have been introduced to provide financial
credits to struggling stations. There is also a little increase
in chatter about a nuclear production tax credit. Given that
there has been multiple news reports about which policies the
White House and DOE might support, I would like to ask if you
have any clarification.
What is the administration's top policy preference, or, if
you don't have one yet, then can you talk about specific policy
solutions that maybe the administration might prefer?
Ms. Granholm. Are you talking about solutions with respect
to nuclear?
Mr. Kinzinger. Yes.
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I mean, I think the number-one solution
that the administration has--believes is very important for
nuclear's future is to ensure that the demand for nuclear stays
high. And that would be the efforts related to having a clean
energy standard as part of the American Jobs Plan. So I think
that is critical, and it certainly is a priority.
The administration, with respect to nuclear, is also
interested in supporting the next-generation nuclear research,
advanced modular, and small reactors, and we continue to do
work on research in that. But, clearly, in order to get to
these goals, we have to keep these plants open.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. And last Congress I introduced
the European Energy Security and Diversification Act--I am also
on the Foreign Affairs Committee--which was enacted through the
omnibus. It is broadly designed to help both the U.S. and
Europe attain energy security and energy diversity. While the
State Department is the lead agency, in terms of
implementation, DOE is required to play a consultative role in
supporting the U.S. efforts to work with Europeans to increase
their security.
Do you have a status update on your portion of that, or, if
not, would you be able to get that to us?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I mean, we strongly support the European
Energy Security and Diversification Act and the principles of
greater market integration and critical energy infrastructure
protection and development of the sort of multifaceted energy
mix for our European partners. Particularly, countering Russian
malign influence and its weaponization of energy resources is
essential in helping to create a safer and more stable European
energy landscape.
And to that end, the Department of Energy is working
closely with our European partners to increase the amount of
renewable energy resources and enhance the energy efficiency
throughout Europe, both of which, of course, will help to
reduce Europe's dependency on Russian supplies, and to help us
to achieve the shared goal of getting to net-zero carbon
emissions by 2050.
Mr. Kinzinger. All right, thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Veasey from Texas.
I don't see him. So the Chair will move on and recognize
Ms. Schrier, the gentlelady from Washington State, Ms. Schrier,
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Secretary Granholm, welcome. Washington generated more
hydropower than any other State and accounted for 24 percent of
the Nation's annual utility scale hydroelectricity generation
in 2019. And the hydropower delivers approximately 40 percent
of total U.S. renewable energy electricity generation. And
hydropower-pumped storage provides 93 percent of total energy
storage, like batteries, in this country.
The U.S. hydropower industry has tremendous beneficial
impacts on our Nation's grid, the economy, and greenhouse gas
emissions and is key to addressing the climate crisis.
Now, hydro does not come without an environmental toll,
however. And so one way to increase hydropower production
without building new dams and further decimating salmon
populations is to add electricity generation to dams that are
already in place and to expand the use of pumped hydro. And I
was wondering if you could talk about Department of Energy
investments in adding these technologies to already existing
dams.
Ms. Granholm. I love this question. I thank you so much for
it. Hydropower is not just a big portion of our existing zero-
carbon energy supply, but a great source of zero-carbon power
that can, in many cases, be used 24/7 to balance the variable
clean energy sources like solar and wind.
So our Department, as you know, has a very active
hydropower program, and we see a lot of opportunity to do
things like upgrade technology at dams or add power generation
to existing dams. And in fact, there is a robust and a diverse
coalition of stakeholders that has got a sound plan for how to
approach that opportunity. You will see support for the Water
Power Technologies Office in our budget. And I would love to
work with you on how to pursue those opportunities further.
Ms. Schrier. Oh, that is great. I would love that, thank
you, and so would all the hydropower in my district.
I want to pivot to Hanford, which is a less happy topic.
Eastern Washington is home to one of the Nation's biggest and
most challenging environmental waste cleanups at the Hanford
Nuclear Reservation. And it rests right along the Columbia
River, which runs through my district. And this site was
critical to our national security during World War II and the
Cold War. And the Hanford site has been going--undergoing
environmental cleanup and remediation for over 30 years.
Just last month the Department of Energy disclosed yet
another leaking underground tank at Hanford, adding to the more
than a million gallons of hazardous waste Washington State's
Department of Ecology estimates is already in the soil across
the Hanford site. And under current timelines, the cleanup and
remediation is not expected to be completed until the 2070s.
So, Secretary Granholm, delays in funding a holistic
cleanup put the Columbia River and the entire region at risk.
And these risks are compounded by climate change and drought.
And the President's fiscal year 2022 budget request is for DOE
to sustain the investment in the cleanup of these sites like
Hanford. But sustainment could mean untenable delays. And I
just--can you talk about how the Department of Energy can
comply with the milestones of the triparty agreement, if
funding is only sustained? Because we really need to have
accelerated remediation of the Hanford site.
Ms. Granholm. First, thank you for raising this. I have not
yet been to Hanford. I haven't been out of the DC area yet, but
I look forward to going and, hopefully, maybe you and I can
meet there as well.
You know, this administration is clearly--I mean, you are
in this position, fighting for Hanford, and I am new to this
position, and both of us will probably not be around when this
site is cleaned up, given the depth and the breadth of what
needs to happen, unfortunately. We are totally committed to
cleaning up Hanford and the other legacy nuclear sites, as
well, and to make sure that we do seek the resources that are
necessary to continue to make tangible and lasting progress. We
want to see continuous movement.
So, I mean, I am excited about what we can achieve over the
next 4 years at the Hanford site, which includes, as you are
probably aware--I am sure you are aware--a transformational
shift in how we tackle our biggest challenge, which is the
millions of gallons of waste that are stored in the underground
tanks that you referenced.
We expect to begin tank waste treatment at Hanford by 2023,
after years of effort. As you know, we built a whole new
facility to be able to do that, and we are--that is going to
represent a whole new era of cleanup at the site. And, you
know, this environmental management program is continuously
looking for new and innovative approaches for safely and
effectively performing the cleanup mission.
I really do, I look forward to working with you and
Congress as we carry out this important cleanup, which is so
critical for the people of Washington, and particularly those
who are in the vicinity.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you. I welcome your visit. We will go to
the National Labs, as well. And thank you for your service.
Ms. Granholm. Great----
Ms. Schrier. I yield back, thanks.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from the State of Virginia, the great
State of Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate that.
Madam Secretary, one priority that I have long held is the
importance of research parity between the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Office of Fossil
Energy.
Now, we know, as a certainty, that China and India and many
of the sub-Saharan African nations will continue to burn fossil
fuels. They have them readily available, and it is a fuel
source they can use. And when you have hundreds of millions of
citizens who are not served with electricity, who don't have
24-hour electricity in their homes, they are going to use
whatever means they can.
And just yesterday the House voted on a State Department
reauthorization that included language requiring the Department
to ensure there are sufficient personnel dedicated to
international energy matters, including--and I quote from page
27--``support and coordinate international efforts to alleviate
energy poverty.''
So, recognizing that the rest of the world is going to
continue to burn fossil fuels, and coal in particular, wouldn't
you agree that investing in fossil research and development
here in the U.S. plays an important role in not only utilizing
our vast supply of natural resources but also our talent for
technological innovation that can be exported to other
countries and thereby reduce the worldwide carbon footprint?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I mean, I agree that we need to continue
to invest in the technologies that will help to reduce carbon
pollution. And that is what our Fossil Energy Office is doing.
You will see in the budget an increase in that Fossil Energy
Office because they are doing the amazing work of the next
generation of both CCUS and hydrogen related to fossil,
especially natural gas. So we are very interested in this,
because you are completely correct that other countries are
looking for ways to meet their commitments to decarbonize with
technology that we can be assisting them on. And that is true
with methane as well.
So on all of those fronts, this is why the Department of
Energy is the solutions Department, because our labs are
working on these things and we appreciate the support for the
research into these technologies.
Mr. Griffith. And I would agree. I would like to see parity
between the two, because I think we can do even more with
carbon if we put our minds to it. But I appreciate your
support. And there have been--and there has been support in the
Department of Energy in both Democrat and Republican
administrations for doing this. So I appreciate your continued
support for that.
Now, in order to convert to renewable energy, experts agree
we will need a new infrastructure of high-voltage power lines
to move the electricity from areas where it is produced to
areas where it is needed. So if it is--the sun is shining in
one area, but not shining in another for a week or so, that
area may need to have power wheeled into it.
But the administration goals of 50 percent renewable by
2030 and 100 percent by 2050, coupled with the fact that it
will take in excess of 30 years to build out the high-voltage
power lines, to build that infrastructure, once you get through
all the regulations, and then you get through the environmental
lawsuits, the eminent domain lawsuits, et cetera, isn't it a
little unrealistic to say that we are actually going to meet
those goals, when we can't even have the infrastructure ready
to make that goal a possibility?
Ms. Granholm. OK, just to clarify a little bit, it is 100
percent renewable by 2035, and net-zero carbon by 2050. And
yes, we do need a significant build-out on transmission, and
that is why we are focused on making those investments through
the American Jobs Plan.
I wouldn't assume that the existing long lead time is going
to stay, because it can't. We have to accelerate. And one of
the ways that we can accelerate is--in fact, the Department of
Energy and the Department of Transportation have been having
conversations about how you can colocate along----
Mr. Griffith. And I am a supporter--let me say that I am a
supporter of colocation, in many cases. But what are we going
to reduce? Are we going to reduce the environmental
protections, or are we going to reduce the protections for
citizens whose land will have to be taken under eminent domain?
Ms. Granholm. But that is what I am saying. If you colocate
under Federal rights-of-way you won't have to use the eminent
domain.
And there are--right now, there are over 20 lines that have
already been permitted that are high-speed, DC lines in the
country that just need a little kick to get over.
Unfortunately, the way to develop these lines is not on spec.
In other words, the entity who is developing----
Mr. Griffith. All right, I only have----
Ms. Granholm [continuing]. Has to have an off-take in order
to be able to pay for it.
Mr. Griffith. I only have 10 seconds left. Let me just say
this.
Ms. Granholm. OK.
Mr. Griffith. If you are replacing jobs in Central
Appalachia, as McKinley was talking to you about, replacing the
$75,000-a-year jobs, don't come in and offer us a few $25,000-
to-$35,000-a-year jobs. We need a comprehensive plan to help
Central Appalachia.
I yield back.
Ms. Granholm. I agree, I agree.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady of the Oversight Subcommittee, Ms.
DeGette, for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and as well
as what you were--and welcome, Madam Secretary, great to see
you.
And what you were just saying to Mr. Griffith is correct.
We need the transmission. We also need to have the technology.
And that is something that we are working on to get to these
very ambitious goals, which we have to get to.
What I want to focus my questions on is that decades-long
problems that we have with the DOE's Office of Environmental
Management. As of fiscal year 2020, DOE's environmental
liabilities were $512 billion, and they are continuing to grow
at a rate that is outpacing the program's spending, year after
year.
And unfortunately, the Environmental Management Office's
project and contract management have been on the high-risk list
at the GAO since 1990, so throughout all of these decades and
both parties' administrations. Do you--are you aware of the
Environmental Management Office's challenges, as the GAO has
identified?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I am. Our Department of Environmental
Management is well aware of the GAO list, the high-risk list,
and we----
Ms. DeGette. OK.
Ms. Granholm. Oh, go ahead.
Ms. DeGette. So are you--do you know, are--the GAO
recommended that the Office develop a comprehensive project
management plan, sufficient staffing skills, and a method for
monitoring progress. Are you aware of that?
Ms. Granholm. Yes.
Ms. DeGette. OK. And are you working on--I mean, this is an
intractable problem that we have had for many decades, so I
can't imagine you have actually adopted and implemented a plan
in the time that you have been there. But is the Department
working on a timeframe to do that?
Ms. Granholm. Well, we are working on continuous
improvement. For example, you know, the continuous improvement
in contract and project management in reducing DOE's
environmental liabilities is an ongoing effort. I am really
proud that the Environmental Management program has really
demonstrated an ability to safely deliver progress on time and
on budget, despite the fact that these are massive and huge----
Ms. DeGette. Right.
Ms. Granholm [continuing]. And ongoing liabilities. Just
one quick----
Ms. DeGette. I--yes, go ahead. Go ahead.
Ms. Granholm. I just want to say just one quick example is
that last year we completed the removal of an entire uranium
enrichment complex at the Oak Ridge site, which was on the
list. The GAO cited that success as an example of the strong
commitment of Environmental Management leadership to improve
contract and project management. So we----
Ms. DeGette. Right, right----
Ms. Granholm. We are on it.
Ms. DeGette. But here is what I want to say, though. Even
so, we have a half a trillion dollars of environmental
liabilities.
Ms. Granholm. Right.
Ms. DeGette. So I would just say, if--we can't fix this
overnight, but it would be helpful, rather than just saying we
are working on it, to try to develop a reasonable timeline.
That would also help the appropriators figure out, you know,
what resources are needed, and so on.
And one other question I have very quickly--I am trying to
move through this--is I want to talk to you about DOE's labs
and the nuclear security enterprise, because concerns have been
raised for years about the nuclear security enterprise. In
fact, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of this
committee has had sort of an ongoing series of investigations
about that.
And so I don't know if you know about the Augustine-Mies
panel that made recommendations about reintegrating NNSA into
the DOE. Are you aware of that?
Ms. Granholm. I am not.
Ms. DeGette. OK. If you can--what they said is that it
should be reintegrated, that the authorities that are confused
right now should be clarified, and that ultimate accountability
and responsibility for the nuclear mission should be under the
Secretary of Energy.
And I am going to guarantee you, in the grand John Dingell
tradition, every member of this committee believes that to be
true, because these labs have always been under the DOE. And I
am sure you believe that, too, since you are the Secretary of
Energy. So I would just say I would love working with you and
your staff to clarify this, to get it implemented in this
administration.
Ms. Granholm. Can I just quickly respond that----
Ms. DeGette. Yes.
Ms. Granholm [continuing]. Obviously, America's national
security is best served when we separate the development and
the maintenance and verification of the nuclear weapons
stockpile from the military use. And so the civilians and the
scientists at NNSA's labs are best able to execute the science
behind the warheads, while leaving the military in charge of
the control and delivery and integration of the--into the
National Defense Strategy. It has worked for the past 75 years.
I agree it should continue.
Ms. DeGette. Your words just went straight to John
Dingell's ears in heaven. So thank you very much, Madam
Secretary. And I think we need to work to implement these
regulations together.
And I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Secretary Granholm, nice to meet you, and thank you for
joining us today.
You know, I am very concerned that radical
environmentalists are increasingly calling the shots for the
Democratic Party, from the White House all the way down to the
local level. We are seeing an all-out push to regulate and
legislate America's cheap and abundant coal, oil, and natural
gas resources out of existence. From the cancellation of the
Keystone XL pipeline to some liberal communities declaring
their intention to actually turn off the gas lines in their
neighborhoods, it is clear that Democrats in office nationwide
are following the Biden administration's lead.
Here is maybe how you can help, Madam Secretary. As a
former Governor, maybe you could have a talk with the current
occupant of the Michigan Governor's mansion and convince her to
stop trying to shut down the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline, which if
successful would kill thousands of jobs in my home State of
Ohio. Or maybe you could remind her that what you said just
last week at the White House is actually true, that, in terms
of moving fuel, you said--and I quote--``pipe is the best way
to go.''
And I agree, because pipeline safely moved vast quantities
of oil and gas products safely across the country, including
from eastern and southeastern Ohio, a region blessed with an
abundance of oil and natural gas reserves, providing thousands
of good-paying jobs to the people that I represent.
So, Madam Secretary, research shows that the
administration's cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline will
actually increase our Nation's carbon footprint, an increase
equivalent to the emissions of half a million more cars.
Doesn't this make it obvious that the administration canceled
the pipeline because of politics, not for climate benefit?
Ms. Granholm. No, the Department of--well, let me just say
this with respect to the Keystone, and the Department of
Energy, which is my role here, that we are a cooperating
agency----
Mr. Johnson. I am asking you a specific question, Madam
Secretary. Did the administration cancel the pipeline because
of politics? Because it was clearly not for climate benefits,
because it is going to increase climate--it is going to
increase carbon emissions.
Ms. Granholm. No, it canceled them, and the President made
this commitment, because he believed that there are other ways
to go, especially in promoting clean energy, and cheap energy--
--
Mr. Johnson. But you said that pipe is the cleanest way,
the safest way to move fuel.
Here is another question, then. You will certainly be
advising the President on many of these matters. Do you think
the Biden administration will apply this same approach to other
pipelines, moving forward?
Ms. Granholm. I can't predict what the administration is
going to do. But can I just clarify that what I said regarding
the Colonial Pipeline was because Colonial is the only way to
be able to get gasoline from one place to another along that
seaboard, because there aren't deepwater ports to be able to
allow tankers in.
Mr. Johnson. Well, we can haul it on tankers over the
roadway. But I like your statement. I am on your side. I agree
with you that pipe is the best way to move fuel. So I hope you
will stand on that, and that that is the way you will advise
the Biden administration.
Madam Secretary, are you aware that the CLEAN Future Act
that my Democratic colleagues are touting would essentially ban
hydraulic fracturing and new pipelines, because it essentially
will shut down the market for petrochemical products?
Do you support that banning of hydraulic fracturing and new
pipelines?
Ms. Granholm. I am here representing the administration,
and the administration has not supported a ban on fracking,
other than on public lands, which----
Mr. Johnson. No, I didn't ask you if you are supporting the
administration. I asked you do you support the CLEAN Future Act
that would essentially shut down hydraulic fracturing.
Ms. Granholm. I support the goals of the CLEAN Future Act,
and I don't know the specific provision that you are talking
about.
Mr. Johnson. All right. Well, I would encourage you to take
a look at that, because it is diametrically opposed to what you
say is the best way to move fuel.
Madam Secretary, months into this administration we are
starting to see their energy agenda taking shape. It involves
bringing millions of electric vehicles onto an inadequate
energy grid, relying on, as your colleague, John Kerry, put it,
green technology and, most alarmingly, leaving in the ground
America's natural resources of oil and gas, all to rich,
strict--all to restrict carbon-free goals.
When we add all this up, do you believe it is even
possible, without compromising national security and grid
reliability and America's standard of living, to accomplish
these goals that John Kerry is talking about?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I do.
Mr. Johnson. OK, that is interesting. You seem to have a
different view on----
Mr. Rush. The gentleman----
Mr. Johnson. But that is OK.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time----
Mr. Johnson. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Matsui, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Madam Secretary, it is good to see you again.
I want to talk a little bit about some natural solutions.
The National Academy of Sciences reported that terrestrial
ecosystems currently absorb the equivalent of about 20 percent
of greenhouse gas emissions. Our natural climate solutions
provide up to 37 percent of carbon emission reductions by 2030,
with the appropriate management.
Now, I have a reason for saying this. It is because I have
a TREES Act, which is my bill to reduce energy bills through
tree planting, which passed in the House's infrastructure bill
last Congress. It can be used to help energy-burdened
communities while also increasing tree canopy and green spaces
and combating heat.
Madam Secretary, how do you see natural infrastructure
solutions such as a TREE Act play a part in decarbonization?
And will the fiscal year 2022 DOE budget request funding
for such efforts?
Ms. Granholm. Well, certainly, we believe very strongly
that natural solutions are a key part of making sure we get to
our overall goals. We are--I don't know if your--where the
status of your bill is, but we want to be a partner----
Ms. Matsui. Great.
Ms. Granholm [continuing]. In making sure that we are able
to do that.
Ms. Matsui. Wonderful, that is wonderful. And I want to
follow up on something that Representative Schrier brought up
about nuclear power plants, and the decommissioned ones. Due to
the impasse with the Yucca Mountain repository, spent nuclear
fuel at decommissioned nuclear plants continues to burden
communities nationwide, including my home district of
Sacramento, which has a decommissioned plant, the Rancho Seco,
for the last 20 years.
Earlier this year I reintroduced the Store Nuclear Fuel
Act, which would establish the legislative framework to develop
a consolidated interim storage, or CIS, program at DOE. And
just last year I helped secure $20 million to start some of
these efforts during the fiscal year 2021.
Given previous administrative and congressional support for
a CIS program, could you tell me more about the Department's
plans for fiscal year 2021 funds and for a CIS program during
fiscal year 2022?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I mean, we are very interested in
finding a solution to Yucca Mountain, because, obviously, after
years of inaction it is just not a workable solution. So we are
actively developing a strategic approach to moving forward with
a consent-based cited Federal interim facility, like the
blueprint calls for.
And so possible steps that the Department might take
include requests for information, engaging with stakeholders
and Tribal Governments, establishing a funding mechanism for
interested communities and organizations and Tribal Governments
to perhaps explore the concept of this consent-based siting of
a Federal interim storage facility. And the Department hopes to
announce our next steps with this process in the coming months,
so I look forward to working with you and Congress on this very
important issue.
Ms. Matsui. Well, thank you. I do look forward to working
with you on that. You know, we are approaching wildfire season.
Well, we are in the middle of it, already. It starts early in
California. But last year's devastating wildfire season and
this year's deadly Texas--are testaments to the catastrophic
impacts of intensified natural disasters due to the climate
crisis.
Due to this, I introduced a POWER ON Act with colleagues
from California and Texas, including Representative Michael
Burgess, who is also on this subcommittee. This bill would
create a new program at DOE to help States fund grid resiliency
upgrades for extreme weather events. What kind of investments
does DOE and the AJP plan to make on extreme weather grid
resiliency initiatives?
And how can the POWER ON Act complement these efforts?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, there is a great complement there, and I
think a lot of the ideas from the POWER ON Act can be easily
incorporated into the American Jobs Plan on the transmission
side.
DOE, obviously, is committed to working cooperatively, as
we must, with States and communities so the benefits of
transmission development, including the reliability and the
climate benefits and the economic benefits, are shared broadly.
And States, obviously, have the primary role in permitting and
in siting transmission lines. And DOE can help to identify
national transmission needs and coordinate States and Federal
agencies to ensure that transmission development is getting the
attention that it needs.
And I recognize that siting and permitting transmission can
be really difficult. The POWER ON Act is one proposed way to
address areas where the existing approaches have not been
successful. So we are committed to doing this, the hard work
that is necessary to build our transmission grid, and to work
with stakeholders using both existing authorities and funding,
as--and asking for additional funding and working with you on
additional funding----
Ms. Matsui. OK----
Ms. Granholm [continuing]. If needed.
The grid deployment authority that the President has
proposed in the American Jobs Plan could serve as a central
place to coordinate all of those efforts.
Ms. Matsui. Wonderful. Thank you so much. I look forward to
working with you on that also.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[Pause.]
Voice. You are on mute.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Bucshon for 5
minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Granholm, thank you for taking the time to
testify. It is very much appreciated.
I have to admit, though, that after finally becoming energy
independent and thus strengthening our geopolitical position in
the world, having environmental ideologues at DOE is pretty
concerning. And I think that is going to be a big problem. It
is going to set us back decades in our economy and just damage
our geopolitical position in the world. So it is unfortunate.
As I have stated before, I am a strong supporter of an all-
of-the-above energy approach because it ensures reliability and
affordability to the consumer, especially for the people that I
represent in Indiana. To that end, I am also strongly
supportive of advancing technology and innovation as a means to
continue to lower emissions, both here in the United States as
well as globally. And it has been pointed out that we need to
develop technology that India and China and other places can
utilize. That is where our leadership should be.
Madam Secretary, I do represent a district in Indiana which
is responsible for providing the bulk of the energy for the
State and surrounding area, and most of that is from coal. As
more plants are set to retire because of regulations and,
honestly, low gas prices, there is going to be an increase in
hardworking folks who are being laid off and struggling to find
comparable benefits. We have had a substantial problem with job
losses--not as bad as Appalachia, but substantial. And I really
think it is delusional to think that we can replace these with
green energy jobs. We just can't. It is going to hollow out
huge portions of our country.
You mentioned this, I think, in your testimony, but do you
believe that carbon capture and sequestration is part of the
solution to get us to a zero-carbon emissions position?
Ms. Granholm. I do.
Mr. Bucshon. And do you think that fossil fuel resources,
then, are necessary to ensure energy reliability as we
incorporate more renewable sources of energy into the mix?
Ms. Granholm. We know that the fossil fuel resources that
we have are not going away, other than what the market is
doing, particularly with respect to coal.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that
we can't get to the goal of net-zero carbon emissions without
the technology to reduce CO2 emissions, like carbon
capture use and sequestration.
So I agree with you. I don't know that we are that far
apart on this. I know you started out by----
Mr. Bucshon. Well, I think----
Ms. Granholm [continuing]. Saying otherwise, but I think--
--
Mr. Bucshon. I think you need to----
Ms. Granholm. I think we are not----
Mr. Bucshon. I am sorry.
Ms. Granholm [continuing]. In a different place. I am just
saying that I--I am trying to offer an olive branch, and say
that----
Mr. Bucshon. I understand.
Ms. Granholm [continuing]. I think we are in agreement on
this technology.
Mr. Bucshon. I think you should send that message to some
of the people up on the Hill who may or may not agree with you
on that, and also the environmental activist groups around the
country that think that we are going to eliminate fossil fuel
overnight and still have a reliable, affordable energy grid.
Switching gears a little bit, electric vehicles have
advanced as much as they have, and will continue to advance,
because of technology and innovation, and I support that.
However, currently only 2 percent of cars on the road are EVs.
So using that same technology and innovation, what other fuel
alternative options--and you mentioned a little bit of this--
would also--should be utilized to lower carbon emissions in our
transportation sector?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I mean, here is one big one, is I think
that biofuels are really going to be important for the aviation
sector and for those areas that do refining now in the biofuels
arena. There is a huge opportunity, because I know that
airlines are looking for alternatives in that regard.
I also know that because, as the President was at the Ford
plant yesterday, and Ford has made commitments regarding
electric vehicles, as has GM, and a number of others, that we
are going to--even though the number right now is small, we are
going to see--and all the projections show--an increase in
electrification of the transportation system.
So I think that there's several vectors which can create
jobs in America in moving to this clean energy future on the
transportation side.
Mr. Bucshon. OK, fair enough. I mean, I think people--I
know you realize that electricity, plugging in a car, the
electricity still has to come from somewhere. And so, yes, that
will decrease emissions in the transportation sector. But we
still have to address where the electricity comes from and how
much we need.
So do you have any data on the increased electricity
demands that will occur when EVs are a larger percentage of the
cars on the road?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, there will be----
Mr. Bucshon. And where does that--and where is that extra
energy going to come from?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, there definitely will be increased
demand, and that means that we have to add additional energy
sources to the grid. And that is why a lot of the new energy
that is coming on, like solar and wind, which are cheaper than
others, is an opportunity for us to continue to provide
affordable electricity.
And then the research that is being done on energy storage,
coupled with that, is so utterly important. The Department of
Energy, as I mentioned, is considered--or we consider us the
solutions place. And the cost of batteries, for example, have
dropped significantly in vehicles, and we are going to do a
whole effort that pushes to reduce the cost of energy storage
for utilities as well.
So technology solutions that are out there that we can
deploy will create additional energy that we can put onto what
we hope is an expanded energy grid and have us achieve these
goals of being able to produce and use clean energy in the
United States.
Mr. Bucshon. OK, well, it will also have to replace fossil
fuel energy generation, in addition. So it is a big challenge.
Thanks for your testimony, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome,
Madam Secretary. I love the focus in this hearing on jobs and
clean energy, especially related to transmission. It has been
good to hear so much bipartisan agreement that we have got to
make our electric grid more resilient, but we have got to
connect up the clean energy sources.
But I want to focus on buildings and energy efficiency in
particular, because you had a very forward-thinking
announcement this week. And I wanted to talk about that there,
because there are significant savings opportunities for
American families and business owners, when it comes to making
our buildings more efficient, and connecting up with clean
energy. It will really help us move entire markets to reduce
carbon pollution and advance renewable energy.
So your announcement this week, you announced a national
initiative to make buildings cleaner and more resilient. One of
the initiatives announced was development of a national roadmap
for grid-interactive, efficient buildings. Can you tell us
about that?
How will smart building technologies help us both save
money on our energy bills and then increase reliability of the
electric grid?
Ms. Granholm. We are so bullish on this, on using smart
buildings, because, first of all, we can build the products
that get us to smart buildings in the United States. We can do
the whole supply chain and then benefit from the technology.
So, you know, we announced an initiative to create a road
map for smart buildings, and there are some demonstration
projects across the country. But we want to give more
visibility to what a smart building is and to make sure that
people understand that it will help to save them costs, energy
costs, down the road and, of course, help with greenhouse gas
pollution.
You are aware, I know, that the American Jobs Plan has this
robust commitment to the Federal Government leading by example,
not just deploying these technologies that we have got today
but by--really, we want to make sure that we pull, use the
demand pull of the very significant market that the Federal
Government uses, 100 percent zero-carbon power 24/7, 100
percent zero-carbon buildings and fleets. And in doing so, you
know, piloting and demonstrating the approaches that it will
take to truly decarbonize our economy.
So what we were announcing today at our buildings--or
today--this week at our buildings summit was really all about
that, demonstrating what technologies work, making sure people
understand the value, for example, of heat pumps, which
electrify--are--a lot of the gas use in our homes, having grid-
connected smart buildings, so that they are efficient, and
giving people a sort of visibility into what that means,
linking buildings with, like, grid reliability and on-site
storage systems to make them more resilient, including the
electric vehicles that park there, all as tools to shift
perhaps the timing of energy consumption.
So we are superexcited about this vision, and excited about
making it happen, and excited to work with you all on it.
Ms. Castor. Yes, and thank you so much at the outset for
also focusing on making sure that we provide these resources
and technologies to the communities that have been left behind
and unheard, the people on the front lines. I mean, that will
really--this whole Justice40 focus will go such a long way to
lifting up Americans who deserve a little extra hand up, I
think.
You know, energy codes also play a very important role in
creating high-quality jobs in building construction and
throughout the supply chain. And DOE engages in a number of
activities relating to building energy code development. And I
appreciate DOE's expressed concerns recently over the changes
by the International Code Council for the International Energy
Conservation Code. Those changes, so Members also know, will
really constrain public participation and decelerate our needed
progress in codes that will help reduce carbon pollution and
support renewable energy.
So how is DOE going to engage here and make sure that we
have every tool in our toolbox to do what we need to do when it
comes to putting money in consumers' pockets related to cleaner
buildings and more efficient buildings?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, thanks for your leadership on this and
for the ICC letter.
We at DOE continue to believe that building energy codes
are key to affordable and quality and safe housing that limit
CO2.
We also expressed our concerns about the changes to the
process and the ability for stakeholders to participate. And,
while we are disappointed that the ICC chose not to address
those concerns, we are going to continue to work with States
and homebuilders groups and others to make sure that that
vision is realized.
And, you know, building codes, obviously, are implemented
at the State level. And I am certainly going to commit to doing
all I can to do what DOE has always done, which is to support
the State and local governments to adopt the building energy
code for their community and to go further, even, if they so
choose.
Ms. Castor. Thanks so much. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 20--
for 5 minutes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Twenty minutes. You
and I are good friends, but probably not that good.
Mr. Rush. Oh, no, not that good a friend.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here.
And I would be remiss not to greet you with ``Go Green, Go
Blue.''
Ms. Granholm. All right.
Mr. Walberg. Yes, I have to do that.
As my colleagues have stated, the Department of Energy is
the sector-specific agency for cybersecurity for the energy
sector. This requires the Department of Energy to coordinate
with Homeland Security and other relevant Federal agencies, as
they ought to. I just came back from a press conference
supporting Israel, but I mentioned the fact that they have a
cyber czar that touches every area of Israeli life, their
functions, their government, their military, their energy. And
so I think it is important for us to learn from that, as we
have, but also do things that are necessary for the United
States.
So let me ask, because the--Chairman Rush I have a bill
together, a bipartisan bill----
Ms. Granholm. Right.
Mr. Walberg [continuing]. The Energy Emergency Leadership
Act, which would codify the functions of DOE's Office of
Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response. Do you
support, Madame Secretary, elevating the leadership of DOE's
emergency response and cybersecurity functions to the Senate-
confirmed Assistant Secretary level?
Ms. Granholm. We are looking at that, and we are, as I
mentioned earlier, reorganizing to elevate CESER and its
importance. So we want to work with you on it, because we do
agree that it is critically important for us to have a very
robust leadership and execution in the Department of Energy at
CESER. And, as I say, we just brought on a new head. And I am
excited to be able to introduce him to you shortly.
Mr. Walberg. Well, we look forward to that. And I know that
the chairman and I would be extremely pleased if you would move
the direction to make sure it has the gravitas that, in this
day and age, we really need. I thank you for that
consideration.
Representative Latta and Representative Johnson touched on
it some, but I think I need to address it a little further. As
you know, Governor Whitmer has ordered the shutdown of Line 5.
And you know as well as I do that that is almost 70 years of an
accident-free contract that we have, also with an energy
provider from our dear friend to the north, Canada. And it is
important that we don't have to look at something that will
bring consequences that we don't want to see, like the shutdown
on the eastern seaboard that we have talked about already.
The Colonial Pipeline, as I understand it, serves 45
percent of the region's fuel needs, while Line 5 serves more
than 50 percent of Michigan's propane needs alone. That is
significant. This isn't just about higher fuel costs and
thousands of job losses in refineries, but it is about the
safety and security of our Nation. We can't risk another
Colonial-type shutdown.
And so, at a press conference on May 11th, I was delighted
to hear you express the quote that has been rehearsed already,
that pipe is the best way to go, in terms of transporting fuel.
And so, given these statements, Secretary Granholm, do you
support the continued operations of Line 5?
Ms. Granholm. Thanks for asking. I--just to clarify: My
comment about Colonial Pipeline was in that particular context,
because of the location of it and the product being moved
through it.
With respect to Line 5, it is a matter that is in active
litigation, and DOE itself doesn't have a direct role regarding
the project.
Mr. Walberg. Well, I appreciate that. And that is true, it
is in litigation. But Madam Secretary, you said on March 24th,
speaking to Fox Detroit, that President Biden--and I quote--
``President Biden will be the ultimate arbiter of Line 5.''
Now, we have tried to get the word from the administration on
that matter. My colleagues and I have even written to the
President months ago, and have yet to receive a response.
So which is it? As our Nation's top energy official, I am
asking you: If Governor Whitmer is successful in her lawsuit--
and I hope she isn't--will the Biden administration intervene
to keep the pipeline operational?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, again, because it is in active
litigation, I am not going to comment on it further.
Mr. Walberg. Well, let me try it one more way. Will you
commit this administration to working with Governor Whitmer and
Canadian officials to resolve the matter?
Ms. Granholm. Well, again, because of the posture of it at
the moment in active litigation, I can't comment on it further.
Mr. Walberg. Well, I appreciate that, and the impact of
closing Line 5----
Ms. Granholm. I appreciate your persistence.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. We both do that.
Ms. Granholm. Yes.
Mr. Walberg. But thanks for being here. And with that, I
yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Butterfield has
now returned.
So Mr. Butterfield of the great State of North Carolina,
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
please forgive me for stepping away from the camera for a few
moments, but I am back, and just thank you so much for
recognizing me so quickly.
Mr. Chairman, you are sponsoring this hearing today. You
are convening this hearing, and it is very important. I have
heard most of it, and what I have heard today is certainly
information that we all need. Secretary Granholm is leading our
country, she is leading the Department in the right direction.
And so, Madam Secretary, thank you so very much for your
service to our country.
Ms. Granholm. Thank you.
Mr. Butterfield. The people of North Carolina, my home
State, and in particular, in my congressional district, in the
eastern part of the State, we were hit pretty hard by the
Colonial Pipeline shutdown. I think my State probably led all
of the States in the number of shutdowns that we had. It was
very devastating. And so I have been following the situation
very closely. And so I want to work with the Secretary, I want
to work with her staff as the investigation continues, to make
sure that something like this never, ever happens again. And so
I look forward to receiving updates from the Department and
others on what we can learn from this event.
Congress has an important role to play in safeguarding our
Nation's critical infrastructure from cyber attacks. And so I
commend our President. I commend him for his Executive order to
improve the Nation's cybersecurity. However, it is going to
take us, it is going to take congressional action to fully
fortify our Nation's critical infrastructure. I look forward to
working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get
this thing done in the next few weeks.
Equitable access to clean energy is very important. There
is significant solar production in my congressional district,
and I am eager to see widespread solar adoption. Both LIFT
America Act and the CLEAN Future Act, both of those include
provisions for solar access to low-income communities and
underserved communities.
My question to you, Madam Secretary: Can you please speak
to your Department's ongoing efforts to--related to solar
access and how solar fits into the American Jobs Plan?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, solar is a big part of it, right,
because of the cost of solar having dropped so significantly,
and making solar available to citizens.
So that comes in a variety of ways, right? We have
individual solar, and we have got utility-scale solar. We have
a great plan, and I am really proud of how we are going to keep
that price of solar coming down, down, down. And we recently
announced, just as an example, an ambitious target to cut the
cost of solar in half again in the next 10 years. So it has
already dropped significantly, and we are going to drop it by,
actually, 60 percent in the next 10 years. And to help us get
there, we are committing funding and assistance to help.
So it is--the plan itself is very comprehensive, every bit
of the process, from the raw materials to the point a solar
panel is delivering electrons to your house, and it includes
the--continuing the front-end research and development on
materials science to develop lower cost and higher-performing
solar technology. I know we have supported all sorts of
university research in this area, and it includes things that
people don't often think about, like the soft costs of
permitting and siting. These are a big part of why, as cheap as
solar has gotten, it is still more expensive to install here
than in other countries.
So it is one example where partnering with State and local
governments to use this online permitting that is streamlined,
so that people can get standard rooftop solar permitted
instantly, rather than waiting for months. So, long story
short, a lot going on in this area. I am happy to have your
team----
Mr. Butterfield. I am so glad, I am so glad that you
mentioned university research. And I will conclude by speaking
to that.
The discretionary budget includes funding for strengthening
partnerships with HBCUs and MSIs to target disadvantaged
communities for new clean energy investments and jobs. Can you,
in the few seconds we have left, elaborate on what this funding
would support and the importance of supporting diversity in the
energy workforce?
Ms. Granholm. Yes. Very quickly, this--the American Jobs
Plan puts $10 billion into making sure that we have strong
connections for research and development in HBCUs. We are going
to partner with, once we get this funding, an HBCU to create an
18th National Lab at an HBCU, which we are very excited about.
And the importance of this is because, when you do
research, you have to have diverse people at the table because
your product is going to be used by diverse Americans. And if
you don't design it in a way that has the right inputs, you are
not going to have the right outputs. So that is why you see,
for example, facial recognition software consistently
misidentifying African-American men, because of the inputs not
being fully cognizant of the diversity of our population. We
need to have diverse research.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you----
Ms. Granholm. We need to increase the----
Mr. Butterfield. You are welcome back to North Carolina any
time. I know you were there in 2012, and you are welcome back
at any time. Thank you.
Ms. Granholm. Thank you.
Mr. Butterfield. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from the other Carolina, the gentleman
from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The better of the
Carolinas, I can tell you that.
I want to thank my colleague from California who mentioned
nuclear waste. I would like to submit for the record a letter
to the Secretary. The subject is ``Request to Establish a DOE
Office Dedicated to Nuclear Waste Management.'' I would like to
submit that for the record, Mr. Chairman.
[Pause.]
Mr. Duncan. OK, all right, so we will move on.
Mr. Rush. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, would you agree with the statement that,
with the exception to transmission lines which go into
neighboring countries, that renewable energy is not exportable?
Ms. Granholm. Well, I mean, it--I wouldn't necessarily
agree with that, no.
Mr. Duncan. OK, tell me how you are going to export
renewable energy----
Ms. Granholm. Well, I mean----
Mr. Duncan [continuing]. Other than transmission lines.
Ms. Granholm. Right, I mean, it depends on what you----
Mr. Duncan. It is----
Ms. Granholm [continuing]. Whether you consider energy
storage an assist to renewable energy. And largely, of course,
it is involved here, created here, deployed here. So, yes, that
is an important aspect of it.
But I would say the technology that gets us to clean
energy, a lot of that technology is exportable.
Mr. Duncan. The technology is exportable. I am talking
about the energy, as it is produced.
Ms. Granholm. Yes, it is largely done inside of a country,
yes.
Mr. Duncan. Yes. I mean, we can't load up a bunch of
Eveready batteries right now on a ship and send them out. But
what we can do is load up natural gas and send it to
neighboring countries and countries around the world to improve
the quality of lives for so many people. We have an abundance
of natural gas in this country, an abundance of fossil fuels,
in general. In fact, in 2017 we became a net exporter of
energy.
And so we are not seeing that now, but I just want to make
sure that we understand that we are not exporting renewable
energy, but we can export the fossil fuels that are produced
here.
I want to shift gears. I was pleased to hear you express
earlier your support for nuclear power and its essential role
in meeting the emission reduction goals as well as meeting the
24/7/365 baseload power supply that our Nation needs to drive
our economy that you don't always get with intermittent energy
sources, by the way, because we don't have, as you mentioned,
the storage capacity. We may get there, I get that. But right
now we don't. And we have to meet our needs in the 24/7/365
baseload power arena.
I was also encouraged by you mentioning support for
advanced nuclear technology and research. To that point I do
have concerns that other countries are surpassing the United
States in nuclear technology. Globally, two-thirds of all
nuclear reactors under construction use Chinese and Russian
designs. To maintain our competitiveness in the global nuclear
arena, we must continue to pursue advanced reactor development.
I have introduced a bill to reduce the expensive and burdensome
permitting processes for new and advanced reactors by seeking
to eliminate duplicative environmental reviews.
To this end I was pleased the Energy Security Act of 2020
included an alternative fuels report, requiring the Secretary
of Energy to submit a report to Congress identifying the
viability for uranium 233 to be used as a fuel for advanced
reactor development. Certain types of thorium reactors require
U-233 as a necessary seed material.
So Secretary, are you aware of this report?
Ms. Granholm. I am aware--I have not read it, but I am
aware that a report needs to happen.
Mr. Duncan. OK, do you commit to making sure it fully
covers the topics required, including consultation with
stakeholders, and providing it to Congress in a timely manner?
Ms. Granholm. Of course.
Mr. Duncan. OK, thank you.
I think U-233 is a topic we ought to discuss, Mr. Chairman,
at some point in time, as a viable product that we are
downblending and losing as a strategic asset in this country.
But let me shift gears, Secretary. Energy and Commerce
members try to work closely with DOE and its leadership on
important issues. I hope we can work on things like nuclear
waste, for example.
But I have got to ask you a question on behalf of my
constituents to address a concern, and that is your ownership
stake in Proterra. Proterra is in Greenville, South Carolina,
one of their facilities. I visited it. The Biden administration
actually visited it recently, with the President coming to
Greenville.
What have you done to unwind your investments in Proterra?
And do you think that is a conflict of interest?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I very much understand and agree with
the importance of avoiding conflicts. I support that 1,000
percent. I am in the process of fulfilling my obligation to
divest. The selling of stocks and options is what is required
for every appointee. And, like every appointee, I have signed a
comprehensive ethics agreement, which was drafted and vetted by
the Office of Government Ethics. And that agreement ensures
that I divest of all individual stocks and options within 180
days, and I expect to have that done well in advance of that
deadline.
Mr. Duncan. Yes, I appreciate that. I just wanted to hear
that on the record. I know my colleague, Mr. Norman from South
Carolina on the Oversight Committee, is investigating that.
And----
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Duncan. And I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Welch of the great
State of Vermont for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Granholm, this is going to be easy.
First of all, I want to say that I am very excited about
the entire team and the approach that President Biden is taking
on climate change, where there is an emphasis on how much we
can accomplish if we face the problem rather than deny the
problem, and how many jobs we are going to create. So
congratulations to him and to you and your entire team on that.
Second, as a politician, you will understand that I am
going to engage for a couple of minutes in some shameless self-
promotion of energy efficiency bills that, on a bipartisan
basis, we have been working on and just flag them for you,
because we would love your help.
For instance, we are going to be reintroducing,
Representative Clarke and I, a Federal energy efficiency
standard to require cumulative electricity savings of 27
percent and natural gas savings of 20 percent. And let me just
ask you very briefly, because I have got a couple of other
bills to promote, how important is it to pair Federal energy
efficiency standard with a Federal climate policy?
Ms. Granholm. Key, a key tool in the toolbox to save money,
create jobs, reduce our CO2 emissions, win, win,
win.
Mr. Welch. Thank you. And energy saving performance
contracts is something we got started in the Obama
administration. I worked a lot with Representative Kinzinger on
this. And the Obama administration exceeded their $4 billion
target. And my hope is that--and Senator Coons and I wrote to
President Biden asking whether his administration would commit
to a similar performance contracting challenge. And I just
wanted to bring that to your attention, and hope that is
something you could support.
Ms. Granholm. Oh, totally. Obviously, performance
contracting is a very powerful tool for energy efficiency,
certainly a tool for deploying other clean energy tools, like
rooftop solar or other distributed generation. And we are very
supportive. And the Federal Government is using that all the
time.
Mr. Welch. All right, and then a third one. Representative
McKinley from West Virginia, whose coal mine--one of his coal
mines I got to visit a few years ago. He and I have been
working on Hope for Homes. And I know that in the American Jobs
Plan the administration has 213 billion for energy efficiency
retrofits. And the McKinley-Welch bill would provide rebates
for--to help retrofit millions of homes across the country and
would provide extra rebates for moderate-income homes and
retrofits in underserved areas.
And as you know, and you have been talking about, all those
retrofits are local contractors, local tradespeople, local
jobs. How--just comment, if you would, on the significant
Federal investment that is needed to upgrade our Nation's
housing stock and how these incentives would play a role in
that.
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I am having a little bit of trouble
hearing you, but I think--I mean, just to be clear, the
American Jobs Plan also supports using the rebate and other
incentives like you have described, including, as I mentioned
before, block grants for State and local governments to make a
major investment in homes and buildings. And this energy
efficiency sector is the biggest bang for your buck, in terms
of job creation. So it is absolutely imperative for all of the
reasons that you have described.
Mr. Welch. And our last bill I am doing with Representative
Sarbanes is the Federal Clean Building Jobs Act. And that will
be introducing the Main Street Efficiency Act. This would allow
our downtown businesses to get the benefit of some of these
retrofit programs. So I just bring that to your attention.
And then finally, you know, you got an invitation from G.K.
Butterfield and from Mike Doyle. You know, they are good
people, but come to Vermont first, OK?
Thank you very much, I yield back.
Ms. Granholm. All right, thank you.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from the State of Alabama, Mr. Palmer,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you for being with us, Madam Secretary.
If we were to implement these policies, it will be a
massive increase in the cost of energy. If we were to follow
your Democratic colleagues' wishes to eliminate all the fossil
fuel use, we would need a massive battery backup system, and a
battery system that would only have 12 hours of backup.
According to MIT, it would cost over $2.5 trillion. That is in
addition to the trillions of dollars that we would have to
spend to convert from our fossil fuel natural gas to
renewables. This will be a tremendous burden on consumers,
particularly low-income families.
A study by two University of Chicago economists, one of
whom was the chief economist for President Barack Obama, found
that, after 7 years, these renewable requirements would raise
retail and electricity prices by 11 percent. That is over $30
billion. And that after 12 years it would be 17 percent. We
have already seen the impact of the bad Biden policy starting
to be reflected in gas prices, but the increases that we have
seen lately would look tame compared to what they would be with
a carbon tax. That would add another--at least another 50 cents
per gallon.
Like I said, it would dramatically increase energy poverty
in America that disproportionately impacts the elderly and low-
income households. It will drive jobs, especially manufacturing
jobs, overseas. Does this concern you?
Ms. Granholm. I don't know--the studies that you have
described are contradicted by other studies that show that a
move to clean energy is, in fact, less expensive, because you
don't pay anything for sun and you don't pay anything for wind.
And our efforts to reduce the cost of batteries and energy
storage through technology, it is sort of like Moore's Law. But
on the energy side, as you continue to scale up the technology,
you continue to reduce the cost and----
Mr. Palmer. Madam Secretary, I hate to cut you off, but
that is a gross misrepresentation of the cost of renewables,
because the only way you can say that is because of massive
government infusions of cash, like you did Solyndra.
But I want to ask you about something else, and we are
going to spend trillions of dollars on our power grid. Are you
familiar with coronal mass ejections? Does that ring a bell
with you, otherwise known as solar flares?
Are you aware that the largest recorded geomagnetic storm
occurred in 1859? It is called the Carrington Event. It
literally caused disruptions that could be seen all over the
South. Telegraph lines literally caught on fire.
There was another one in 1921 called the Railroad Storm
that, if it had occurred today, it would have taken 4 to 10
years to recover from that. It would have left 130 million
people without power in the United States, and it would have
caused 1 to $2 trillion in damage.
There was a storm in 1989 that caused the collapse of the
power grid in Quebec, that left 6 million without power, and it
was one-tenth the magnitude of the 1921 storm.
And what really concerns me is, if we--they project that a
Carrington-level event, the one that occurred in 1859, there is
a 4 to 12 percent chance per decade. How successful do you
think the effort would have been to get people to take the
COVID-19 vaccination if they thought there was a 4 to 12
percent chance of them dying, or being severely impacted by it?
There is a report from Lloyd's of London that came out in
2013 that says a Carrington-level extreme geomagnetic storm is
almost inevitable in the future. And using their models and
simulations puts the U.S. population at risk of 20 to 40
million people, with the outage lasting up to 1 to 2 years.
That would be massively disruptive. What are you all doing to
prepare for that?
Ms. Granholm. I look forward to getting more information
from your office about these events.
Mr. Palmer. Are you telling me you don't know much about
it?
Ms. Granholm. I am telling you that I would like to read
more about it.
Mr. Palmer. Well, you should go back and look at what the
Trump administration was doing on it. The Obama administration
was engaged in it. I mean, I--it really concerns me that you
don't have an answer for that.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now sees
that Mr. Veasey has returned, and he is next in line.
Mr. Veasey, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
And Secretary Granholm, thank you for coming before the
committee today to talk about how we are going to invest in our
energy future. You have been very busy on the job, obviously,
and you all are doing a great job of making sure that we
maintain our energy security while also trying to meet these
climate targets. I want to thank you and the Biden
administration for the bold vision in the American Jobs Plan.
I am very glad that the focus on the importance of
deploying clean energy at lower cost has been paired with
efforts to decarbonize the industrial sector using tools like
carbon capture, where appropriate. I am especially pleased to
see that the American Jobs Plan calls out the need for
infrastructure to transport captured carbon from where it is
emitted, so that it can be permanently sequestered.
This spring I introduced the Storing CO2--excuse
me, Storing CO2 and Lowering Emissions, or SCALE,
Act. And I was very happy to see that the American Jobs Plan
endorsed the bill by name and recognized the need for large-
scale carbon sequestration efforts. I look forward to
continuing our work together to get the SCALE Act across the
finish line.
And as you know, the industrial sector produces roughly a
quarter of the country's emissions and will be one of the most
challenging to decarbonize, especially heavy industries like
cement and steel. A number of analyses from leading energy and
climate institutions, including a new report this week from the
IEA, make it clear that carbon capture will be a critical
solution for addressing these industrial emissions sources.
Federal assistance will also be needed to demonstrate and
commercialize carbon capture technologies for industrial
applications, likely with multiple facilities in each target
industry. And the American Jobs Plan specifically includes
funding for these types of projects, which could support 10,000
good-paying jobs per year, according to Decarb America. I
understand the President's fiscal year 2022 budget will include
funding that could be available for industrial CCUS
demonstration and commercialization projects.
Secretary Granholm, in your testimony you mentioned the
importance of investing in the reduction of emissions in the
power and industrial sectors. Can you talk more on how reducing
emissions in the industrial sector can help us meet our climate
goals but also grow the base of good-paying manufacturing jobs
here in America?
Because for the people in my district--I represent a very
blue-collar district. And just like where you are from in
Detroit, Michigan, we have a General Motors facility in our
district, too. People in our--in my district love good-paying,
hardworking jobs. Can you just touch on that, how we can meet
these climate goals but also expand the good-paying
manufacturing jobs here in America?
Ms. Granholm. This is such--this question is music to my
ears. I mean, this is, I think, why the President asked me to
be the head of the Department of Energy, because, as you have
seen on the commercials, et cetera, when he hears the word
``climate,'' he hears ``jobs,'' he thinks of jobs.
And I mentioned earlier that there was a study out in
January that said that there is going to be a $23 trillion--
with a T, trillion--market for the products that will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. That includes products like carbon
capture use and sequestration, like hydrogen, like solar and
wind, like geothermal, like nuclear. All of those products,
there is going to be a massive global demand.
And the whole thing is why would we be importing, you know,
wind turbines from Denmark when we could be building them here
and stamping them ``Made in America,'' and using them here and
then exporting them?
Why would we be allowing China to corner the market on the
critical minerals that make up the batteries for the electric
vehicle when we could be extracting them here with--
responsibly, sustainably, and processing them here sustainably,
and putting them into batteries here and putting them in the
vehicles here?
That whole supply chain, that is ours for the taking if we
make the right moves, policywise on the demand side and
investmentwise on the supply side. This whole area creates all
kinds of jobs for all kinds of people in all pockets of the
country--good-paying jobs, union jobs.
You want to make sure that we have a transmission grid that
works? Talk to the folks who are building that, the IBEW. Talk
to the people who want to be able to be putting steel in the
ground to make sure that we are able to put solar panels up in
Arizona and deliver that power to a load center in another
place, or to put, you know, wind turbines up in Wyoming and
make sure it is delivered.
All of these, everything, soup to nuts, has to be built
somewhere. We should be building it and putting people to work,
making these products in the United States. So I am sorry to
be--I am totally with you on this, and this is why this
opportunity is ours for the taking. And that includes
opportunity for managing carbon, as well, in communities that
have been left behind.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am out of time.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Arizona, Mrs. Lesko, for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Secretary, for coming in front of our committee today.
As we have today's hearing, three of the world's top solar
manufacturers are headquartered in China. Even if solar panels
are assembled in the United States, we only produce 10 percent
of the global supply of the underlying polysilicon material.
China produces half. China has 77 percent of global lithium ion
battery production capacity. And most of our critical mineral
supply chain is reliant on China. We are 100 percent reliant on
imports for 17 critical minerals and depend on imports for over
50 percent of 29 widely used minerals. China is a significant
source for half of these 29 minerals.
As we increase renewable energy and electric vehicle
adoption in the United States, we become even more reliant on
China and the whims of the Chinese Government. We are putting
our Nation's energy independence at risk and delivering
economic benefits and jobs to China, which is currently the
world's leading consumer of coal, continues to build coal-fired
plants at a rate that outpaces the rest of the world combined,
and accounts for 28 percent of all global CO2
emissions.
You know, it wouldn't surprise me if China is behind the
push to decrease and eliminate the use of America's natural gas
and mining, and increased use of solar panels and EV batteries
that are made in China.
My first question, Secretary, is last month I sent a letter
to you dated April 22nd. I was joined by many of my colleagues
on the Energy and Commerce Committee, urging you to prioritize
important critical mineral programs that were enacted as part
of the Energy Act of 2020. What actions are you taking in your
role as Secretary of Energy to secure our Nation's critical
mineral supply chain?
Ms. Granholm. Great. As you could tell from my previous
comments, I am completely with you on this. We should be having
our own energy security, including critical minerals and the
supply chain, here. So let me just talk a little bit about what
we are doing inside the Department to do that.
So research and development in our Offices of Science and
Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, we
are coordinating those investments across DOE. It includes
DOE's significant, longstanding investment in critical
materials and the Advanced Manufacturing Office's support of
the Critical Minerals--Critical Materials Institute, an energy
innovation hub led by Ames Laboratory that leverages decades of
DOE investments.
The Department of Energy has a strategy for critical
materials and minerals aligned, three pillars. One is to
diversify the supply, and that means to do responsible mining
here at home. The second is to develop substitutes for critical
minerals so that we don't have to rely on minerals from nations
that don't have our best interests at heart. And the third
pillar is to improve reuse and recycling of critical minerals.
So when it comes----
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I wish I
had more than 5 minutes. I really want to hear all your stuff.
But if that is the case, can you explain to me why the
Biden administration--that they reversed a decision for
Resolution Copper Mine in Arizona?
I mean, they--we were going forward with this copper mine
in Arizona, and then the Biden administration, right out of the
gate, reversed the mining. I mean, if we are really--if the
Biden administration really wants to replace China as the
source of our critical minerals, I don't understand why you are
opposing some mining here.
But let me go on another question. The fact that China
supplies 80 percent of the world's polysilicon is well known.
It is also known that, in Xinxiang, in which much of the
world's global polysilicon production occurs, China uses the
Uyghur population as slave labor. With the proposed clean
energy standard, how will the administration make sure we
aren't importing the product of slave labor?
Ms. Granholm. Right. This is another great example. I can
say this, as former Governor of Michigan, we have a company
called Hemlock Semiconductor that was the--North America's
largest supplier of polycrystalline silicon used in the solar--
in solar panels. And that--much of that work went to China. So
we have seen it firsthand.
And so the question is, for us, what can we do to make sure
that we have a Made in America supply chain. And that will mean
supporting these industries here. It may mean that we have to
think through creatively. How is our--what tax credits do we
have to make us competitive here?
But for years, as you know, we have been bowing to the
altar of low cost in an unfettered, free-trade environment. And
so we have to say, what is going to be good for America to have
a manufacturing backbone for our clean--for clean energy. And
that example that you gave is number one.
So we want to have a Made in America strategy. That is what
President Biden has asked all of the cabinet to do. That is why
we are leading by example in using Made in America products on
Federal buildings and solar panels here. We want to create the
market here for products that are made in America so that
supply chain is built back out here.
Mrs. Lesko. Well, thank you. And if that is truly the goal,
I----
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady's time is expired.
Mrs. Lesko [continuing]. And increased mining. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now----
Mrs. Lesko. I yield back.
Mr. Rush [continuing]. Recognizes the gentlelady from New
Hampshire, Ms. Kuster, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for organizing
this important hearing. And I want to thank Secretary Granholm
for your incredible patience and stamina with our committee
today.
President Biden's American Jobs Plan outlines an ambitious
and much-needed approach to upgrading American infrastructure
for the 21st century, and I am excited that his plan includes
robust investments in solar, wind, electricity storage, and
energy efficiency. The President's plan puts us firmly on the
path to decarbonizing the electric grid, and I want to commend
you and President Biden for recognizing, in particular, the
potential for offshore wind, which presents many exciting
opportunities, especially in New England.
An area of infrastructure that desperately needs attention
is America's dams, and the low-carbon hydropower they provide.
Hydropower is one of the Nation's largest sources of low-carbon
energy. And in the coming weeks I will introduce legislation
based on the recent pathbreaking Stanford University-led
Uncommon Dialogue Agreement between the U.S. hydropower
industry and the environmental community.
My legislation will provide over $60 billion for what we
call the three R's, to rehabilitate existing U.S. dams for
safety, retrofit them for power, and in some cases remove them
for river conservation.
Madam Secretary, the Department of Energy has identified
hundreds of nonpowered U.S. dams that could be retrofitted with
turbines to produce hydropower. According to a DOE study, more
than 10,000 megawatts of electricity could be developed at
existing nonpowered U.S. dams. Do you believe the Federal
Government should lead efforts to retrofit dams for hydropower
production?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, ma'am. And, as you have said, I think it
is a dam good idea.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you. And while we look to retrofit dams
where appropriate, we should be honest that countless of the
90,000 dams in this country have outlived their useful lives.
And we have members on this committee, and including yourself
from Michigan, that have experienced these accidents and
failings. Do you believe the Federal Government should help
improve the health of our Nation's rivers by providing funding
to remove dams where communities and owners decide that is the
best path forward?
Ms. Granholm. Yes.
Ms. Kuster. And as you outlined in your testimony, the
Department of Energy employs some of the brightest scientists
in the country. Should DOE prioritize research to enhance
hydropower production, dam safety, and dam removal strategies?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, yes. And we are working inside to do
that.
Ms. Kuster. Excellent. So finally, one last question.
Hydropower is a reliable energy source available to power the
grid when the wind stops blowing or the sun goes down. How
important is this source of ``firm power'' as we move toward a
grid that relies on variable sources of energy and, in
particular, the storage from hydropower?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, clearly, the combination of the
dispatchable, reliable power and the storage is irresistible.
As we all know, we--this is the mother lode of what we are
looking for and--as we move to a zero-carbon future. And so
dams have to be a piece of this. I know that they are capital
intensive. And so figuring out a mechanism to make sure we can
do the work necessary to be able to fully use hydropower is
critical. Other countries have done it. We can do it, too.
Ms. Kuster. Terrific. Well, I look forward to working with
you and your team, and I want to urge all of my colleagues to
please join me when I introduce this legislation.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, for the record, I am yielding
back with a minute to go, the most efficient testimony yet.
Good luck. Maybe our Secretary can get a brief breather here.
Mr. Rush. Right.
Ms. Kuster. Take care, thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair wanted to announce that a vote is pending. It is
the intention of the Chair, with the concurrence of the ranking
member, that we will proceed with those Members who remain on
screen for questions during the votes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Pence, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member
Upton, for holding this hearing.
And thank you, Secretary Granholm, for appearing before us
today to discuss your Department's fiscal year 2022 budget
request.
Like many of my colleagues on this committee, I support an
all-of-the-above strategy for energy production--which I have
said many, many times--but not an everything-but approach,
which seems to be where the Biden administration is headed.
Your Department plays a critical role in fostering
innovation to lower carbon emissions and establish a diverse
slate of competitive energy sources. However, the----
[Audio malfunction.]
Ms. Granholm. Uh-oh, it looks like he--his connection
dropped.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Pence?
Seeing how he has dropped with 4 minutes and 12 seconds to
go, the Chair will continue, and now recognizes Ms. Barragan
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Barragan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you, Chair Rush, for holding this
hearing on the Department of Energy fiscal year 2022 budget,
and Madam Secretary Granholm, for joining us today.
Secretary Granholm, the American Jobs Plan calls for major
investments in critical infrastructure. Can you talk about how
investments in clean energy microgrids could be part of this
investment plan, and the resiliency benefits for communities?
Ms. Granholm. Yes. Thank you so much for this question.
Microgrids, as you are aware, are a critical tool for
modernizing the power grid, both to be more resilient in the
face of disasters as well as making sure that we maximize the
benefits of clean energy.
The microgrid itself allows smaller sections of the grid to
be managed for resilience, which allows----
Mr. Rush. Right?
Ms. Granholm [continuing]. For example, blackouts to be
minimized. I think of this in California, where there have been
sections of the grid pulled down because of high winds. But a
microgrid might not have that same issue. It allows for
localized energy security strategies. And then, you know, in
terms of distributed energy resources, everything from onsite
solar to battery storage, they can all be used to power a local
microgrid to maximize the benefits of those resources.
So the Department is doing a lot of work on this, and we
see it as a really promising component of the investment grid
resilience that is included in the American Jobs Plan.
Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you. I have a bill with
Representative Clarke called the Energy Resilient Communities
Act, which invests in clean energy microgrids for critical
infrastructure in environmental justice communities and is
included in the CLEAN Future Act. I hope, as we work on
legislation to enact the American Jobs Plan, we can get this
idea included.
Ms. Granholm. That is great.
Ms. Barragan. My next question, Madam Secretary, is the
Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Program at the
Department is an important tool for supporting the domestic
manufacture of zero-emissions vehicles. Clean shipping groups
have called for a similar loan program for manufacturing zero-
emissions shipping vessels in order to accelerate the domestic
development of zero-emission ships. Do you have any reaction to
this idea?
Ms. Granholm. That is so interesting. I had not heard
from--heard about that, but I think it is really interesting,
because it is a hard-to-decarbonize sector, shipping is.
And so I know that the Advanced Technology Vehicle Loan
Program is potentially available to help with something like
that, and certainly the research that is being done in the ATVM
office would be very interested in moving in that direction. So
I have got to dive more, and learn more about what the shipping
community is actually asking for.
Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you so much for that. As somebody
who represents the Port of Los Angeles, one of the busiest
ports, by volume container, it is important that we include
ports in our vision to go zero emissions and clean.
My next question, Madam Secretary, the Department recently
announced $17.3 million for college internships and research
projects to connect STEM students with DOE's National
Laboratories, including a focus on HBCUs and minority-serving
institutions. Investing in diversity for STEM research and
education is critical, including for Hispanic-serving
institutions and Latino STEM majors.
Can you talk about how your Department will work to ensure
this award and further awards are inclusive of Hispanic-serving
institutions and Latinos?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, for sure. This is really part of our
whole workforce development strategy inside of the Department
of Energy, is that we need a diverse pipeline of scientists and
researchers to be able to ensure that the research we are doing
reflects all of America.
I was starting to mention this earlier, that the Office of
Science is going to expand these efforts to support research
and training of students from MSIs and historically--and HBCUs
and Hispanic-serving institutions of higher education and
Tribal colleges and universities.
So all of this is part of the effort to expand the pipeline
of those STEM workers. The money that we announced for
internships is a step in that direction. The efforts that are
going on at every lab to expand outreach, especially to
institutions that serve communities of color, is just really an
incredibly important part of how we are going to get to the
goal of producing products that really reflect and are best
suited for all of America.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Armstrong, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary Granholm.
And I appreciate we make wind farms in--or wind turbines in
Grand Forks, North Dakota, so if we can make more of them, we
are all in.
And I appreciate your comments on responsible mining and
processing in the U.S. I do think, when it comes to supply and
demand, the private sector will figure that out. But if you can
give any Members on this committee, particularly on the other
side, a nudge on the FAST Act permitting, that would probably
be helpful. Because one thing we have heard over the course of
the last 2 years, whether it is on this committee or the Select
Committee on the Climate Crisis, we are--permitting takes
longer, it is burdensome, access to capital, all of these
things are a real issue.
And I also think, as we talk about mining rare earth metals
and doing those things--Congresswoman Lesko talked about this,
as well--we are going to have to do something about sue-and-
settle litigation. We are seeing it coming out of the Keystone
XL right now. The nationwide Permit 12, which the appellate
court kicked back, is now being used by environmental access--
activists to attack other infrastructure projects all across
the country.
But I also want to say thank you for giving virtual remarks
at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference last week and
talking about--that traditional fossil fuels remain important
to the U.S., and talking--and carbon capture and storage is a
huge job opportunity, and agreeing to, you know, work with our
Governor on how we can do those things.
And that is--so you said to Representative Bucshon that you
support carbon capture and research and development, correct?
Ms. Granholm. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. And you support biofuels, ethanol,
biodiesel, as we continue to move down this?
Ms. Granholm. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. And you told Representative Kinzinger that
you support nuclear energy?
Ms. Granholm. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. And now these are a little different, these
are mine. Do you support repairing pipelines and other carbon-
based fuel infrastructure?
Ms. Granholm. Absolutely.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you support road improvements and
infrastructure for nonelectric vehicles?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, of course.
Mr. Armstrong. And then, I guess this might be a--so did
you have an opportunity to read the report issued by the
Environmental Justice Advisory Council last week?
Ms. Granholm. I did not read the report from last week.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, it came out, and it was--I mean, it is
made up of CEQ, OMB, and climate adviser Gina McCarthy, and
they suggested, essentially, every one of those projects should
be not funded, as they extend the life of carbon fuels.
I think it would be safe to say, given your comments, you
would disagree with that report, right?
Ms. Granholm. Well, I have to look at the report. I do know
that the administration supports what we have just described.
They support nuclear. They support carbon capture use and
sequestration. They support hydrogen. They support repairing
pipelines. So I would have to take a look at it, because I
would be surprised if----
Mr. Armstrong. Well, we keep----
Ms. Granholm. I need to look at it----
Mr. Armstrong. The administration--and this is where my
concern comes. And I am great for differing opinions. I, as a
lifelong holder of minority opinions, I appreciate when other
people have opinions.
But, I mean, this is the administration too, right? This is
CEQ, this is OMB. Gina McCarthy is appointed by the President,
and they specifically argue against extending any
infrastructure that would extend--specifically targeting carbon
capture, which is the most concerning to me--that would extend
the life of fossil fuels.
So I am not saying you have or haven't read the report, but
let's just say you disagree with that position. Right?
Ms. Granholm. Well, I just need to look at it, because I
need to understand the context, because it is different than
what I have heard, so----
Mr. Armstrong. Oh, well, you--all right. So let's just----
Ms. Granholm. I am not saying that you are wrong. I just
need to--I need to look at it.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, I will just ask the question without
the report. You would disagree with the position of not
investing in carbon capture.
Ms. Granholm. I would disagree with that, and so would the
President. The President has put forward an American Jobs Plan
that has carbon capture use and sequestration as 10 of the
demonstration projects that is----
Mr. Armstrong. Good, we are hoping to get one in North
Dakota.
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I know.
Mr. Armstrong. And we are, potentially, the first carbon-
neutral coal mine in the country, so--hopefully. We are excited
about it.
So I want to just go to cyber for a second. And we are
talking about--and I am not an expert on this, but there is
nothing unique about Colonial, right? I mean, this is the
latest cyber attack. But we have seen cyber--attempted cyber
attacks on dams. We know that our electric utilities and those
areas are constantly under threat of that, nuclear plants,
basically any of our infrastructure, as we continue to move
forward, right?
Ms. Granholm. Correct.
Mr. Armstrong. And, I mean, as we continue to move down
these paths and dealing with this--and I just--and I do
appreciate everything, but I just--I would be remiss if I
didn't point out that there is nothing unique about this.
And what is going on, and everything we saw in Houston, and
then from all the panic buying--we saw it over here--I don't
think it is helpful for people like me, who are generally
skeptical, when comments are made that if you have an electric
car it would not be affecting you. Because the attack on the
cybersecurity, it was pipelines that time, but the very next
time it would be--it could be a utility company. And I don't
think the comment would be, well, if you drive a gas car, it
wouldn't be affecting you.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Pence, who has returned--no, let me--I am sorry.
Out of order. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Blunt Rochester, and
then we will recognize Mr. Pence for his return.
Ms. Blunt Rochester, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for calling this important hearing. And thank you
also, Secretary Granholm, for testifying today on the
President's discretionary budget. It is good to see you.
The recent Colonial Pipeline cyber attack and the extreme
weather event earlier this year in Texas and parts of the
Midwest exposed the need for a more resilient energy
infrastructure. As we continue to move toward greater reliance
on electricity, we need to do more to fix the vulnerabilities
in our energy systems and better guard against future
disasters.
Secretary Granholm, last month I briefly shared with you a
little bit about my bill, H.R. 1485, the Open Back Better Act,
which is included in both the CLEAN Future Act and the LIFT
America Act. This legislation invests in retrofits to public
buildings such as hospitals, libraries, and community centers,
making them more energy efficient and more resilient against
future threats. It creates good-paying jobs and prioritizes
upgrades to low-wealth communities and communities of color,
which are so often disproportionately burdened by the impacts
of public emergencies and natural disasters.
And in an ongoing pandemic, with the additional risk from
climate-related disasters and cyber threats, we need a more
resilient energy infrastructure to better prepare our country
for the inevitable future disasters, and the Open Back Better
Act does just that. And I am looking forward to further
discussing this bill with you and working with you and your
team. Under the Open Back Better Act, Federal funding would
flow through existing programs at the Department, including the
Office of Indian Energy and the State energy program, which
would require that 40 percent of grant funds be provided to
environmental justice communities.
In your testimony you highlighted the Department's
commitment to environmental justice. Can you elaborate more on
how the Department is working to meet the energy infrastructure
and resiliency needs of our EJ and indigenous communities?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, thank you for that and for your
leadership on this.
You know, as Secretary, and in line with this
administration, we are committed to prioritizing equity and
addressing historic injustices across, in our case, DOE
programs. There are too many communities, as you have alluded
to, in our country, especially low-income communities and
communities of color, both urban and rural, who have
experienced disproportionate downsides of issues like pollution
stemming from our energy system. And at the same time, they
have missed out on the benefits.
So the Department, in partnership with Congress, I hope, we
aim to center research and policy and technical assistance to
advance the President's commitment to ensure that 40 percent of
the benefits of the clean energy transition flow to
disadvantaged communities, to implement that Justice40
initiative across the entire DOE complex, and to coordinate
with other Federal agencies, as well, to advance a whole-of-
government approach to equity and to justice.
And I just want to mention that we are equally focused on
energy communities, as well, that have produced fuels like coal
and power from coal, and too often don't see a future for
themselves in the energy transition. Both types of communities
have been negatively affected by--whether it is market trends
or geographic trends, and we are really proud to be leading the
interagency efforts, working with the President and a lot of
other Federal agencies to channel resources to job creation and
other economic assistance to those communities on--both types
of communities. So I look forward to working with you to
realize this important priority.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great. Can you give, like, a couple
of--some specifics on what efforts you are undertaking to
retrofit public buildings?
Ms. Granholm. Well, our Buildings Technology Office is all
about the retrofits, both large and small. And we are certainly
doing it as a lead-by-example matter inside of the Federal
Government, because the President has insisted that we do that
and, as we do that, to make sure that we get a multiplier
effect of buying American for--buying the products that are
made in America, you know, retrofitting these buildings that
are in America by putting people to work and, of course, the
benefit from CO2 emission reductions. So it is all
of the above.
And I would say, too, that when the American Jobs Plan is
passed, and you see an increased amount in both weatherization
and building retrofits, that amount of money is going to
benefit communities all across the country, whether they are VA
hospitals or individual homes.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great. Thank you so much, and I am
looking forward to working with you on this legislation.
And I yield back 7 seconds, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Pence for an additional 5 minutes.
You had about eight seconds before, I think, when you lost
your connection. So you are recognized for 5 minutes, Mr.
Pence.
Mr. Pence. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And sorry,
everybody. It is--here is another example of why I can't wait
until we are back in the committee rooms and holding these
hearings in person. And I am just going to continue on, Madam
Chair, where I left off.
I am also concerned that my colleagues in Congress are
pushing the American people into untested energy technologies
that are not yet ready to sustain our current demand. These
endeavors, like electrifying our transportation sector, will
not work for the rural Hoosiers that I represent in Indiana's
6th District.
Vehicles used in trucking and agricultural industries will
require a higher energy density than what is possible with the
current EV battery technologies. Therefore, I urge your
Department to direct more resources to the expansion of
alternative liquid fuels like renewable diesel, biodiesel,
renewable natural gas, or hydrogen that can support our
trucking industry and lift our farmers that are critical to my
Hoosier economy.
In fact, one-third of the corn in Indiana is used to
produce ethanol, an environmentally very friendly fuel.
Another option to consider is hydrogen fuel cell
technologies. Across the world, and notably in the EU and Asia,
countries are heavily investing in hydrogen to meet the next-
generation energy needs. Recently, I introduced a bipartisan
Clean Energy Hydrogen Innovation Act with my colleague and
fellow Hoosier Congressman, Andre Carson, to expand
opportunities under the Department of Energy's loan guarantee
program for hydrogen and fuel cell applications.
I am proud that Cummins Engine Company, headquartered in my
hometown of Columbus, is leading the Nation in research and
development into hydrogen fuel in the transportation industry,
particularly heavy duty.
Madam Secretary, can you commit to working with me on my
legislation to utilize the loan guarantee program for expanded
hydrogen applications?
Ms. Granholm. I am very interested in using the loan
guarantee program for hydrogen, whether it is for fuel cells or
hydrogen for energy delivery. So, yes, I would love to, I would
love to learn more.
Mr. Pence. Great, and it is an exciting future.
Another question, Madam Secretary. I have a particular
interest in hydrogen because of its versatile applications in
connection to existing assets in natural gas. And, of course,
as you well know, energy needs to be transported from point A
to B, which I spent an entire career doing.
Whether blending with natural gas, transporting hydrogen to
fueling centers, or creating hydrogen--the steam methane
reformation--there needs to be a role for expanded pipeline
networks. Should natural gas and pipeline stakeholders have a
seat at the table regarding the Department's role in clean
energy innovation?
Ms. Granholm. Yes.
Mr. Pence. OK, that is a damn good answer, Madam Secretary,
like you mentioned before.
So with that, Mr. Chair, again, sorry for the confusion,
and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back, and the Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. O'Halleran, for 5
minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member
Upton, for today's hearing. I appreciate it.
Madam Secretary, it is a pleasure to have you here today.
Welcome. And I want to thank the President for this great
nomination of yours. And finally, you are sitting where you
need to be sitting for the best of America.
There is no question that our country must transition away
from fossil fuels and reduce carbon pollution. It is--however,
we must remember the communities, the people in those
communities that have been working to meet our energy needs for
decades. Our clean energy future must include everyone.
You can clearly see the energy transition taking place in
my district, in rural Arizona. In November 2019 the Navajo
Generation Station closed. Not only did the station close, but
it affected the revenues of three different counties in the
State. It affected every city and town in that area, and State
revenues, school districts, fire districts, local communities.
It is not--it is losing people and losing communities at the
same time. This country cannot afford to lose those
communities. The closing of the plant also included Kayenta
Coal Mine, cost northern Arizona over 700 of its best-paying
jobs, by far. In my district alone, the three remaining coal-
fired power plants will be retired, starting in 2025.
I have introduced a bill, the New Promise Act, which would
focus attention on the needs of these communities and invest in
economic development, job training, and infrastructure for
those individuals that are in need of a job, a well-paying job.
I am pleased to see the administration is also focused on the
needs of these impacted communities, and I look forward to
working with you.
Secretary, the White House's interagency working group on
this topic issued a report last month. It cited the Four
Corners area as a priority and called out the need to work with
Tribal leaders. How are you working with local leaders in these
impacted areas to make sure their needs are heard, especially
in Tribal areas, of which my district includes the highest
population in the United States?
Please answer the question.
Ms. Granholm. Yes, for sure. Thank you for asking this.
You know, the report that you refer to is being--the
intergovernmental working group is being stood up now. We are
hiring people to be able to ensure that the funding that was
identified, and particularly, if the American Jobs Plan is
passed, the research and deployment projects that are embedded
in that will [audio malfunction] and to the environmental
justice communities. And in your case, there is a--it is both,
right? Communities that are in transition from coal and power
plants and environmental justice.
So we are--the Tribal communities have a seat at the table.
Our Indian Affairs Office has--is headed by a wonderful woman
named Wahleah Johns, who is guiding our conversations with the
Tribal communities in this.
The whole point of this report is really to get communities
that have powered us and who have seen opportunities move away
and jobs move away, to see in themselves and to actually have
in themselves job providers that will provide future jobs--not
just jobs, but careers, good-paying careers. And that is what
we want to focus--that is what the first screen was about in
identifying which communities are the hardest hit. And you have
identified yours. You saw that yours was identified inside the
report.
So we want to work together on this. I am sure we will be
having further conversations on it, because the opportunities
for directing investment and jobs into those areas are really
ripe, especially if we pass this American Jobs Act.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
First of all, I would be remiss if I didn't talk a little
bit about Colonial, cybersecurity. It is not just about the
energy sector, it is about every major sector and priority of
our country. And I am hoping you bring back the message to the
President this is a national emergency. I have been sitting
here for years and before that others have sat here, and never
have we gotten around to really addressing the cybersecurity
issue, even within our Defense Department.
Secretary, the interagency working group has also pointed
out some of these communities transitioning away from coal are
well-suited for investment in renewable energy, especially
solar. They must have the ability to have industry back into
those areas, many types of different industry, in order to
survive. How can we ensure that these communities are the ones
benefiting from investments?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I mean, this is why the EJ,
Environmental Justice 40, is really targeted toward these
communities, as well.
We have to make sure we also have transmission leading from
the communities so that, if we can build out solar, especially
utility-scale solar, we want to be able to take that solar and
make sure it is sent to places where the demand is really high
for renewables. So it is both, it is transmission, it is solar.
It is also capping orphaned oil and gas wells in these,
capping orphan mines----
Mr. O'Halleran. Ms. Secretary, I have to yield. It is time.
Ms. Granholm. Sorry.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you. No problem. Thanks a lot.
And I yield, Mr. Rush.
Mr. Rush. All right, the gentleman yields back. The Chair--
there are a number of waive-ons right now, and we--I see on
screen Mrs. Trahan from Massachusetts.
Mrs. Trahan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Trahan. Well, thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking
Member Upton, for having us here today and letting us waive on.
And certainly, thank you, Secretary Granholm, for your
leadership as our country looks to make a once-in-a-generation
investment into clean energy infrastructure. Building a more
resilient grid, incentivizing electric vehicles, expanding
offshore wind, these are critical and immediate steps toward
achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. And I associate myself
with the remarks of the Chair and our colleagues in
highlighting those investments.
I just want to take a few moments to ask about the
increased funding for innovative technologies, including fusion
energy research. The National Academies of Science,
Engineering, and Medicine have stated that fusion offers the
prospect of virtually unlimited carbon-free energy.
Last Congress, Representative Lamb and I sponsored an
amendment on fusion research. And this amendment will support
public-private partnerships to make fusion energy a reality by
building full-scale demonstration facilities and creating new
jobs here at home. One such private-sector entity, Commonwealth
Fusion Systems, is an MIT spinoff--recently announced that
Devens, Massachusetts, a community in the district that I am
honored to represent, will soon be the home of its
demonstration fusion plant. And it would be fitting for our
clean energy revolution to be born just a few miles away from
the birthplace of the American Revolution and our Industrial
Revolution.
So, Secretary Granholm, I am wondering if you can take a
moment to speak to the importance of supporting fusion energy
R&D projects.
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I am fully supportive. In fact, I
think--I mean, I know I visited MIT and their fusion research
initiative. And if that is spinning out now, that is great.
That means that they have gotten additional support financially
to be able to do that.
You know, fusion, kind of like hydrogen, I have been
saying, is like the Holy Grail. It is a little closer in,
perhaps, in terms of being able to deploy. But fusion and, you
know, the ITER project that is happening in France and our
investment in that all signals that we believe that--the
potential for fusion, and creating an energy without waste,
nuclear energy without waste, is really, you know--that is,
really, so fantastic.
So the bottom line is the Department has been investing in
fusion research, will continue to invest in fusion research,
and we see the huge opportunity in fusion research in being
able to solve so many of these problems that we are trying to
figure through now. But it is--I know that it is going to take
a little bit of time to get there.
Mrs. Trahan. Well, thank you for all of that. You know,
similarly, I was also excited to see the additional funding for
the existing Advanced Research Projects Agency Energy Program.
There's several innovative companies in Massachusetts that have
used and are using ARPA-E to study advances in material science
that will lead to breakthroughs in energy efficiency and
storage.
For example, Triton Systems in Chelmsford, Massachusetts,
used ARPA-E funds to demonstrate a high-efficiency window pane
system that will encourage retrofitting of single-pane windows.
So I think, since 2009 Massachusetts has received $241 million
in early-stage R&D funding for 90 projects.
And so I am hoping you can just speak to your vision for
the proposed $1 billion of Advanced Research Projects Agency
for Climate. How could those funds drive innovation in those--
in our country?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I mean, like ARPA-E, ARPA-C is going to
be investing in the kinds of solutions that are breakthrough
solutions that are happening across the country. And so,
whether it is in next generation hydrogen, or next generation
climate resilience, the bottom line is we need all of this
research happening, and this--ARPA-E and ARPA-C and--are just
ways to incentivize the private sector, give these great
entrepreneurs the chance to take their idea to scale, and to
test it out.
So as you have identified, it has launched so many, and we
want it to continue, the notion of ARPA-E, and the incentive
that some funding provides to start--to these startups who have
great ideas. We want to continue that. We want to be the idea--
the place where solutions happen or where solutions are--where
the seeds of solutions are planted, through ARPA-E and ARPA-C.
Mrs. Trahan. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary. Certainly,
we look forward to working with you. And please consider this
an open invitation to visit our labs and our demonstration
facilities any time.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now sees
that Mr. Schrader, former ranking member of the subcommittee,
has returned.
And therefore, Mr. Schrader, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Schrader. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We
have had to adapt and improvise here, with our inability to get
onto Webex with our usual devices.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. I appreciate it
very, very much. I also appreciate your recognition of
hydropower as a safe, clean, renewable, carbon-free form of
energy that our country relies on, and particularly the Pacific
Northwest. I associate myself with the comments of
Representative Schrier and Representative Rodgers on the
advantages of clean hydro and just would like to get clear the
administration's position on the public sector that provides a
lot of opportunity, particularly in my region, through the
Bonneville Power Administration, and administration's support
of Bonneville Power and other regional public providers----
Ms. Granholm. You were cutting out just a little bit, but
if you are asking about our plans and support for the power
marketing agencies that are so reliant upon and so key in
hydropower, 1,000 percent. You know, both Bonneville and WAAPA,
all of them are critical in delivering clean, carbon-free power
and have been to customers in these areas across the country.
We are very supportive, will continue to be supportive.
We have got some new leadership, and we are excited about
that, and continuing to serve the customers in a way that is
affordable and reliable.
Mr. Schrader. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. I
appreciate the response.
I also see a 27 percent increase in nuclear technology,
advanced nuclear technology opportunities in the budget, and I
am looking forward to seeing that realized. We have some
innovators in my home State of Oregon, new-scale, in
particular, with a lot of SMR opportunities out there.
And I would be curious what role you see them playing in
the renewable energy space, going forward, and also, frankly,
how you--how this administration plans to deal with the
regulatory framework for our existing nuclear fleet, much less
our SMRs. It seems to be pretty burdensome, when I talk to
providers. And is there a way to streamline that? Our committee
has been trying to do that for years, and I would like to
partner with the administration on that.
Ms. Granholm. Yes. First, as I was saying a couple of hours
ago, I think, the importance of maintaining our nuclear fleet
is really critical if we are going to achieve our goals of net-
zero carbon emissions.
DOE is doing a huge amount of research in advanced
reactors. Our advanced reactor program supports the development
of a bunch of innovative U.S.-based designs for those SMRs,
small modular reactors, and this new technology has really got
the potential to provide the safe and clean and cost-
competitive energy generation options for both domestic and
international markets, as well.
We are seeing some promising results with the work of
NuScale, for example, which is the first small modular reactor
developer to obtain, actually, the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, approval of its final safety evaluation report. So
it puts the NuScale design on track to receive full NRC
certification by mid- to late 2021. And all of that we are
supportive of.
Mr. Schrader. Excellent, excellent. Thank you, thank you
very much. A lot of exciting developments across the renewable
energy spectrum as we try and deal with climate change. Very
real--I know there is a sea change of opinion on the Energy and
Commerce Committee, where I think most everybody is aware of
climate change. We may disagree on the origins and what have
you.
And there's ways to adapt. I am very concerned with the--
you know, the one-size-fits-all or the my-way-or-the-highway
approach. I happen to be an all-of-the-above energy legislator.
I realize a lot of different States have different backgrounds.
And, as we transition to a cleaner energy economy, I think,
from what I have heard from labor, in particular, that we
should get ahead of that transition.
In a lot of coal sites, for instance, that may be
ratcheting back, they provide a great site for small modular
nuclear reactors and others, and we--what--is there any plans
by this administration to help the various coal, oil, and gas
industries transition some of the existing workforce that we
have into some of the engineering opportunities in the nuclear
or small modular nuclear reactor area? Because I think we need
to get ahead of that.
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I mean, we are interested in helping
these communities transition into good-paying jobs. Obviously,
nuclear is really good-paying jobs, and it is one of the
reasons why we are excited, for example, about the Vogtle
plants in Georgia coming online, hopefully in the not-too-
distant future, and the jobs that will come with that.
We are looking at all kinds of clean energy technologies
that will be good paying. We don't want to just have people
earning minimum wage in clean energy. We want them earning the
kinds of wages or better that they earned when they were mining
coal. That means we want to encourage unionization in these
communities of clean energy providers.
So we are really focused on this through the
Intergovernmental Work Group on Coal and Power Plant
Communities. And to the extent that you are aware of how we
might be able to convince any private-sector player to move to
those communities, we will be helpful in making them
successful. We are looking at this now in the communities that
have been identified in the intergovernmental work group, and
we want to continue to encourage job providers to move to those
places in a way that allows them to be successful, because
these are good people and good workers.
Mr. Schrader. Well, thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence, and I yield
back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now returns
to the waive-ons. And with that said, the Chair now recognizes
the gentlelady from the great State of Michigan, Mrs. Dingell,
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is great to see
you, my dear friend. And I am going to be talking fast, so I am
glad you understand me talking fast, because I have a lot of
questions.
Let's start with electric vehicles, specifically how we
strengthen domestic manufacturing and supply chains in the
United States. Yesterday was a great day. President Biden
toured Ford's electric vehicle center, where the new all-
electric F150 will be built, and built by the finest workforce
in the world, the UAW. This is a great example of American
ingenuity, but we stand at a pivotal moment for American
manufacturing and where electric vehicles will be built.
As you know, I am leading legislation to expand the ATVM
program to medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, and to modernize
ATVM to help develop supply chain manufacturing in the United
States with American workers.
I am also working to update the Domestic Manufacturing
Conversion Grants Program to include plug-in electric vehicles
and components.
Secretary Granholm, what is your vision for how these
programs, if expanded, modernized, and funded, can help create
good, clean energy jobs for American workers?
And what do you need from Congress to make that happen?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, you are hitting the nail on the head.
You and I have talked about this. We share this vision.
Tackling climate change doesn't mean just curbing
transportation emissions. Of course it does mean that, but it
also means building a whole dynamic--building the, you know,
zero-carbon emission--the vehicles that have zero-carbon
emissions. So--and the future of transportation.
So it means not just retooling our vehicle factories but
making sure we have got robust supply chains, from components,
to batteries, to critical materials. It means that U.S.
Government has got to lead by example in purchasing those
things and helping to create a market. It means that States and
localities have got to do the same thing. It means that we have
got to help coinvest with some of these businesses to make it
irresistible to locate in the United States. It means the tax
credits that make manufacturing in the United States
competitive. It means more than just cars and SUVs and pickups.
It means medium- and heavy-duty trucks, as you have noted, and
long-haul trucks, and ships for long-distance shipping. It
means----
Mrs. Dingell. So----
Ms. Granholm [continuing]. The ATVM program can do a lot of
that.
So I will----
Mrs. Dingell. So----
Ms. Granholm [continuing]. Because I know you----
Mrs. Dingell [continuing]. What I want you to do is to let
us know specific policies that we should be doing in these next
few weeks that are beyond what we are doing.
For over a month now--it has been a couple of months--we
have had a working group, as you know, with the top
environmental groups and labor groups connected to the
automotive industry, to iron out a framework of policies that
will help us transition to all-electric vehicles, while
ensuring high-quality domestic manufacturing jobs in any
infrastructure package.
Yesterday members of this group--CAP, Environmental Defense
Fund, BlueGreen Alliance, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned
Scientists, and the League of Conservation Voters--sent a
letter to the President outlining a number of these important
policy priorities that I would now like to request, Mr.
Chairman, unanimous consent to submit for the record.
Mr. Rush. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, earlier this year I reintroduced
legislation to create a clean energy and sustainability
accelerator, and I was pleased to also see in it the--see it in
the President's American Jobs Plan. The bill would capitalize a
$100 billion nonprofit dedicated to deploying clean energy
solutions in every State and addressing environmental injustice
with 40 percent of investments going to marginalized
communities.
Based on the experience of similar financing authorities
across the United States--one we saw in Michigan--we know that
the initial $100 billion investment will attract and spur an
additional 900 billion in private-sector investment over 10
years.
Secretary Granholm, do you agree with that model, one that
leverages the power of the Federal Government to attract
private-sector capital will help--will it help expedite this
transition to a clean economy?
Ms. Granholm. A thousand percent. This sort of clean energy
accelerator, a clean energy bank, if you will, it is a hugely
promising strategy, both for deploying clean energy and
especially in the communities that most need those benefits. I
know they were looking hard at that, and they--this bill, your
bill, inspired what was in the American Jobs Plan. I look
forward to working with you to take advantage of your
leadership on this and to advance this idea in the American
Jobs Plan.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. So one last question, very
quickly. You know the Edenville and Sanford dams in Michigan
failed, a lot of problems. Mr. Moolenaar reintroduced the
National Dam and Hydropower Safety Improvement Act of 2020.
I could go into it longer, but Secretary Granholm, while I
recognize that FERC has main jurisdiction there, I was hoping
you could tell me how DOE plans to support ongoing recovery
efforts as well as efforts to bolster safety procedures to
prevent this kind of event from happening again.
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I mean, we obviously work with FERC on
this, and we are very interested in making sure, as in all
areas where we are seeing these kind of emergencies and
breakdowns, how we can accelerate not just response, but
prevention. And so I look forward to working with you on that,
as well.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you very much. I have a ton more,
probably give some for the record, but thank you for all you
are doing. It is so great to see you here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Joyce, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chairman Rush, for allowing me to
participate today. Just for clarification for the record, I am
John Joyce from Pennsylvania.
Madam Secretary, thank you for joining us here today. My
first question is, do you agree that it is a strategic
necessity for the United States to be energy secure?
Ms. Granholm. Yes.
Mr. Joyce. One of America's biggest energy assets is coal.
And in fact, the United States has the largest coal reserves of
any country, with 23 percent of total global reserves.
According to BP's Statistical Review of Energy, Pennsylvanians
and Americans from across the coal country understand that,
firsthand, if we are to stay energy secure, that we cannot
afford to walk away from the resource of coal.
Do you think, Madam Secretary, that there is a future for
coal energy in the United States?
Ms. Granholm. Well, I know it is not about my opinion. I
know where the market is heading. And I know it has been
devastating for many in coal country. And I know we want to
continue to work on the technologies that help to make the
CO2 emissions from coal be captured and sequestered,
and to maybe use byproducts, or look at coal for other critical
minerals that might be inside of them.
We also want to work with the communities to make sure that
we are--for coal plants, for example, that may have shut down,
is there a fuel-switching opportunity that we can do there, and
then attach CCUS to it?
So this is--these are really--you know, I feel this deeply,
because in Michigan, when I was Governor and we were producing
the internal combustion engine--we still do, but then we saw
imports threaten us because of fuel economy standards. And then
we had to migrate to car 2.0, the electric vehicle, and a lot
of people, when we went through--when the auto industry went
through bankruptcies and everything, were left, through no
fault of their own, without jobs. I completely get this.
And this is why the technologies associated with reducing
carbon emissions can help communities who are looking to hold
onto jobs and to have jobs, energy jobs of the future, to be
able to thrive.
Mr. Joyce. I, too, am very much interested in investing in
carbon capture technology, as well as helping the coal
communities with energy transition. Are you willing to invest
in retrofitting coal power plants with carbon capture
technology, so that these communities don't need to undergo a
transition and can continue their great job of powering our
country?
Ms. Granholm. Yes, I mean, it is--this is a hard one,
because you have to get the agreement of the private sector on
this, as well.
I mean, carbon capture technology works best on, for
example--or works well on natural gas. And I know the cost of
it puts many coal plants at a disadvantage. And so it is--this
is a--it is a hard one, I know. And if it made sense, from an
economic perspective, certainly. It is just a question, right
now, because of the way the market is headed, it makes it
difficult.
I want to do whatever we can to help these communities on--
get on their feet. I want to do whatever we can to provide them
jobs that--where they don't have to completely reskill, with
jobs that are consonant with the skills that they have. Coal
communities, miners, can we look at responsibly mining for
critical minerals? Can we look at responsibly mining for
geothermal, using the skills that people already have? Can we
look at attaching technologies, doing coal--fuel switching on
coal plants, so that you can attach CCUS in a more economical
way? All of these things are things that we are looking at, and
I look forward to working with you on.
Mr. Joyce. I am deeply encouraged by technologies being
developed such as those that combine burning a mixture of coal
and crop residue biomass with carbon capture and storage to
provide a cost-effective, net-carbon-negative electricity
source that can be scaled to a commercial level.
Coal produces the constant baseload power, which is truly
the backbone of the American electric grid, and keeps our
country moving. It will be shameful to throw away this energy
opportunity because of some people's preconceived ideas about
coal.
My time here is limited, but I know that we have talked
briefly about what is important in this regard. Earlier you
testified in an exchange with Mrs. Lesko that you would support
a ban on imports of solar panels and batteries from China that
have been manufactured by slave labor. Can we confirm in that
exchange that you would indeed support a ban of those panels
that were manufactured by slave labor?
Ms. Granholm. I don't know that I used the word ``ban'' or
that that was the specific question, but I am concerned about
the import of panels manufactured in China using slave labor,
and I want to create a supply chain and jobs here instead of
relying upon that.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. I think we are all concerned about
these awful labor practices in the Chinese Communist regime.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Chair Rush, for
allowing me to waive on to this important hearing.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Mrs. Fletcher, for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairman Rush, for
allowing me to participate in today's hearing.
And Secretary Granholm, it is nice to see you again. Thank
you for taking the time to testify about the important programs
at DOE that our country relies on.
We have covered a lot of ground today. I think I may be the
last Member to ask questions. So I really thank you for your
insights, and your consistent commitment to collaboration with
the committee and the Congress on the objectives that we all
share, from energy security to cybersecurity, and so many
issues that we have touched on today.
As the hearing has demonstrated, there is great focus at
this moment on energy innovation and new technologies to
achieve our climate goals, our economic goals, and our national
security goals. And I have heard many of my colleagues extend
invitations to you to visit their districts, and I certainly
would welcome the opportunity to welcome you to my district in
Houston and show you the work that my constituents are doing in
the energy capital of the world.
Houston has long been the center of energy innovation and
new energy technologies, and we have touched on several
innovative technologies today. Just as one example, Mr. Doyle
mentioned hydrogen. Houston is already home to 48 plants that
extract hydrogen from natural gas and produces more than one-
third of the U.S. supply of hydrogen. Many of these programs
are supported through essential R&D research at DOE. The
Department has long been a collaborative partner, working hand
in hand with private industry to invest so many of the
technologies that show such promise today.
So, as we wrap up the hearing now, I just want to take the
time that I have left to circle back on a particularly
important area of innovation that you discussed briefly with
Mr. Veasey, and just now--carbon capture technology. It is
another place where people in Houston have really been driving
innovation.
And while you have spoken to the issue of DOE assisting
coal and natural gas applications with support from existing
DOE programs, I haven't heard much discussion nationally from
the Department when it comes to the downstream industry as it
might apply to petroleum refineries. So my question for you is,
with the incredible expertise that DOE and the National Labs
have when it comes to CCUS, would you support expansion of
existing programs for CCUS applications to refineries, if
Congress were to authorize new programs aimed at reducing
emissions in the downstream sector?
Ms. Granholm. Absolutely.
Mrs. Fletcher. Terrific. Do you have any thoughts on what
might be important for us to include to make that something
that the Department could expand?
Ms. Granholm. You know, I think part of--a lot of this--and
again, this is--so much of this is contemplated in the American
Jobs Plan, with these demonstration projects. So there are 10
of them that are related to CCUS, and there are 15 of them that
are related to hydrogen. And some of them might be combined,
right, there might be a hydrogen hub that includes CCUS,
which--you know, it sounds like Houston and areas of Texas
certainly are ripe to consider that.
I think the funding out and the proof of concept of these
demonstration projects--and many of them are already well
underway, as you have mentioned--allows for us to bring down
the price, and allows for then this technology to be taken to
greater scale. Ultimately, we want to be the country that
really has proven the case to reduce the cost for these
technologies. And so, funding these demonstration projects is
such a pivotal step in getting there.
We know the technology exists. We know that we have to
reduce the costs. I would add green hydrogen in there, as well,
which uses electrolysis. And we want to reduce the cost of
electrolysis in addition to the steam-methane reforming that is
attached on the hydrogen side. The technology associated with
CCUS, it is all expensive technology. The more we use, the
lower the price gets, the more we are able to put more
technology onto places and reduce our CO2 footprint.
So I am excited to work with you on it. And I am so
grateful to you for raising this issue and for your leadership
on it.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you so much, Secretary Granholm.
I appreciate your answer and your partnership. This is a matter
of great importance to Houstonians, to Texans, and, really, all
Americans. You know, EIA data shows that our State's Gulf Coast
refining capacity represents more than one-third of our
Nation's refining capacity. Dr. Moniz, among others, has
identified our region as a great place to do these
demonstration projects and really to advance these
technologies. And I know it is something that the people who
live and work in my district and throughout our region really
are committed to doing and making sure that we stay the energy
capital of the world.
So I very much look forward to working with you on
advancing these programs as we move forward to achieve our
shared goals for our country and our planet.
And with that, Chairman Rush, I know that I have gone
beyond my time, so I may have additional questions to submit
for the record.
But I really want to thank you, Secretary Granholm, for
your time today. It has been incredibly useful and important.
And Chairman Rush, thank you so much for letting me
participate, and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. And with that, the--
that concludes the witness questions.
And Madam Secretary, I applaud you for your endurance, and
also for your information and for your extraordinary way that
you answered these very, very tough questions that Members of
this subcommittee had. And I want to thank you again for
participating in today's hearing.
I must remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules,
they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for
the record to be answered by the Secretary, who has appeared
before us.
And I ask Madam Secretary to respond promptly to any such
questions that you may receive.
Before we adjourn, I just request unanimous consent to
enter, en bloc, documents that have been referred to the
committee. We have got, according to my count, nine documents
that will be--that I ask unanimous consent that they be entered
into the record.
Without objection, this request is so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A December 2018 Government Accountability Office report has
been retained in committee files and is available at https://
docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20210519/112638/HHRG-117-IF03-20210519-
SD007.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rush. And at this time the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:36 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]