- 5/22/2024
US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm testified in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee about the FY25 budget request for the Department of Energy.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00:00 Good morning. This hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and
00:00:04 Water Development will please come to order. We are here today to discuss President Biden's
00:00:09 fiscal year 2025 budget request for the Department of Energy, including the National
00:00:14 Nuclear Security Administration. DOE's work has a direct bearing on our national security,
00:00:21 our international competitiveness, and our ability to tackle the climate crisis.
00:00:26 The investments we make at DOE protect our energy grid, drive down our dependence on foreign energy,
00:00:34 drive down energy prices, and drive forward innovation in clean energy and so much more.
00:00:39 At the Pacific Northwest Lab in Washington State, we are always seeing how these investments fuel
00:00:45 cutting-edge research. But this is a constant race against the clock that is the climate crisis and
00:00:51 against our competitors. We cannot cut investments without seeding ground. We have to make sure
00:00:57 breakthroughs in AI, quantum computing, clean energy, and so much else are happening here in
00:01:03 America. And while we're at it, we have to make sure the jobs that follow are staying in America,
00:01:07 too. But it's not just our economy that is at stake in the Department's work. It is our national
00:01:13 security as well. For one thing, the climate crisis is more than a rolling series of devastating
00:01:18 weather disasters. It is also an economic threat and a national security threat, as our generals
00:01:24 have warned us. Then, of course, DOE's management of our nuclear activities has enormous stakes for
00:01:31 our national security. And for the sake of our families, we have to take a balanced approach
00:01:36 where we are investing not just in weapons but in non-proliferation work and environmental
00:01:41 cleanup efforts. So while I appreciate the targeted increases in the President's budget
00:01:47 for non-defense programs like improving our grid and existing energy infrastructure,
00:01:52 developing and deploying new energy technologies, lowering emissions and tackling the climate
00:01:59 crisis, and funding our scientific research enterprise, I have to say I want to see a
00:02:04 better balance than increasing nuclear weapon activities by 4 percent to nearly $20 billion
00:02:10 while decreasing nuclear non-proliferation and cleanup by 4.5 percent and over 2 percent,
00:02:16 respectively. Now, we proved last year that when we set partisanship aside, we are capable of
00:02:22 working through these issues in a productive way. We wrote solid bipartisan bills for fiscal year
00:02:28 '24 under some really tough top lines. And I even made sure we included historic funding for the
00:02:34 Hanford nuclear cleanup in Washington State. That was huge progress, and I'm pleased to see that
00:02:39 this budget request includes funding to meet the obligations in the holistic agreement between the
00:02:45 Department of Energy, EPA, and the Washington State Department of Ecology, because we do have
00:02:50 a moral and legal responsibility to do right by our Hanford workers and the Tri-Cities communities,
00:02:57 and I will not rest until we have lived up to that. I hope we can once again make good bipartisan
00:03:03 progress on that issue and many others. And I will remind my colleagues the only way we are
00:03:08 going to make that happen is by working together in good faith. And unfortunately, House Republicans
00:03:14 are already once again planning to ignore the bipartisan deal they cut last year on top lines
00:03:19 and now push through drastic spending cuts to non-events that are going nowhere. But just like
00:03:25 last year, we can choose a different path here in the Senate, a bipartisan one. I know there are
00:03:30 members on both sides who are concerned about how these tight caps will undermine our nation's
00:03:35 strength. And as I've said from the start, I share those concerns and have made clear that any
00:03:40 additional resources must be provided equally between the defense and non-defense sides of
00:03:45 the ledger, because as we will talk a lot about today, both play a vital role in securing our
00:03:51 nation's future. Our measure of success should be what does it take to stay ahead of competitors
00:03:58 like China and lead the industries of the future? What does it take to keep our economy strong,
00:04:04 create jobs and lower prices? And what does it take to keep our nation safe? In other words,
00:04:10 what does it take to actually meet the challenges we have before us? And hearings like this are a
00:04:16 crucial opportunity to help answer those questions. So I look forward to discussing these issues
00:04:22 today with our witnesses and working with Ranking Member Kennedy and our colleagues to deliver the
00:04:27 resources DOE needs to keep us on the forefront of innovation and progress and to keep America safe.
00:04:34 With that, I will turn it over to my Ranking Member Kennedy.
00:04:36 Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Madam Secretary and Madam Secretary for being here.
00:04:45 I want to apologize in advance. I've got a couple of other committees going, so I'm going to be in
00:04:56 and out. I'd like to hear you talk today about a couple of things. First, Madam Secretary, I'm
00:05:08 very disappointed in the administration's decision to place a moratorium on LNG permits.
00:05:20 I don't see how that is going to further the goal of climate change. I do see how that is
00:05:27 going to hurt America's energy independence, but equally important,
00:05:31 it's going to hurt our friends in Europe. It's going to help our enemies like Qatar.
00:05:38 It looks political to me, and I'm hoping you'll be able to address that.
00:05:48 I'd also like to talk today about whether the administration would consider, so far it hasn't,
00:05:56 which considered it, but it hasn't done it, advancing petroleum pit production. We've done
00:06:06 better, but it's still not enough. I'm disappointed that the administration hasn't emphasized
00:06:17 nuclear energy funding. I don't understand how we're going to achieve
00:06:23 carbon neutrality without advanced small modular nuclear reactors.
00:06:32 The administration doesn't seem to want to talk too much about the benefits. Of course,
00:06:41 there are costs as well, but the benefits of nuclear energy seems to have worked out well
00:06:48 in countries like France, which sees its energy future, including a big role for nuclear energy.
00:07:00 Those are the kinds of things that I'm hoping we can talk about today.
00:07:09 I want to end my remarks, Secretary Granholm, with a more general thought.
00:07:16 I consider you to be one of the most
00:07:26 intelligent and accomplished appointees by President Biden. That doesn't mean I agree
00:07:37 with all of the positions that you have taken. I don't know to what extent you have taken those
00:07:43 positions, because you believe them or because you have been directed to take them by the White House.
00:07:48 I also feel like in our debate over energy transition, we're missing a major piece of the
00:08:01 puzzle. That's an explanation to the American people about what we're doing, why we're doing it,
00:08:14 the costs of doing it, and the benefits and the trade-offs. I think you and your department
00:08:29 should take on that responsibility. Let me try to be more specific.
00:08:34 There's a gentleman by the name of Dr. Bjorn Lomberg. I'm not saying that he has all the
00:08:42 answers, but he is a visiting professor at Stanford. He's head of a think tank
00:08:49 in Europe called the Copenhagen Consensus. He is basically a climate change economist.
00:08:59 In peer-reviewed studies, he predicts, for example, that in order for us to be carbon neutral,
00:09:09 and not just the United States and the world, by 2050, and to maintain it through 2,200,
00:09:20 it will cost about one percent of the world's, not America's, but the world's GDP.
00:09:28 That doesn't sound like much until you reduce it to raw dollars. That's $27 trillion a year.
00:09:38 That's the cost. He raises the question of whether we should spend that $27 trillion
00:09:50 or take a portion of it and instead use it to combat the effects of climate change,
00:10:02 which he estimates we could do successfully worldwide for a trillion dollars a year.
00:10:09 Now, you may not agree with his numbers or his analysis, but a cost-benefit analysis is worth
00:10:18 pursuing instead of just throwing a bunch of money at the problem. For example, he raises
00:10:24 the question, he believes that in order for China to become carbon neutral by 2050 and maintain its
00:10:33 carbon neutrality through 2,100, it will cost China a trillion dollars a year.
00:10:40 China's not spending a trillion dollars a year.
00:10:49 China, in fact, has increased its carbon emissions 300 percent by 1990.
00:10:54 He raises the question, it's a fair question, what happens if China doesn't cooperate?
00:11:01 What's the impact on world carbon neutrality? If it doesn't cooperate, is America wasting all
00:11:09 its money? He raises the question about Russia. He thinks that Russia needs to start spending today
00:11:19 $400 to $500 billion a year and spend that amount every year between now and 2,100
00:11:27 to achieve carbon neutrality. It's about three times what Russia spends on its military.
00:11:33 Does anyone in this room honestly believe that President Putin tomorrow is going to stand up and
00:11:42 say, well, I'm going to stop spending money on my military and start spending it on CO2
00:11:48 emissions? Professor Lumberg raises the question of what happens if they don't?
00:11:56 What happens if India doesn't cooperate? Developing countries, they want the same things as us.
00:12:05 They want to be able to eat and live indoors and their children to have better lives.
00:12:15 Are we going to have to pay developing countries for their energy transition,
00:12:22 particularly when it's cheaper for them to advance their societies using fossil fuels?
00:12:29 These are the kind of questions that need to be hit head on. We're not doing it. This
00:12:34 administration, with all due respect, has not done it. All we're doing is throwing money at a problem.
00:12:43 I asked, I think it was your deputy secretary, Madam Secretary, about a year or so ago, I said,
00:12:50 if the United States government achieves carbon neutrality by 2050 and we spend the money to do it,
00:12:59 how much will that lower world temperatures or how much will that decrease the increase in world
00:13:07 temperatures? He said, I can't guarantee you that it'll lower temperatures at all
00:13:13 because it depends on other countries. I think that needs to be addressed head on. I think
00:13:21 you're the person to do it. I don't know if the White House will let you, but the world is
00:13:27 yearning for this. I'm going on too long. I'm sorry, Madam Chair.
00:13:35 But people are starting to figure out that they're going to have to pay for this.
00:13:40 We see it in Germany right now. I mean, Germany said, well, we're just going to require everybody
00:13:49 to convert to heat pumps. Now, all of a sudden, people say, well, you mean I've got to go buy a
00:13:54 $15,000 heat pump? And so they're pushing back. And in order to have people buy into an energy
00:14:01 transition, they've got to understand that there's an overarching plan. I'm sorry for going on so
00:14:07 long, Madam Chair. No worries. Thank you. Thank you, Ranking Madam Kennedy. I will now briefly
00:14:12 introduce our panel. We have Jennifer Granholm, Secretary of the Department of Energy, and Jill
00:14:16 Ruby, Undersecretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
00:14:21 Administration. We will now proceed with your witness testimony from Secretary Granholm. You
00:14:27 have five minutes for your testimony. Great. Thank you so much. Look forward to having this
00:14:31 conversation with all of you. So nice to be here, Chair Murray, Ranking Member Kennedy, and all the
00:14:38 members of the subcommittee. Honored to be here to discuss the President's budget request for 2025.
00:14:43 Honored to be here alongside Jill Ruby, who's been leading our NNSA in an extraordinary way.
00:14:49 Three years ago, I joined this administration believing that if America could come together
00:14:56 around a national energy strategy, we could restore manufacturing, we could create jobs,
00:15:01 we could address the climate crisis, and we could become energy independent and secure.
00:15:07 And today, we are doing just that. America is back. Thanks to Congress's efforts and the
00:15:15 President's vision, we are executing a focused, deliberate strategy that positions our businesses
00:15:22 to dominate, our workers to compete, and our communities to thrive. And it is working.
00:15:29 Since the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law, for example, companies have announced more
00:15:36 than 600 new or expanded just the clean energy manufacturing plants on American soil. Nearly
00:15:44 $200 billion in planned investment for batteries, for electric vehicles, solar, wind, nuclear,
00:15:52 and more. Tens of thousands of jobs being created from Anchorage to Albuquerque, from Baton Rouge
00:16:00 to Baltimore, from Washington to Wisconsin, and everywhere in between, thanks to the bipartisan
00:16:06 infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act. Sustaining such growth, though, requires us
00:16:12 to complement that historic funding with durable, long-term investments. So we're grateful for a
00:16:18 fiscal year '24 bill that appropriated more than $50 billion for the department, and the President's
00:16:25 request for fiscal year '25 will empower us to make even greater progress. Our commercialization
00:16:32 tools are giving American businesses the confidence to capitalize on this moment while deepening our
00:16:39 energy security. But deepening our energy security is an ongoing project, and we need to fund it year
00:16:45 over year. I know the subcommittee shares this imperative. Thank you for the $2.7 billion,
00:16:52 for example, to build a domestic uranium strategy. We, industry, as well as Congress's efforts to ban
00:17:00 Russian uranium imports, which the President recently signed into law. And now we can get
00:17:05 to work on building the domestic supply chain for civil nuclear fuel. The President's budget calls
00:17:12 for significant appropriations for our demonstration and deployment programs, including our Office of
00:17:17 Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains and our Grid Deployment Office, so we can make the same
00:17:23 progress along the energy economy. So DOE is making sure that every community can benefit from reliable,
00:17:32 affordable, clean energy and efficiency technologies. We're leveraging dedicated
00:17:36 funding from the infrastructure law for our interagency working group on coal and power plant
00:17:43 communities. I've seen firsthand how this program gives communities the gift of rebirth. It instills
00:17:52 pride for the workers who defined America's energy past and will help to power its future.
00:17:59 We're also planning for the future by doubling down on R&D. With an $8.6 billion request for
00:18:06 basic science research and $3 billion for applied R&D, we'll make sure that each new generation
00:18:12 of energy technologies is more innovative than the last, from industrial decarbonization solutions to
00:18:19 geothermal to fusion. We're also requesting $2 billion for critical and emerging technologies
00:18:25 like AI and quantum. Both are key to economic competitiveness and defense, and DOE is uniquely
00:18:32 positioned to drive them forward. And of course, the budget also includes an historic $25 billion
00:18:37 for our NNSA. The growing cooperation between Russia and China and Iran and North Korea has
00:18:46 created a more dynamic, less predictable international environment, increased saber
00:18:53 rattling and aggression against our allies and cyber attacks reinforce the imperative to maintain
00:19:01 a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. The President's request would give the NNSA the
00:19:06 means to deliver and adapt in the face of these evolving threats, and it would advance NNSA's
00:19:13 wider priorities around arms control and nonproliferation and counterterrorism and the
00:19:19 safe use of civil nuclear power as well as naval nuclear propulsion. Thanks to the bipartisan
00:19:25 assistance we've received from Congress, America is back. We are the envy of the world. We can't
00:19:32 afford to lose our momentum. It depends on your continued support. So thank you for the opportunity
00:19:37 to address you today, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much. We will now begin
00:19:42 a round of five-minute questions for our panel. I ask my colleagues to keep track of your clock
00:19:46 and try and stay within those five minutes. Secretary Granholm, I fought really hard to
00:19:54 make sure the FY24 bill provided record funding for the Hanford site in Washington state,
00:19:59 so I want to reiterate how pleased I am that the DOE, Washington State Department of Ecology,
00:20:04 and EPA have reached this holistic agreement now for the management of Hanford's tank waste.
00:20:10 I understand the FY25 budget request has incorporated now that holistic agreement.
00:20:15 We know the future holds some pretty steep increases to maintain compliance. How do you
00:20:21 plan to meet the obligations that they just agreed to in that holistic agreement, particularly for
00:20:27 the high-level waste facility? Yeah, thank you for that. I mean, the good news is that the
00:20:34 agreement incorporates with timelines the movement forward on the high-level waste treatment via
00:20:41 direct feed. The agreement also makes sure we've got a strong path for out-of-state grout disposal,
00:20:49 for example, the construction of additional million-dollar capacity for tank waste storage
00:20:56 as well. We're excited to see this agreement, and we're excited to help fund it this year,
00:21:01 obviously, to make that request. Thank you so much for your leadership in that.
00:21:05 We also recognize we're going to need additional funding in years ahead if we are really to live
00:21:09 up to the agreement and the path that's set forward, so we look forward to working with
00:21:13 you on that for next year's budget. Well, it'll be work, and I appreciate
00:21:17 your consistency. I have heard concerns from the Tri-Cities community about DOE's Clean-Up
00:21:23 to Clean Energy initiative, which will use underutilized Hanford land for clean energy
00:21:28 projects. What is your department doing to incorporate feedback from the community into
00:21:33 that initiative? Yeah, we have a number of clean-up to clean energy sites because of
00:21:39 course the legacy waste management issues that we've – or responsibilities that we have.
00:21:45 We have met with the Tri-Cities, and we are going to continue to meet with the Tri-Cities. We know,
00:21:50 and we're in constant contact with them about what they would like to see happen with the land.
00:21:55 We know that there's an opportunity to have a partnership between what they would like to see
00:22:01 on economic development and on powering that economic development with clean energy. The
00:22:06 land has such potential for, obviously, solar, and we're excited about that. We've been meeting with
00:22:17 the tribes as well as the community on this. We think it's really important in all of these sites
00:22:22 that the communities are hand in glove with us on it, and we will continue, obviously, to meet
00:22:28 with the Tri-Cities area. Tomorrow, for example, we're meeting in Savannah River at that site with
00:22:34 the community. We have informational meetings. We have direct meetings with the communities
00:22:39 that are adjacent and the tribes that are adjacent to make sure we have their input. So,
00:22:44 we will continue working with the community at Hanford and the other sites.
00:22:47 Really important to do as we make decisions on that, so thank you. Secretary Granholm,
00:22:52 your budget request increases funding for the Office of Science to over $8.58 billion,
00:22:58 coming on the heels of our FY '24 bill that provided $8.24 billion. This funding is important
00:23:04 for our competitiveness, providing support to our world-class national labs, and boosting
00:23:09 scientific research, including at the Pacific Northwest National Lab. That research really
00:23:16 drives domestic innovation across a lot of different fields, biologic and environmental
00:23:21 research, AI, machine learning, quantum computing, clean energy technology, and I really believe that
00:23:28 that kind of funding is really critical for our future. How does your budget request support
00:23:33 innovation across critical emerging technologies like clean energy and AI?
00:23:39 So, yes, on the basic research and development side, on the earlier part of the spectrum,
00:23:45 we think that quantum, AI, fusion, all of these advanced technologies have to be funded because
00:23:51 we are facing global competition. We are number one, we're not going to lose that spot, and that's
00:23:56 why the support from Congress to be able to fund that basic research is so important. The 17
00:24:02 national labs are our jewels, as you know, you've got one in your state. The tools that are in those
00:24:08 labs are essential for us to continue to move forward. The exascale computers, for example,
00:24:14 we continue to be number one. We have the top two exascale computers in the world, and we want to
00:24:20 continue to have that, and those are obviously important for AI as well. So, on the earlier side
00:24:26 of the spectrum, super important, you move across the spectrum from demonstration to deployment.
00:24:33 Those are also important for us to be in the lead. We are not in the lead on deployment,
00:24:40 but we can be, and that's why continuing to move across the spectrum is important.
00:24:45 As you are aware, we have these joint strategy teams inside of the department to make sure
00:24:51 that both the research and development, as well as the demonstration and deployment,
00:24:56 are all speaking to one another so that we are deploying with an eye to the future,
00:25:01 and all of that is part of the strategy of how we reorganized the Department of Energy
00:25:07 after the bill and after Bill and I were passed. Okay, thank you. We know that China is investing
00:25:13 heavily in scientific infrastructure. It's really critical that we keep pace. Senator Kennedy.
00:25:19 Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Granholm, do you believe that the world can achieve carbon
00:25:29 neutrality by 2050 without nuclear energy playing a substantial, substantial role? I do not. Okay.
00:25:38 I agree with you. I want to go back to my thesis that I hope I articulated it reasonably well,
00:25:49 that we don't have an overarching plan or analysis for achieving CO2. In my opinion,
00:25:56 we're just throwing money at it. Let's suppose Professor Lundberg is right, 27 trillion a year.
00:26:03 That's worldwide to achieve carbon neutrality and maintain it through 2100.
00:26:09 Let's assume America's share, we produce 15%
00:26:12 CO2 emissions, that makes our share about $4 trillion a year.
00:26:18 That's, I don't know, 8 to 10% of our GDP. Doesn't sound like much when you talk about it that way,
00:26:29 but it's still $4 trillion a year, every year. That's money we can't spend on healthcare or
00:26:37 feeding people, housing. What happens if we start spending $4 trillion a year each year for every
00:26:49 year through just 2050 and China doesn't do its part or Russia doesn't do its part
00:26:59 or India doesn't do its part or Vietnam or Thailand? How much is our money going to reduce
00:27:09 world temperatures or the increase in world temperatures? The answer is zero, isn't it?
00:27:17 No, I don't think it's zero, but I do know that this is why we have...
00:27:20 But how much is it?
00:27:22 This is why we have all 190 countries signed on to get to net zero by 2050.
00:27:30 I know they've signed on, excuse me for interrupting.
00:27:32 And countries are moving in that direction.
00:27:34 But they're not doing, I'm asking you, and I hope they do it, okay, if it turns out that
00:27:40 the scientists are right. I'm not saying they are or they aren't. It's just that the whole
00:27:45 topic has become so politicized. But we don't have, we never talk about what happens if they don't
00:27:53 and what is the likelihood that they will. And let me ask you again, if we spend $4 trillion a year
00:28:02 every year until 2050 to achieve carbon neutrality in the United States,
00:28:10 and President Putin and President Xi and Prime Minister Modi say, "I don't think so.
00:28:18 I think I'm going to spend that on domestic needs in my countries."
00:28:24 How much are we going to reduce world temperatures?
00:28:27 With respect, I'm not going to buy into the hypothetical because they have said,
00:28:31 I don't know about Putin, but the President of China and Prime Minister Modi have all made
00:28:38 commitments to move in this direction and are spending money to move in this direction.
00:28:42 But the better question is, or a parallel question would be, what happens if we don't?
00:28:48 Well, I'm interested in my question, though. You're good, but I don't want you to change
00:28:53 the subject. Have you ever known President Xi to lie?
00:28:56 Well, I'm not, I am telling you what is on the plan and what we have seen in terms of their
00:29:03 spending. They have spent about $400 billion a year so far, that was I think in 2023, on
00:29:10 renewable energy. What about Russia?
00:29:13 They're spending. Russia, I can't speak for. You honestly believe that President Putin?
00:29:16 I don't have the information on Russia. They're not very transparent. But all of
00:29:20 these countries have signed on to the goal. And my point is, if we don't, sir, if we don't,
00:29:25 we will be spending globally $38 trillion a year to clean up after the extreme weather events that
00:29:33 are happening because of climate change. But you use that figure, but I've seen no
00:29:37 basis for it. Professor, Professor. I can send you that.
00:29:42 Professor Lomberg says it's much less than that. But here's my point. Do we just start spending the
00:29:49 $4 trillion a year and spend it blindly every year like clockwork? Or at what point if China's
00:29:56 not pulling its load or Russia or Vietnam or Sub-Saharan Africa, at what point do we say,
00:30:02 what model do we have in place to say, whoa, wait a minute, we're wasting our money because
00:30:08 they're not spending theirs? I believe that the United States and its leadership in this world,
00:30:16 as well as our allies, are not going to throw in the towel. That this is too important in terms of
00:30:22 our world, in terms of climate change going into the future and the devastating impact it is having
00:30:27 right now, much less in 2050. I'm out of time. But do you trust,
00:30:30 look me in the eye, do you trust Vladimir Putin? No, I don't trust him.
00:30:37 Or President Xi Jinping to do anything other than what is in their best political interest
00:30:46 and the power that they achieve in the world. Do you really believe that?
00:30:50 And in China's interest, it is in their interest to move down this path because they are experiencing
00:30:55 extreme heat waves and death as a result of climate change. And this is why they're spending
00:31:01 what they are. And this is why they want to dominate these clean energy technologies,
00:31:05 because they see an economic advantage for them to be leading in this. So no,
00:31:09 I don't trust what they say, but we will verify. But you're willing, well, I've gone over. I'm
00:31:17 sorry, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I'll try to come back
00:31:21 or not. Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you both for being here. I can reassure
00:31:29 Senator Kennedy a little bit on Vietnam because I was just there. And I can tell you that we met
00:31:35 with the second top ranking official in Vietnam and everybody we met with was very clear. They
00:31:41 were getting to clean energy by 2050 and that's their goal. So they talked about their concerns,
00:31:51 significant concerns, both they and the Philippines about climate change and the
00:31:55 impact that it's having there. So thank you for the work that you're doing.
00:32:00 One of the best ways to address our energy needs is through energy efficiency. And energy saving
00:32:09 performance contracting has been very effective. I used it when I was governor extensively. It
00:32:16 saved taxpayers money and it also saved thousands of pounds of pollution. Under the bipartisan
00:32:22 infrastructure law, we've made it possible, more possible for the federal government to use
00:32:29 performance contracting. Can you talk about how you view that, how much that is going to be part
00:32:36 of your recommendations and also what DOE is thinking about in terms of trying to help states
00:32:43 and municipalities use performance contracting? Yeah, performance contracting is just such a
00:32:49 no-brainer. It is something that we are using. Our FEMP unit is pushing this across the federal
00:32:59 government and certainly inside. The funding that was given, FEMP just did a competitive grant
00:33:05 which it's with the affect funding that, thank you very much, Congress applied. 85% of the awardees
00:33:12 from that grant went to performance contracting. So we believe in it. It is a win-win and we'd
00:33:20 like to see more of it. And do you have any estimates on how much money we're going to
00:33:25 be able to save the federal government by using performance contracting? And then also if you
00:33:31 could speak to what can be done through DOE to help states and municipalities? Yeah, well, I will
00:33:40 say the state energy offices we work with all the time and providing technical assistance as well as
00:33:46 grant funding. In terms of the actual percentage of what has been saved, I'm going to get back to
00:33:53 you on that or the percentage or the actual numbers because I don't have that in my notes here.
00:33:59 Great. Undersecretary Ruby, Russia is no longer participating in the New START treaty
00:34:06 and have been rattling sabers about their nuclear weapons during the war in Ukraine and also
00:34:16 the concern about weaponizing space with nuclear weapons. So can you talk about how we are talking
00:34:25 to our allies and partners about our own nuclear deterrent, how we are reassuring them that what
00:34:33 we're doing is safe? Yeah, thank you for this question. It is, you know, the approach that
00:34:41 we've taken in the Department of Energy and NNSA over this administration is since we're not talking
00:34:47 to our adversaries, let's double down on talking to our allies and partners. And we've done that.
00:34:51 We spent a lot of time in NATO and Asia with our partners around the world. And there is an
00:34:57 increased knowledge and an increased interest in everything that we're doing and our weapons
00:35:01 program and our nuclear deterrence program writ large, including our non-pro. And they are,
00:35:08 you know, the world is making huge, I mean, we're making huge contributions to Ukraine,
00:35:13 so is the rest of the world. Some of that we're doing in complete cooperation. Much of it we're
00:35:18 doing in complete cooperation to make sure we're covering the nuclear threat. And I would just say
00:35:25 that, you know, we have continued, this is not, this environment is creating a great deal of
00:35:32 cooperation. And we'll have a lot to do to continue to reassure. But at this point, I think
00:35:39 we've really increased our communication and there's much better understanding of nuclear
00:35:44 deterrence. I say the nuclear IQ is higher than it's been in a long time in both NATO and with our
00:35:50 allies in Asia. Well, one of those partnerships is around AUKUS with Australia and the United
00:35:58 Kingdom. How is NNSA involved in the nuclear technology that's going to be critical to AUKUS?
00:36:09 In two different ways. So in the NNSA, we do have an element of naval reactors. The naval
00:36:17 reactors has a DOD part and a DOE part. We in the NNSA operate laboratories that design fuels for
00:36:26 reactors. And the way the AUKUS agreement will work is the, those submarines that will be provided
00:36:34 to Australia will have a completely sealed nuclear reactor. The materials will not be able to be
00:36:42 removed. It'll be, you know, the same, have the performance like our reactors, completely sealed,
00:36:50 very good reactors, very good for non-proliferation. We also have a significant effort in our
00:36:56 non-proliferation element where we're working with Australia and the IAEA to make sure that all of
00:37:04 the systems are in place to assure the world that there's no diversion of nuclear material as a
00:37:11 result of AUKUS. Thank you. Thank you both. Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
00:37:16 Secretaries, thank you for being here, your leadership. Secretary Granholm, it's kind of
00:37:22 fortuitous that we're having this hearing today because in Energy and Natural Resources Committee
00:37:27 yesterday, we had a hearing on the rising energy demand and what it means as we see greater needs
00:37:35 across all sectors for increased energy and the fact that it just takes too darn long to
00:37:40 complete energy projects in this country, how we bring them online and kind of this mismatch.
00:37:45 It is something that I look at and if we are not more cognizant of the vulnerabilities that we have
00:37:57 right now, we're talking a lot about bringing on intermittent sources of power, but baseload
00:38:03 is where it counts. Baseload is where it counts and this is why I've been pressing you and the
00:38:08 folks on your team on the geothermal space. I think we've just got so much more room to run
00:38:14 there. Hydro, we've got so many of our hydro facilities that are up for relicensing in this
00:38:22 next handful of years and the relicensing process takes 10 years and millions and millions of
00:38:29 dollars, so I'm looking at this gap coming at us and we want to build chips facilities, we want to
00:38:35 have data servers everywhere. One project, one training facility on our military base in Anchorage
00:38:45 at JBEAR, one training facility is going to increase their energy consumption on JBEAR by 50
00:38:51 and it's the number one unfunded priority that we have right now within PACAV. So we're going to do
00:39:01 it, but where are we going to get the resources from? And as I have shared with you, we've got a
00:39:06 decline in our natural gas reserves in Cook Inlet, so I'll be damned if we're really going to import
00:39:16 LNG from Canada, but that's where things are trending right now. So I'm looking at the timing
00:39:23 of all of this and I want to push you and I need your team to be working with us. You've got this
00:39:28 great commercialization liftoff for geothermal. We want to know where the barriers are, what we need
00:39:34 to be doing to move forward on some of these pilot projects, the research, everything that we can do
00:39:40 to work with you to advance that, know that we are in that with you. I want to use my time on two
00:39:48 questions. One is critical minerals and the other one, very quickly, is on fuel tanks.
00:39:53 Fuel tanks. On the critical minerals, I do thank you for going back and looking at the authorities
00:40:03 for your support for mineral projects through the loan program office. You went back, you took a
00:40:08 look at it, re-evaluated the department's position, and I think it's going to be important.
00:40:12 I'm hoping that you'll be able to provide the committee or some of us with the process on
00:40:20 financial assistance for critical minerals and mine projects. Do the parties need to reach out
00:40:27 to DOE? Is there a point of contact that we can direct people to? Are there certain minerals that
00:40:32 you're looking to prioritize? Kind of help us through this in terms of what some of the
00:40:37 conditions of the loan may be. So I'd like some information on that. And then, just as a point
00:40:45 of curiosity, I read last week that DOD had funded two Canadian mineral projects. One is $6.5 million,
00:40:54 the other is about $8.5 million. The Canadian government provided $9.2 million, so we're right
00:40:59 in there with them. But in an interview, the Canadian energy minister stated that the funding
00:41:04 from the DOD grants are, quote, "no strings attached." Do you have, within DOE, any grants to
00:41:13 mineral companies in the U.S. that have no strings attached? Because if that's the case, we've got a
00:41:18 lot of people in line for that. I'm not sure. I haven't read that, and I'm not familiar with the
00:41:24 DOD process. There's usually strings attached, as you know. There's certainly a regulatory environment
00:41:31 that we have to be cognizant of, etc. So I'm not sure if he was just being colloquial or if there's...
00:41:36 Let's follow up with this, if we can. I'm doing a lot of talking, not giving you a chance to
00:41:40 answer, but I want to leave you with this. In so many of our small rural communities, their power
00:41:47 is diesel generation. We want to get them off it. They're doing everything that they can to move
00:41:53 towards their own little microgrid, whether it's a little bit of wind, a little bit of solar,
00:41:58 whether it's run of river. They're working hard to get off that.
00:42:06 But every one of these is going to need their backup generator. And so we're never going to
00:42:12 be able to get rid of the need for that fuel. Our problem right now is they store the fuel
00:42:18 in these fuel storage tanks, these bulk facilities. There's about a $1.5 billion
00:42:25 in deferred maintenance issue for over 200 bulk fuel farms throughout rural Alaska. And when I
00:42:33 say farms, I mean I'm talking like a couple tanks. We're not talking big things. But we've been
00:42:39 working through the Denali Commission. We've got a couple million a year to allocate to
00:42:46 these projects. But we've reached out to you at DOE. We're told that you're not aware of any
00:42:51 grant programs that are available to tribes in rural areas to address this. But it seems to me
00:42:57 that this should be something where the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management or the
00:43:01 Office of Indian Energy or the Arctic Energy Office should be able to address this. So I'm
00:43:07 using a little bit of my time to raise this as an issue with you. We're trying to work it. We need
00:43:13 some help with your teams to identify how we can address a problem. And I think it's not just
00:43:19 unique to us. I'm looking at my friend from New Mexico there, and I think it's probably something
00:43:23 that you face as well. Well, I look forward to working with you all on it. If there's no direct
00:43:28 authorities right now, perhaps there's some that we can create. And I will be following up with you
00:43:35 on the other issues that we've discussed because I have some answers. Thank you. Senator Heinrich.
00:43:40 Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Granholm, you actually joined me to see the very first wind
00:43:46 towers coming off the line at Arcos's manufacturing plant in Belen, New Mexico. And that's a great
00:43:53 example of how the Inflation Reduction Act is literally bringing manufacturing back to the
00:44:00 United States. And I believe that we now need to do the same for components of our power grid,
00:44:06 things like transformers. Can you talk a little bit about how your budget request of $113 million
00:44:12 for the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains can help ensure that we have
00:44:17 American-made grid components? Yeah. I mean, we're doing a number of things on this. First,
00:44:22 we – and thank you for your leadership on it because we know that we may need some additional
00:44:30 support for it. Our Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, as an example,
00:44:35 did this with heat pumps through the Defense Production Act and was able to essentially seed
00:44:42 domestic industry growth here. And we'd like to do the same with grid components,
00:44:48 particularly transformers. I will say, though, that 48C gave us an opportunity to fund six
00:44:55 grid transformer manufacturers in this country. So there will be that expansion because that was a
00:45:02 bottleneck as we try to get full supply chains back here. 48C has a wide scope, so we're excited
00:45:09 about that. To the extent that we can work on other mechanisms to be able to enhance
00:45:15 manufacturing in the U.S., we'd be excited to do that and excited to work with you on it.
00:45:19 Great. Yeah, I think transformers are a real, as you know, bottleneck right now and something we
00:45:27 should be making here for our own security. Administrator Ruby, I understand that Los
00:45:33 Alamos National Laboratory will need more power than its existing power lines can handle by as
00:45:38 soon as potentially 2027. And to address that, NNSA decided that building a new transmission
00:45:46 line was going to be necessary. Now, I know when NNSA first looked at this, energized
00:45:52 reconductoring felt like a little bit of a stretch, but we've seen enormous progress since then.
00:45:57 Is energized reconductoring something you'd be willing to evaluate to meet LNL's power needs?
00:46:02 Yeah, thanks, Senator Heinrich. The answer is yes. We have to, of course, this is a big process
00:46:11 of making sure that we're working with all the stakeholders in New Mexico. The first time we
00:46:18 looked at reconductoring, it actually required larger areas to set it up that the tribes were
00:46:30 worried about, sensitive. So we just need to, there has been a lot of progress made in the two
00:46:35 years since we last looked at that. And we will have another look to see if anything significant
00:46:41 has changed. Meanwhile, we'll in parallel move along because as you mentioned, 2027 is not that
00:46:49 far and we want to continue to do this. So we'll keep the process moving that we have right now,
00:46:55 the NEPA process, but we'll take another look at reconductoring. I think it makes sense.
00:47:00 I appreciate that. And I've heard concerns from the tribes about the current proposal as well.
00:47:06 So I just think we need to evaluate all our options here. Administrator Ruby, during my
00:47:12 tenure in Congress, I've worked really hard to nearly double the budget at Los Alamos National
00:47:18 Lab. But as you know, with that growth comes a lot of growing pains and particularly in housing.
00:47:24 What can we do to make sure that we're addressing the housing challenges that
00:47:30 face Los Alamos in particular? Yeah. Senator Heinrich, this is a good question.
00:47:36 For those of you who know Los Alamos, its land is limited on the Mesa and housing is expensive
00:47:47 and in high demand. So we've done a couple of things. We probably need to do more, but we've
00:47:54 opened an office in Santa Fe so that people who aren't working in the labs that are working at
00:47:59 offices can be closer to other housing, not in Santa Fe, but also a broader region.
00:48:06 We've also looked at options on the other side of the lab to see if there are some things that
00:48:13 we could do to open office spaces on the north side. And that's still being evaluated. We've
00:48:23 offered housing assistance to the temporary workers, construction workers in the area,
00:48:30 so that we can get them there to work on in particular the plutonium facility. So I think
00:48:39 we've addressed this in a few ways. We can't create more land on the Mesa. So we're looking
00:48:46 at, we're thinking, we're trying to be creative about the options that we can provide. Great.
00:48:51 Thank you. Senator Coons. Thank you, Chair Murray, and thank you both to our witnesses today for
00:48:58 your leadership in America's energy security and for delivering on the promise of landmark
00:49:04 legislation, the Chips and Science Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, the bipartisan
00:49:08 infrastructure law. You are really delivering a next generation energy future for America.
00:49:13 And since the last time we held this budget hearing, Delaware and the mid-Atlantic region
00:49:18 have been selected for one of the hydrogen hubs, which has potential to be transformational for
00:49:24 my region and to give it an opportunity to really participate in the hydrogen economy of the future.
00:49:30 We have several iconic Delaware companies that are at the leading edge of electrolyzer technology.
00:49:36 We have three oil refineries at the head of the Delaware Bay in three states that are committed
00:49:41 to a transformation towards hydrogen production and deployment if we can get this right.
00:49:47 Madam Secretary, how are you making sure that each of the hubs gets the support and the flexibility
00:49:54 they need to achieve liftoff? I'm concerned about flexible matching requirements
00:49:59 in particular so that we can not just put out a big grant announcement, but actually
00:50:04 strike the right balance between private sector partners, public sector investment,
00:50:09 and getting hydrogen secured as a next generation fuel.
00:50:14 Yeah, this is such an important issue. We want these hubs to succeed and we know we have to
00:50:19 carve this with a scalpel and not with an axe. The 45V requirements I know have been put out.
00:50:29 We have received 20 or 30,000 comments from stakeholders on all sides and Treasury. And
00:50:38 with the assistance of DOE, we are wading through the comments to make sure that we get it right.
00:50:44 Suffice it to say, the Biden administration is deeply invested in making a hydrogen
00:50:49 economy successful in this country. We are, I can tell you, in meeting with all of my
00:50:55 counterparts across the world, we are really the envy of the world because we have such
00:51:00 a diverse array of hydrogen of inputs for these hydrogen hubs.
00:51:04 So we are looking at it, we're evaluating, and we want to get it right.
00:51:10 Thank you. I just, in our particular case, I worry about a cash flow crunch in terms of
00:51:15 what's the timing of the matching requirements. And I want to make sure we get this right. And
00:51:20 I very much look forward to working with you on that.
00:51:23 Chips and Science also helped authorize a new foundation for your department, FESI,
00:51:28 the Foundation for Energy Security and Innovation, which is a tool many other federal agencies and
00:51:34 entities have used to attract and deploy private sector funding. In fact, I was thrilled that,
00:51:40 in part because of funding from this subcommittee, there was the announcement of the inaugural
00:51:44 board of directors a few weeks ago. What are the key challenges facing the Department of Energy
00:51:50 that you think would benefit from public-private partnership from philanthropic capital and
00:51:55 coordination? Yeah, thank you so much. First of all, thank you for your leadership on this. I
00:51:59 know this has been in the works for a long time. A long time. And there was such a sense of
00:52:04 joy when we finally announced the board members and it was funded to be able to get it launched.
00:52:10 I know the board is, it's a mixture of people with a variety of talents, and so they're interested
00:52:16 in the spectrum of things that they might be helpful on. But I do know there is a wealth of
00:52:21 opportunity in the space of taking ideas from labs to commercialization. And so helping those and
00:52:28 getting a sense of the spectrum from all of the various labs. I mean, there's just so, it's so
00:52:34 rich in that environment. They're very interested in leaning in on that. So I think that is a very
00:52:40 big way they can help. See, there's one other way that's not so technically involved, which is
00:52:45 to help us think through and maybe help to supply technical assistance to, for example, tribes
00:52:53 and other areas, rural areas where the region might not, just don't, doesn't have, is not equipped
00:52:59 to be able to navigate the bureaucracy of the federal government to apply for a grant or a loan.
00:53:05 So those kinds of things, they're looking at the vast array of it, but thank you so much for giving
00:53:10 us this assist at the department, even though it's totally independent and bipartisan. It'll be a
00:53:15 great assist to future, to the department going well into the future. My most bipartisan bill
00:53:21 in this area is the Prove It Act with Senator Kramer that has 14 bipartisan co-sponsors and
00:53:27 it just advanced out of EPW, I think by a vote of 14 to five in January. And NETL, the whole suite
00:53:36 of national labs will be critical to gathering data about emissions intensity. Any thoughts you
00:53:43 want to share about what resources you might need as a department? Obviously commerce, USTR, state,
00:53:49 EPA, there'd be a whole range of participants, but it would really be DOE led. Any thoughts about
00:53:55 what actually gathering emissions intensity data to advance industrial decarbonization might look
00:54:02 like for the department? Well, I hope the authorizers and the appropriators come together
00:54:06 on providing some resources to make this happen. But the bottom line is, I think it's an incredibly
00:54:11 important bill for our competitive advantage. If we're manufacturing products, we need to know
00:54:16 what that footprint looks like. And this is one way to be able to keep, to do that and to keep it
00:54:21 updated. So thank you for your leadership on it. I can see why it's so overwhelmingly supported.
00:54:25 And I'm simply going to reinforce what two of my colleagues said, the transformer,
00:54:30 the domestic transformer manufacturing bottleneck is something I hear about constantly from the
00:54:34 Delaware Electric Co-op. And Senator Shaheen's been a leader as long as I've been here on
00:54:40 performance contracting and energy efficiency. And in my previous role on FSGG, I tried to give
00:54:46 some lift to performance contracting, anything I could do to be helpful. I'd like to thank you for
00:54:51 your forbearance, Madam Chair. Yes. Senator Heinrich, do you have
00:54:54 additional questions? Sure. Thank you. Secretary Granholm,
00:54:59 New Mexico is well poised to be a top geothermal energy producer, something that's getting a lot
00:55:06 more attention now. I think, I wish we had been sort of further along the trajectory of understanding
00:55:15 just how close we are to advanced geothermal productivity in this country when we passed
00:55:20 the Inflation Reduction Act. In New Mexico, we've got not only the resources, but the skilled
00:55:25 workers from the oil and gas industry, very similar skill set. We've got Sandia's geothermal
00:55:31 research program backing us up. And your department estimates that new geothermal technology could
00:55:37 give us as much as 90 gigawatts of clean energy by 2050. So one of the things I'm doing is pushing
00:55:44 for a $125 million carve out to start funding demonstration projects for advanced geothermal
00:55:51 technology. Can you talk a little bit about how this investment could help DOE reach its
00:55:57 goals for advanced geothermal and just the state of the technology right now? Because
00:56:01 I don't think people understand, like, we're on the verge of something really, really big here.
00:56:08 Yeah, it's amazing. And thank you for looking at that. I agree that if we had, you know,
00:56:14 been more expansive in the Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law,
00:56:17 we might have been able to address this. But thank you for considering plussing up
00:56:22 our efforts in geothermal. If we do that, we will be able to prove out that you can have
00:56:28 geothermal in a variety of geologies, in a variety of locations, even where the resource is deeper
00:56:35 into the surface because of the advances made in hydraulic fracturing technology from the oil
00:56:41 and gas industry. This is why, speaking of bipartisanship, this is such a bipartisan,
00:56:46 I think, the notion of geothermal is a very bipartisan issue. And I'm hopeful that we can
00:56:53 do that. So we've done this enhanced geothermal liftoff report, as you noted. It has identified
00:56:58 specific barriers that we're breaking down. But honestly, so many of those barriers now end up
00:57:05 being market barriers, et cetera, because the technology barriers through efforts like Fervo
00:57:11 and others, they are breaking down. And the tech world is reaching out to these companies that are
00:57:18 doing this enhanced because they would like to see data centers paired with geothermal to get
00:57:22 that firm baseload power, which we are very encouraging of. So we're excited about the
00:57:28 potential breakthroughs. I just want to see the funding commensurate with the potential.
00:57:32 And so thank you for your leadership on it.
00:57:34 [Mr. Lankford] Absolutely. Because I think we've known for a long time,
00:57:37 or for a substantial amount of time, how to decarbonize the first 80 percent of the power
00:57:44 sector. It's that last 20 percent that has been so elusive. And now we have technology that works,
00:57:50 and we just need to bring it down the cost curve. And there's no doubt in my mind that this is
00:57:56 another distributed technology that can be brought down the cost curve.
00:58:00 Department of Energy recently announced a major proposal to perform groundbreaking work at the
00:58:08 intersection of artificial intelligence, science, energy, national security. Can you talk a little
00:58:14 bit about how the national labs, Los Alamos, India, and others will be incorporated into that project?
00:58:20 [Ms. Bair] Yeah. And feel free to toss to Administrator Ruby as well. But
00:58:27 the President's executive order on AI has unleashed a whole swath of activity across agencies.
00:58:37 Obviously, because of the national labs, we are the places where we do have those exascale
00:58:42 computers and where the tools for leading in AI exist. The President's executive order set forth
00:58:50 deadlines, shot clocks, et cetera. We've been meeting all of them. One of the important ones
00:58:54 is to be able to train up 500 AI researchers and scientists. And that is going to be critical
00:59:01 for not just the federal government, but across the span of things.
00:59:06 We're concerned on the plus side of AI of having enough power. But we think that AI can help to
00:59:13 solve some of that, because AI can teach us how to be more efficient as well. And in fact, I think
00:59:17 NVIDIA just announced that they have halved the energy use of their chips, which is great. But
00:59:24 there's still more that needs to be done on that. And we're also concerned about the negative uses
00:59:29 of AI as well. Let me just toss it over to Administrator Rudy.
00:59:33 [Mr. Rudy] I love when it gets negative. So just to pick up on that, we are another role that the
00:59:41 department has, and NNSA in particular has, is red teaming AI models and looking for issues that
00:59:51 our adversaries might use. And we are really like, we need the computers, we need the models,
00:59:59 and we need to do good things with them. And we need to make sure nobody else is taking advantage
01:00:05 of finding information. So we are really well along in that in NNSA, and that's an important
01:00:12 role that we'll play. [Mr. Chaffetz]
01:00:14 Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. [Ms. Buerkle]
01:00:18 Senator Coons, did you have any additional questions? Thank you. I'll turn it to Senator
01:00:22 Hoeven in just a second. But while he's getting settled, I just wanted to follow up on what
01:00:27 Senator Coons talked about on the hydrogen hubs. Pacific Northwest was selected for a billion
01:00:32 dollar award, along with the six other sites. The Treasury Department's proposed 45(v) rulemaking
01:00:39 has thrown up some really big roadblocks. And all seven of the hydrogen hubs have now made it clear
01:00:44 that those rules need revisions for them to work. Major companies in this space have already
01:00:50 announced that they're going to pull back hydrogen investments unless there are changes. You're not
01:00:55 in charge of Treasury, but their final rule will affect the success of these hydrogen hubs.
01:01:02 And I wanted to ask you, are you working with the administration to make sure that the final
01:01:06 45(v) rule helps rather than hinders in this process? [Ms. Coons]
01:01:11 Yes, we are. [Ms. Buerkle]
01:01:15 Okay. [Ms. Coons]
01:01:15 Very important. I mean, your point is super important. And that's why those 20,000 comments
01:01:21 that we received, they are painstakingly being reviewed, and we just got to make sure these work.
01:01:26 [Ms. Buerkle] Yeah, we do. Okay. Thank you.
01:01:28 Senator Hoeven. [Sen. Hoeven]
01:01:32 Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary, good to see you. Thanks for being here.
01:01:36 I want to ask you about both the Clean Power Plan 2.0 and also MATS. And MATS particularly has
01:01:44 an impact on lignite coal more so than other types of coal. I think you're aware that. We've had you
01:01:50 out to North Dakota, so I know you know quite a bit about our industry. But the independent grid
01:01:55 operators, including PJM, Southwest Power Pool, which of course is we have both MISO and Southwest
01:02:03 Power Pool, and we supply power to about nine states out of North Dakota, coal-fired electric
01:02:09 power. But PJM, SPP, and ERCOT all have indicated that they think that these two rules are going to
01:02:17 be a huge problem in terms of keeping enough baseload for grid reliability. And I have full
01:02:25 letters from all three of them, Madam Chairman, I'd ask to be made part of the record.
01:02:29 [Ms. Warren] Without objection.
01:02:30 [Sen. Hoeven] Expressing those concerns regarding these two EPA rules as promulgated by EPA.
01:02:37 So, you know, we're going to need some help here. As you know, we're leading the way on
01:02:45 these carbon capture, both for coal gasification, which is already in place, but also for carbon
01:02:52 capture on coal-fired electric plants, both on the RUS side, the co-op side, and on the private
01:02:59 industrial side. But with these rules, we're not going to get there. And you've got hundreds of
01:03:04 millions invested with us in these projects. [Ms. Warren]
01:03:10 I respectfully disagree that we're not going to get there. In fact, when the EPA put out its
01:03:15 proposed rule, it took in feedback, listened to the concerns of the power authorities, and pushed
01:03:23 back the date by which coal plants, existing coal plants, would have to install carbon capture
01:03:29 equipment. The question is, is it technologically feasible? You have proved out that it is
01:03:34 technologically feasible. And we have financing mechanisms to help fund the installation.
01:03:42 So we think it is, it's not just think. We have done this analysis with them. We have an MOU
01:03:47 with the EPA. And we think that, you know, I understand people being worried about it. But
01:03:53 by, you know, in the 2030s, it will be, people will see that it's doable. And you guys have
01:04:00 been the example of how that's possible. [Mr. Lankford]
01:04:03 We're doing it both for geologic storage now and EOR, both. And these projects now are coming
01:04:10 online. So we're, now I've already talked to EPA Administrator Michael Regan about coming out. And
01:04:15 I'm going to bring him out, as long as he agrees to come, to the EERC, where you've already visited.
01:04:19 [Ms. Schapiro] Yeah.
01:04:19 [Mr. Lankford] And I know, or I believe it was beneficial for you. I think it will be helpful
01:04:23 to him. But he needs to talk to our experts about how we are going to address these rules. And we're
01:04:28 going to need flexibility under these rules if we're going to be able to move forward. So I would
01:04:35 ask for your assistance, for Deputy Secretary Turk's assistance, for EPA assistance on this.
01:04:41 [Ms. Schapiro] Yeah. We've got the technology. We've got the ability. We can do this,
01:04:44 and we'd be happy to partner on it.
01:04:45 [Mr. Lankford] Let me also ask you about the cooperative agreements that relates to EERC.
01:04:49 They've had cooperative agreements with DOE since, I think, going back into the 1980s.
01:04:55 We need to renew that. As you know, they're not only doing all this work in the carbon capture
01:05:02 area, but they are the leader on the Headwaters Hydrogen Hub, which covers Minnesota, North Dakota,
01:05:09 South Dakota. So I'd like to ask that you would work with us to reauthorize it. It's up, I think,
01:05:16 next year. But it needs to be reauthorized. And they have ongoing projects. So we do need to
01:05:21 reauthorize our cooperative agreement. Now, the funding, of course, we do that separately. So
01:05:25 that doesn't guarantee them funding, right? We work on that through appropriations. But they have
01:05:30 to have the authorization to continue to work projects.
01:05:32 [Ms. Warren] So you know we love EERC, and they have been a partner with DOE for many, many years.
01:05:39 [Mr. Lankford] You can say that again if you want.
01:05:41 [Ms. Warren] That EERC, over the past few years, I think the past five years,
01:05:46 they've won nine competitive awards because they are so incredibly capable.
01:05:51 [Mr. Lankford] They're doing a lot of work.
01:05:51 [Ms. Warren] We are trying to move in the direction of more competitive relationships,
01:05:56 though.
01:05:56 [Mr. Lankford] I don't.
01:05:56 [Ms. Warren] And so --
01:05:57 [Mr. Lankford] Hence, I expressed the difference between authorization and the appropriation.
01:06:01 And that's very important because we need to keep those agreements. Now, whether you end up giving
01:06:05 them an award, we'll work with you on that. But they've got to have the underlying authorization
01:06:09 for continuity of projects. And then they compete with -- on the awards, just like anyone else.
01:06:14 [Ms. Warren] Yeah.
01:06:14 [Mr. Lankford] So that's why I'd ask for your help. And if you would direct the Deputy Secretary,
01:06:20 he's been very good working with us, but -- or authorize or support. But that's where we need
01:06:25 to get to. So if you have questions about that relative to the competitive aspect you all are
01:06:31 working on, I'm happy to work on that, but I need your help to work on it.
01:06:35 [Ms. Warren] Yeah. We will continue to work with you. But as you know, even on this committee,
01:06:43 there has been a push toward competition. And so we want to -- we love all of our masters.
01:06:49 [Mr. Lankford] Yeah. No, I understand.
01:06:50 [Ms. Warren] Yeah.
01:06:51 [Mr. Lankford] Could I ask one more question?
01:06:52 [Ms. Warren] Of course.
01:06:53 [Mr. Lankford] Madam Chair, and this is actually for Under Secretary Ruby,
01:06:59 the warheads for the Sentinel program, ICBM. As you know, the Sentinel is undergoing a McCurdy
01:07:09 review. And Air Force is working diligently on that. I've talked to them a lot about it.
01:07:14 But I want to make sure -- but it's not a technological issue. Mainly, they've got a
01:07:18 poor -- so darn much concrete that it's just a construction issue. It's like building the
01:07:25 interstate system again in some respects for a lot of that area. Are you staying on track and on top
01:07:33 of what you have to do both for Sentinel and for the LRSO, the cruise missile warhead, the two
01:07:43 different warheads?
01:07:44 [Ms. Warren] Yeah. Thank you for that question. Yeah, the Sentinel warhead, we call the W87-1.
01:07:49 And we're just -- as NAMA-CURDY is proceeding, we're proceeding with the W87-1 warhead on the
01:07:57 schedule that we currently have. We're asked to be an observer of the NAMA-CURDY process. So we
01:08:08 stay well aware of what's going on there. And when it's finished and there's a decision made,
01:08:13 then we'll make sure we sync up our timelines again. It's important for us that we have a
01:08:18 flight test for our warhead development program. So that will be where we have to -- that's the
01:08:22 particular point where we really want to make sure we stay synced up. On the 80-4, we're well aligned
01:08:29 and it's pretty far along in its development. And we'll be making a lot of W80-4s to put on
01:08:38 the standoff weapon before long.
01:08:41 [Mr. Lynch] Yeah, incredibly important at this time with what's going on in China and Russia.
01:08:45 [Ms. Warren] It is. Yeah.
01:08:46 [Mr. Lynch] So thank you for that.
01:08:46 [Ms. Warren] Thank you.
01:08:47 [Mr. Lynch] Thank you, Madam Chair.
01:08:48 [Ms. Warren] Thank you. That will end our hearing today. And I want to thank our witnesses and my
01:08:51 colleagues for participating. I look forward to working together on this year's appropriation
01:08:57 bill to make sure we are providing the Department of Energy with the resources they need.
01:09:01 I will keep the hearing record open for one week. Committee members who want to submit written
01:09:06 questions for the record should do so by 5 p.m., Wednesday, May 29th. We appreciate the Department
01:09:12 of Energy to responding to them in a reasonable period of time. We stand adjourned.
01:09:17 [BLANK_AUDIO]
Recommended
5:01
|
Up next
1:41