for the upcoming fiscal year, a testimony from the secretary, jennifer granholm, live coverage here on c-span3. >> the chair will recognize himself for a five-minute opening statement. welcome to the hearing to review the department of energy performance and fulfillment of the statutory responsibilities and to examine the department's fiscal year 2025 budget request to congress. welcome back to the committee, secretary granholm. the department of energy has national security responsibilities to protect energy security and oversee the nation's nuclear weapons program. they conduct an overseas taxpayer-funded research and

development, providing loans and grants to help commercialize energy-related technologies. these hearings are essential to ensure that the department is taking to its core mission and is a responsible steward of taxpayer resources. these hearings are essential. members will also have an opportunity to examine the department of energy's expanded budget request as this year they are requesting $51.4 billion. since fiscal year 2021, the budget has increased by about $12 billion, about 30% increase. after three years of president biden, american people -- administration light up session to transition everyone away from fossil fuels is training household budgets. putting the american dream further and further out of reach for many struggling families inflation is out of

control. skyhigh energy prices and persistent supply-chain shortages are impacting our economy and our safety. from groceries to electric bills, everything costs more under the energy policies of president biden. americans expect that, when we flip the switch or turn the key, power comes on immediately. if you want to build a home or expand a business, we expect infrastructure can be built quickly and predictably. regrettably, the president biden supply-chain shortages and price hikes have crippled our economic growth and made it more difficult to build out new infrastructure. the department of energy has played a role in the energy price spikes and persistent supply-chain shortages. they have mismanaged our strategic petroleum reserves, draining the stockpile to its lowest level in the nation's history with no credible plan to replenish it and no plan to increase domestic energy production. the doe has turned a blind eye to punitive epa regulations that have forced the premature

retirement of our most affordable and reliable coal, gas, nuclear power plants and threaten the reliability and stability of our electric grid. they have pursued a radical climate agenda to impose new federal regulations for household appliances, electrical equipment, construction, and natural gas usage. they also recently imposed a ban on the issuance of new export permits, apolitical reward for the keep it in the ground climate activists in an election year. as the committee learned during a field hearing, in port arthur, texas, the band has created hardships and pain for thousands of workers and families along the gulf coast. it has made us less secure as a nation. democrats radical transition plans and the department of energy's refusal to accept and address threats facing our energy systems has required congress to act. under the republican majority, the house has passed a bipartisan legislation to reign in the department of energy and

the biden administration. at the beginning of this congress, we passed a bill to modernize our energy infrastructure. in the months that followed, we passed bills to reverse punitive regulations and policy decisions that the secretary of energy has signed off on. we passed legislation to reverse the ban on gas stoves and prevent doe from draining our strategic petroleum stockpile and selling it to china. and to reverse the moratorium on new export permits. today's hearing we will allow the secretary energy to answer for the biden administration's role in american industry and state and the pivotal time in our nations history and the decisions that are made today will impact our kids and grandkids for generations. we have a simple choice, embrace america's energy abundance and submit our position as the world's number one energy superpower or follow the biden administration's plan to rely china for batteries, solar panels, electric cars made with slave labor and

environmental abuses. as it has been said in this committee before, i believe we need an american energy expansion and not an energy transition to china. critical part of his energy expansion is nuclear energy. i am pleased with this administration's dedication to expanding nuclear energy and i look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in congress and the biden administration on advancing that goal. i look forward to the hearing today and i will yield my time back and recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee for five minutes. >> thank you and good morning, secretary granholm, great having you with us i want to commend you and your agency for the critical work you have been doing to help combat the climate crisis and to support our efforts to speed our transition to renewable energy. as i have said countless times, the climate crisis is truly an existential threat to the future of this planet and we have to start addressing it right away. we know the only way to do it

is by significantly cutting our greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as we can while preserving our economy and our way of life. but, to do that, we have to start the transition to clean energy right now. breaking our reliance on fossil fuels will not only help us stave off the worst effects of the climate crisis, but it will also protect consumers across the country from sudden increases in energy costs and it will make sure that all americans have access to the reliable energy that they need. i appreciate your leadership and i appreciate the hard work of the department of energy employees, in implementing three historic bills that are cutting costs to working families, creating new jobs, and addressing the climate crisis. the infrastructure investment and jobs act provided $1.2 trillion to our nation's infrastructure, the inflation reduction act invested $369 billion in clean

american energy leadership and addressing greenhouse gas pollution while the chips and signs to boost the domestic research and manufacturing right here in the united states. the department of energy proposed fiscal year 2025 budget complements and builds upon those efforts and pushes us closer to achieving net zero admissions and a clean energy future. by increasing funding for the research project and initiatives , and continuing to focus on supply-chain development and workforce, the department is helping us create a cleaner and more diverse energy portfolio here in the united states. the agency's plans to invest $18.1 billion for energy programs, including $8.6 billion for science will help advance the research and development and demonstration of clean energy technologies and support the work that is being done by our national laboratories no doubt

we still have a long way to go in completing this clean energy transition, the investments that will be made under the budget will provide critical support to this incredibly important endeavor. for example, it would provide $180 million for the office of clean energy demonstrations to support large industrial decarbonization projects. it includes $1.6 billion to support the clean energy workforce and help fund the infrastructure projects across the nation. including millions of dollars to help low income communities weatherize and retrofit their homes to lower energy costs for families that have been forced to disproportionally bear the brunt of this climate crisis. each one of these proposals will play a critical role in helping us to control the climate crisis. they will also help us not only stabilize the cost of energy at home, but will help lower the cost of energy for many americans by making critical

new investments to increase energy efficiency and drive the innovation of new, clean energy technologies. the budget makes common sense investments in cyber and energy system security . i note that is important to the chairman and myself, and environmental health and management for low income communities, including $142 million for the energy information agency whose work provides critical energy information and data that involves our work. and it includes $149 billion -- sorry, million dollars for the doe office of the inspector general to make sure that taxpayer funds are being used efficiently and effectively. i believe that the budget will further support the work d.o.e. has been doing to make united states a leader in the clean energy transition and i once again want to thank you, madam secretary, for being here today. mr. chairman, the majority hearing memo had a number of errors when it came to stating components of the fiscal year

2025 budget request. in one situation, it misstated the total amount spent on energy programs by $9 billion. you can see it is a lot of little type and numbers. because i want to make sure that the record is -- it is the record of his hearing, i want to make sure it reflects reality i would ask unanimous consent to insert the budget estimate by the d.o.e. into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> with that i yield back >> i recognize the chair, ms. rodgers . >> welcome back. today is an opportunity to discuss the president's budget and priorities for the department of energy. this committee plays a critical role in ensuring u.s. energy security and leadership. for decades, america has led the way and harness the power of nuclear energy, electrified

many of rural americans homes with clean hydropower and ushered in the shale revolution. creating millions of new jobs and powering economic prosperity. america was able to achieve this through free-market principles, entrepreneurship, giving people the opportunity to choose which energy sources best suit their needs. energy and commerce republicans have been working to protect and expand this legacy for generations to come. the biden administration seems to be dismantling that legacy. this administration's policies put america on a dangerous path that harms our security and gives our adversaries like china control over our energy supply chains. this administration has consistently sought to prevent or slow the development of american oil and gas resources which are critical to our own energy security and the security of our allies. d.o.e. has been complicit in these actions with the effective ban on new lng exports american

lng has been a lifeline , especially to our european allies since russia invaded ukraine. the aftermath of this invasion, american lng helped them reduce their natural gas crisis by over 83% and reduce their dependence on russia, this ban is a signal to our allies that we are no longer a dependable energy partner. we find this unacceptable. another example is the recent decision to limit energy development in more than half the national petroleum reserve in alaska. doubling down on policies to restrict oil and gas, to retire baseload power generation, and promote widespread and unaffordable and unreliable electrification is not how we secure our energy future. unfortunately, as americans that are feeling the impact of this radical rush to a green agenda, president biden took

office, since then, electricity prices have risen some 30%. almost 50% more than overall inflation. unilateral actions like these taken by the administration continue to drive out affordable , reliable baseload generation needed to keep prices low to keep the lights on, grid operators and others have been sounding the alarm for years, warning that the u.s. is on a dangerous and unsustainable pathway, continuing down this pathway will mean higher energy prices and more catastrophic blackouts across the country. like what is already happening in places like california. as the head of d.o.e. -- it is your responsibility to ensure american energy security and leadership. yet, this department continues to stand by and watch as epa imposes requirements that harm our ability to generate reliable power.

is the department ceding its energy and great expertise to the epa? epa policies, like the new particulate matter standards, will make permitting new manufacturing in industry almost impossible. impossible. in large regions across the country. i would like to understand why d.o.e. things we can succeed under these types of anti- manufacturing, anti-american policies which are undermining the very manufacturing programs d.o.e. supports to help restore american leadership in critical energy materials and reduce our reliance on china. instead of undermining american energy and economic success, let's work together to build on our remarkable legacy which has transformed the human condition , lifted people out of poverty, raise the standard of living more than any other nation in the world. and the best way to do this is with a strong energy mix that

takes advantage of the resources we have here at home or cost for americans, preventing us from being reliant on china. this administration's transition believe our economy dangerously dependent upon supply chains controlled by china and make energy less affordable, less reliable, for americans. i believe the department of energy serves a critical role in assuring sound energy policies and providing the support necessary for innovation to flourish. that is the goal today. i look forward to the department of energy stepping up so that we can accomplish that goal. i yield back. >> the chair will recognize the ranking member of the full committee -- as a side note, we lost a colleague, and i thought the comments on the floor the other day were apropos and i appreciate that.

>> i will remind my colleagues, if you want to go to the funeral for donald payne, there is a plane on thursday going that will come back the same day. great to have you before the energy subcommittee. i disagree with the chair in a general sense i do believe you and this administration have done more to achieve energy independence than anyone else since i have been here. if you look at the record, the fact of the matter is, this president and you have encouraged energy independence by actually increasing the amount of oil and natural gas that is produced here. when you talk about lng , for

the record, the reality is, although we have this public interest review that is being -- that you are conducting, the fact is, there are more lng exports than ever before. anything permitted already is already in the pipeline, and the pipeline is being produced constantly to our allies in europe have enough lng for the next five years . this administration and i take the position that, why we prioritize clean energy and move towards clean energy and renewables, that doesn't mean we are not producing more oil and natural gas, it does not mean we are not exporting more lng , it does not mean we are also trying to increase nuclear output and new nuclear plants.

i think the energy mix that the chair talked about is exactly what you have been trying to do, all of the above. energy mix to achieve energy independence. we are more independent today than we have ever been in any other previous administration. it is exciting to see the hard work pay off from both the bipartisan infrastructure law and inflation reduction act. these laws are expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the united states to 40% below 2005 levels by 2030 and these two laws are modernizing our economy for the future and cutting costs to working families, advancing clean energy projects across the country, and tackling the climate crisis while we try to reduce any dependence on china. and grow our manufacturing here. that d.o.e. is at the forefront of

implementing these laws and new analysis has come out almost every day since the inflation reduction act, companies have moved over 500 clean energy projects leading to over 271,000 new jobs already. i am also pleased that the biden administration, unlike the trump administration, is finalizing energy efficiency rules to help americans save money and reduce emissions. these recently finalized energy efficiency standards for residential refrigerators, freezers, will save families more than $36 million over 30 years while affording 101 million metric tons of carbon emissions. the committee republicans continue to target these standards, passing bills that are nothing more than gifts to corporate polluters. we may have one of these bills up as early as next week. it is a shame because people want more efficient appliances. they talk about freedom to have

whatever refrigerator you want, i think a freedom, our freedom is a democracy, not the freedom of a refrigerator. whatever. we are bolstering american manufacturing with massive investments in domestic manufacturing, but republicans continue to ignore the fact that other countries around the world, including china, are investing in clean energy and enjoying their ability to compete in the global market. out of secretary, we have seen investments over $120 million under your leadership, in battery manufacturing and supply chains. over $35 billion in electric vehicle assembly plants. these private sectors, essentially, the private sector is responding to action and it is great to see american companies leaving the transition to clean energy. what you are doing is working with the private sector, using these investments at the federal level to bring back manufacturing here. looking at this in terms of the

energy policy that makes us more independent, at the same time, you have to be conscious of the climate and the change that is happening and increasing greenhouse gases. we do have to prioritize clean energy and renewables, but not at the expense of the other things. i yield back. >> we will conclude with opening statements, the chair says, all members who make statements will be part of the record. out of secretary, we will thank you for being here. and taking time to testify. the secretary will give an opening statement and we will follow with questions from members. our witness today is the honorable jennifer granholm, secretary of energy of the united states department of energy. i recognize you for five minutes for the opening statement. >> thank you so much.

i am honored to be with you today to discuss president biden's latest budget request for the department of energy. three years ago i joined this administration leaving, if america came together around national energy strategy, we could restore manufacturing and create jobs, and address the climate crisis, and lead the world in clean energy. today, we are doing just that. america is back. thanks to congress's efforts and the president's vision, we are executing a focused, deliberate strategy that positions us to become energy independent and secure. this strategy positions our businesses to dominate, our workers to compete, and our communities to thrive. it is already working. since the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law, companies have announced more

than 600 new or expanded clean energy manufacturing plants on american soil. many of your states are included. nearly $200 billion in plant investment for batteries, electric vehicles, solar, wind, nuclear, and more. tens of thousands of jobs being created from colorado to california, from north carolina to new hampshire, washington to west virginia, and everywhere in between. thanks to the bipartisan infrastructure law and the inflation reduction act. sustaining that growth requires us to complement that historic funding with durable, long-term investments and the president's budget request for fiscal year 2025 will empower us to build on that progress our commercialization tools are giving american businesses the confidence they need to capitalize on this moment while deepening our energy security.

but, deepening our energy security is an ongoing project and we need to fund it year- over-year and that is why the budget calls for significant appropriations for our demonstration and climate programs, including our office of manufacturing and energy supply chains. and our grid deployment office. here, let me thank the chairwoman and this committee for its bipartisan efforts to ban the import of russian uranium. you should feel great about that. i know that the senate acted last night to pass your legislation and it is moving to the president's desk as we speak. that ban will allow the doe to build a more robust, domestic uranium industry through funds provided in the 2024 spending agreement. meanwhile, the department is making sure every community can benefit from reliable, affordable, clean energy and efficiency technologies and we are leveraging dedicated

funding from infrastructure law for our interagency working group on coal and powerplant communities. i have seen, firsthand, how this program gives communities the gift of rebirth. it instills pride for the workers who defined america's energy passed and will help our america -- future. this includes a $25 billion for additional -- the war in ukraine makes it paramount to our national defense and the security of our allies and that is why i want to thank congress for passing the supplemental appropriations bill last week. this bill also provides $149 million for the activities by the d.o.e. to reduce nuclear threats in ukraine and also includes $98 million to shore up supply chains of critical isotopes to

much of which our concentrated in russia. these investments make the united states and the world safer. the president has requested $8.2 billion for our office of environmental management which oversees the largest environmental cleanup program in the world. the 25 request will allow us to build on these results and deepen our engagement with local tribes and communities as they plan for the future of those sites and help us recruit and train a new cohort of legacy management workers and leaders. thank you to the bipartisan assistance we have received from congress. america is back. we are the envy of the world. but, we cannot afford to lose our momentum, and that depends on your continued support. thank you for the opportunity to address you today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for your testimony and we will move into the question and answer portion. i will begin recognizing myself to five minutes for questions.

there is no question united states is staring down on electric reliability crisis, commissioners and grid operators and state commissioners and reliability experts have all testified in this committee about the vulnerable state of our grid and the growing likelihood of blackouts. a commissioner said, "there will be in time a catastrophic reliability event." secretary granholm, do you share these concerns about the state of our grid reliability ? >> i definitely share the concern that the grid is not up to what it needs to be in order to allow us to continue to grow. we know that the man for energy is increasing and the grid is old, old, old. the polls and the wires and the transformers, they need to be replaced. it was built in the 1950s and 1960s in many places and we need to invest in upgrading the grid, and

expanding the grid. >> to do that, we will need to buy more in this country. critical mining for copper and other components the north american electric reliability corporation and the grid operators have warned about policies to transition americans away from fossil fuels prematurely retiring coal and natural gas power plants and canceling pipelines. your response with coordinate national energy policy, does the administration recognize the premature retirement of electric generation threatens this reliability of our grid? >> we want to make sure we manage this transition in a way that ensures that the power is on and we continue to move towards clean energy. it is critical that we continue to use the tools at our disposal . we just issued a grid liftoff report which describes some of the tools we have not had in the past to be able to ensure we can add capacity to our grid and harden it. for example, we conduct to put twice the power existing power lines or that we

use more grid enhancing technologies to smartly move power on the grid. or to use new opportunities, tools like virtual power plants to access additional power. in addition to the great opportunity that congress gave us in the inflation reduction act to incentivize additional generation of electricity. all of that is happening. we have managed increases in demand in the past and we can manage them going forward. to reliability means all the time power generation which you don't get from a lot of renewables the lack of pipeline capacity to energy constrained regions is also a grid reliability concern. the ceo of iso in new england testified that new england is in desperate need of more pipeline capacity even with growth and renewables. south carolina is facing the same issues, acp is canceled,

tremendous delays, secretary granholm , you have stated that pipelines are the safest way to transport fuels, whether gas or liquids, i agree with you, pipelines are critical for maintaining it energy reliability. do you agree that we need to build more pipelines in this country? >> in some places we will need to build new pipelines and we need to build new pipelines for hydrogen, for the movement of co2, as well as traditional energy. >> would you rather utilize natural gas from the permian basin or import lng from a foreign country? >> we don't need to import any natural gas, we have enough supply here. >> amen to that. that is why we need pipelines in new england, they are bringing in lng. thank you for your efforts on nuclear energy, reliable generation, and so happy that the chairwoman's bill got

passed by the senate yesterday and we look forward to the president deciding that this committee held a hearing on nuclear policy and one issue that came out was the loss of capacity and credibility of the spent fuel program after he dismantled the office dedicated spent fuel management about 14 years ago, the law requires d.o.e. to have a dedicated office to manage spent fuel and nuclear waste, which will help credibly addressed the federal government obligation to strengthen the public's confidence, will you look into resurrecting the office of civilian radioactive waste management to fulfill the statutory duty of d.o.e. under the nuclear policy ? waste policy act? >> i think our office of nuclear energy and office of environmental management both new aspects of that. we are interested in spent fuel use and wise storage of spent fuel. both of those are being addressed in those offices. >> thank you. i take it on a no as the

resurrection. a fuel management plan, that would be a good first step. i am finished with my questions and i now recognize the ranking member for her five minutes, degette. >> thank you. i want to talk about methane, reducing methane is probably the easiest and quickest opportunity our nation and world has to address what our planet is experiencing. i want to set the stage. is it true that methane is responsible for about one third of the current warming our planet is experiencing? >> yes. >> is it true that oil and natural gas operations are our nation's largest industrial source of methane? >> yes. >> in june of 2021, president abided signed a congressional review act validating the trump administration's 2020 methane

rescission would try to block the epa authority to regulate methane from existing sources. i was proud to lead this effort on the house side which reinstated two obama era methane emissions rules to set stricter limits on the amount of methane that the oil and gas industry can release from drilling sites. secretary, i would like to ask, the administration's rule addresses methane from new and existing oil and gas operations , is that right? >> yes >> why is it important to address existing sources of methane in the oil and gas industry? >> it is such a powerful greenhouse gas and we want to make sure -- in addition, it is waste. it should be captured and used as natural gas. it is wasteful and it contributes to greenhouse gases. it is the lowest hanging fruit for how we can address climate change. >> right.

i talk to the oil and gas companies, the responsible ones, they say, if we can capture the methane, we can make a profit, why should we let it go into the air? >> exactly right. they see it, the oil and gas industry, the majors particularly see it as an opportunity for them, and many of them have taken steps to do that. >> last december, the department of energy announced conditional approval of $12.6 million from the inflation reduction act to colorado to the department of natural resources to help measure and reduce methane emissions. in january, the department of energy's loan programs office announced a conditional commitment of funding to long past technologies which are in boulder, colorado, just north of my district, to support the creation and installation of real-time methane emissions monitoring that works across multiple states. i am interested in how this

works. how would the real-time monitoring of methane support the administration's methane reduction goals? >> first of all, your methane emissions technology evaluation center in colorado at colorado state got a $25 million award to be able to help us do just that. there are a number of entities that are trying to identify the best ways, using the next- generation technology, to identify. we have a number of companies invested in to do that i know that edf has put a satellite into the air. methane sat to do that real- time detection and reporting because reporting is an important part so we know where the leaks are and if the entity responsible for that pipeline or that flavoring is not taking advantage of it, the public entities should be able to go and say, you need to button this down. super important.

methane leak detection, mitigation, reporting, validation, are all important strategies and colorado is at the center of it. >> as per usual. switching gears, we heard a lot last year about worst-case scenarios if d.o.e. finalized efficiency standards for distribution transformers. but, d.o.e. has finalized the distribution transformer efficiency standard. from my perspective, the reaction from industry seems to indicate they are okay with this can you elaborate on how the final vote shows how the process and guardrails established for efficiency standards under the energy policy conservation act? >> i so appreciate this question. this is a great thing about our government. it allows for us to propose a potential role, to get stakeholder feedback, and to modify the rule based upon that feedback for final rule. that is what happened in the

distribution transformer case. we wanted to make sure there is enough of the green oriented electric steel for distribution transformers in the united states. that was how the final rule came out. yes, industry was happy. we have a good balance to be able to achieve efficiency, but also ensure that we are manufacturing the distribution transformers in the united states. >> thank you. >> i recognize ms. rodgers for five minutes. >> thank you again for being here, secretary granholm, i want to start with nuclear policy and we appreciate you joining in recognizing and celebrating the bill heading to the president's desk to ban the import of uranium from russia. i believe this is very important in sending the signal to the market that america is committed to restoring our nuclear leadership and having a

strong and secure supply chain in the united states. i look forward to working with you to make sure that we limit that ban in a way that will strengthen our industry. also, i wanted to shift to reliability, electric reliability. with this force transition in place across the board. electric reliability is a challenge facing many people. many states. many regions of the country new york is issuing warnings too much of the country to anticipate brownouts, blackouts. unfortunately, we see this force retirement a baseload generation impacting reliability. i wanted to ask, because this is getting worse, alarm bells were ringing in 2021 and it has gotten worse. the law requires you, secretary

of energy, to coordinate national energy policy would you agree this involves federal actions that affect electricity supply and delivery? >> yes. are you comfortable allowing epa to take actions that effectively dictate the electricity generation mix and the energy policies of nations -- our nation in many states? >> we have signed a memorandum of understanding with epa and have worked with them on their standards. i am very comfortable with what they have proposed and that is doable and it will in fact increase our energy security. >> epa just issued new standards for power generators that rely upon the deployment of carbon capture technology, claiming these technologies have been adequately demonstrated. this is in direct conflict with the department of energy programs which required by congress to approve the carbon capture technology can work at scale in the power sector,

which has not happened. should epa be proposing standards based upon technology that d.o.e. has not yet shown to be adequately demonstrated in the power sector? >> we believe carbon capture technology is proven technology and is being demonstrated for example at the petrol nova facility in texas, that has been up for a long time. what has not been chemistry is there has not been a price on carbon which made it worthwhile for private sector to step into this until now with the bipartisan infrastructure lot and the infrastructure reduction act, now a price on carbon that makes that industry worthwhile looking into and we are excited about that and excited about demonstration progress in this new environment that our office is setting up. >> there are many anxious to get going. i want to shift gears a little bit here. there is growing concern about what is going on in our college and university campuses around

anti-semitism and the protests. these same colleges and universities benefit from millions and millions of dollars , federal taxpayer dollars, including the department of energy which has issued hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and assistance to american universities. for fiscal year 2022, over $900 million went to colleges and universities. is there a central database, can you tell me how much money columbia university has gotten from the department of energy? >> i don't have that figure in front of me but i can get back to you. >> that would be helpful because , i believe it is important, this committee will be taking action to ensure these funds are complying with all applicable laws, including our civil rights act. another challenge is, we seem to be continuing to lose our competitive edge to china.

when it comes to the supply chain issues on green energy. last year, d.o.e. found a lack of sufficient guardrails -- safeguards for intellectual property at the national labs, specifically in licensing technology to companies with foreign owners. in light of the issues raised in the report, i wanted to ask why d.o.e. has not conducted a similar view of licensing practices at universities and other research entities? >> any entity that gets funding or partners with us on research, we have a very robust engagement with about what is a threat to us as taxpayers, about protecting our intellectual property. we have set up an entire ecosystem inside that d.o.e. to make sure that our intellectual property and our taxpayer dollars are protected. >> we are deeply troubled and any information -- we are deeply troubled with what is

going on on college campuses and detailed information you can give the committee would be appreciated. i am sure we will be following up. thank you. >> i now go to the ranking member, mr. pallone, for five minutes. >> thank you. the lng issue, d.o.e. possibly will for applications, there has been republican misinformation about this, they call it a ban . they mentioned it as a been in two separate hearings yes or no on this, on each of these four questions, for the record, is the update by d.o.e. to the public interest -- a ban on lng exports? >> no. >> are lng exports impacted? >> no. >> our future lng export already permitted impact ? >> no. >> do you expect -- i have one

more yes or no, do you expect the pause and the subsequent update of the public interest in or to impact the amount of natural gas available to our european allies in the near or immediate term? >> no. >> i will ask you more broadly, briefly discuss whether or not lng exports raise natural gas prices for american consumers? >> thank you for the question because that is one of the issues the update will examine. we currently produce just over 100 bcf of natural gas in the united states. we have authorized for export 48 billion cubic feet of natural gas. the question is, if all authorized was built out and was exported, what would that do to price it at home for our consumers and manufacturers? that is one of the issues under review.

>> i appreciate that. you stressed affordability in your opening statement and that is the key issue. this committee and across the board, healthcare, energy, use of affordable connectivity for the internet. i think it is clear from your answers that republicans are misleading the public about the administration's lng policy and the facts . but these republican tactics are nothing new, we are seeing the same thing when it comes to energy efficiency standards. as you know, republicans push bills that we understand they are coming up next week, that targeted doe ability to set energy conservation standards for appliances to again lower energy costs for american families you are trying to lower costs. secretary, 10 try not obligate -- >> no. >> that is what i thought.

can you elaborate on that d.o.e. process or setting efficiency standards? >> we have come under the act, we have been doing this since 1975. we produced efficiency standards , make recommendations for efficiency standards on over 60 products of appliances, as a result of the congress passage of this law and the energy policy and conservation act, we have saved consumers trillions of dollars, and just one example, if you purchase a refrigerator today, it is half of the price of what it was in 1975. it has 20% more storage capacity and it uses one quarter the energy as a result of these standards. we have more models than ever before. don't underestimate, to those who criticize us, the incredible ingenuity of the private sector, to reach the standards and provide consumers

with lower-cost appliances and more efficient appliances. >> my last question, what are the benefits, you have talked about the benefits of appliance efficiency standards, we know the republicans are trying to upend the successful program, but what is at risk if republicans succeed in upending your appliance efficiency program? what is the consequence? >> our effort is to save energy and to save money on behalf of consumers, we are obsessed with reducing energy use and prices for people. consumers can save on average $500 per year by upgrading their appliances, that helps save a lot of people a lot of money. i would worry about eliminating any of this effort. we don't want to increase prices . >> i appreciate that. industry supports these efforts

more efficiency. people who oppose it are the republicans in congress from what i can see. thank you very much and i yield back. >> i now recognize dr. burgess for five minutes. >> i will submit questions about lng in writing because i want clarity in the interest . i want to point out that, four years ago, the cost of the price of crude oil was pretty low. there was an effort, a bipartisan effort in this committee, myself and representative fletcher houston, senator corner -- senator cornyn, to suggest the petroleum reserve could be topped off all the cost of crude oil was at historic lows. this was the client the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, chuck schumer in the senate, and not accomplished. however, two years later, we saw

a massive selloff in the strategic petroleum reserve, not because of a national emergency, but a perceived political emergency by the administration, they were worried about the performance in the midterm elections. they bog down the price at the pump for my consumers after they had driven it up with energy policies instituted by this administration. to my observation now, there really isn't an attempt to put those barrels back in the strategic petroleum reserve. is that correct? >> no. let me clarify for you. a couple things you said that are inaccurate. number one, the reason why the president ordered the sale of 180 million barrels from the strategic petroleum reserve was because russia invaded ukraine there was a crunch, a complete

collapse of the ability to access -- >> let me stop you. we will differ on geopolitical events. russia invaded ukraine because of the collapse of the administration's policy in afghanistan and make ukraine an attractive target. nevertheless, there was an effort by the administration to reduce the price at the pump. again, the emergency really did not exist then. the emergency, though, maybe on our doorstep without dangerous the world has become and we are less in a position to respond to now a real and acute emergency because of the fact you drew it down in 2022. >> first, we have the largest strategic petroleum reserve still in the world. the president ordered the 180 million barrels sold because of a global emergency. there was a global effort to put more supply on the market

in addition to what the united states did. we have begun a strategy of refilling. i will say that congress has ordered more barrels to be released from the strategic petroleum reserve through congressional mandatory sales for budget purposes then the president did. thank you to congress for canceling 140 million of those ordered mandatory sales but another 100 million we will have to sell because of congressional action as well. >> do you agree or disagree that the world is a dangerous place? >> absolutely. >> more so than any time in my laptop and i lifted the cold war, i cannot remember a time where world events may be as tenuous as they are today, a simple miscalculation on someone's part could really put us in a position where the united states is in grave danger. i want us to continue to focus on filling that strategic petroleum reserve and the state of texas is willing to

contribute and we are always willing to step up. one other question before i run out of time, the president's budget for the department of energy, roughly what? >> the all in? >> how much money does the president want? >> $51.4 billion. >> i am also on the budget committee and am acutely aware of the fact that we are in a budget crisis in this country, our deficit is at levels unsustainable. the $51 billion requested in the budget, does that take into account the cost of borrowing that money and the debt service on that money? are there constant value dollars that are put into this calculation? >> i am certain it does because that is part of the president overall budget. >> i don't think that it does and i think we are asked to spend $51 billion that is going to have to come from somewhere else and not being offset.

for example, why not take it from some of the green new deal provisions that were included in the inflation reduction act so that we don't have to borrow this money from china and our children and grandchildren pay it back? >> congress has directed us to be able to spin the funding and to be able to address climate change, that we can be more energy secure as a nation and that is what we are doing, we are fulfilling the obligations by congress. >> strategic change in policy will be necessary and i hope the country delivers in november. i yield back. >> i recognize mr. peters for five minutes. >> i want to start by applauding you and present body for implementation of the ira. the administration's has leverage $649 billion of private investment in american energy and manufacturing, we can all agree that is fantastic. we can do more. while 2023 was the strongest year on record, for combined u.s. solar, wind, storage and elation, we lack far behind

china, dwarfing us in all those categories and building out the grid. we are facing extraordinary growth in energy demand electric vehicles, also from ai , data centers, and domestic manufacturing, thanks to the effort of the biden and his administration. we will not be able to meet this energy demand nor our climate goals under the current permitting regime in this country. that is why i was happy to see the recent actions on permitting over the last few weeks through the coordinated interagency transmission authorizations like permits programs, these strong steps should move the needle on permitting for critically needed energy infrastructure. i think we should be celebrating those steps on both sides of the aisle. i want to specifically focus on the permits effort to energize permitting -- or expediting permitting for solar and storage technologies, undisturbed lower conflict areas. can you talk about what you

have done so far and what congress can do to give you additional authority to do more? >> thank you for your leadership on this. while we can do what we can with administrative powers, we are grateful for the effort to try to seek a bipartisan solution on permitting reform. we have been doing a number of things, as you say, cutting more than half to two years for permitting on public transmission, very important and that corresponds with the fiscal responsibility act to cut permitting times while still preserving the ability and intent under neepa to ensure our environment is protected. looking at ways to use categorical exemptions and making sure that we are not requiring doubling the effort at permitting and nipa reviews

when it is not necessary, your footprint or only expanded minimally and important to be able to use them on the tools that allow us to re-conduct, the tools that allow us to enhance technology to transmission so we can get more power, more smartly across the transmission lines. we are looking at all of those ways to be able to do what we can to move power and cut down on permitting times. but, i know there are other ideas that congress has been working with and we are supportive of whatever can happen. one other thing i would add, we have just been given funding through the permanent council, department of energy has come to use ai to be able to do permitting for nipa.

if we can use artificial intelligence to create an efficient permitting regime, that is another step that we can take so we don't wait 10 years for a transmission line to be permitted. >> i have often preserved that the loss in the 1970s were built for defense, today, as climate action advocates, we have been tasked with building a love stuff, offshore wind, solar, hydrogen pipelines, we have to figure out ways to make it go faster. i would encourage you to figure about preapprovals for particular for technologies we have been doing well and for disturbed areas, not a concert we are disturbing environment resource. any thoughts? >> exactly right those are the ideas we should be pursuing. >> i will run out of time for a budget question, i will ask you

and we will submit questions for the record so you can respond more fully. about the quantity of personnel, we will need to do analysis under existing permit regime. i have estimates of 30,000 to 60,000 new products because of what congress and the president have done to these laws. how will we pay for that? what will it cost? personnel. will we be able to hire folks and in a challenge labor market. i'm running out of time, i will put those in writing. >> gentleman yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam, secretary, thank you for being with us. i want to focus on nuclear as a source of generation and this is

the source of the committee. our chair is prohibiting russia and uranian imports that passed on unanimous consent last night in the senate. not only does this legislation put in into the russia, iranian imports but also gives $5.27 billion to ramp up fuel production through the nuclear fuel security act and the ability to incentivize a market for advanced fuels. it will also have the ability to strengthen the fuel infrastructure of the existing fleet. madam secretary, do you believe the doe understands how the volume and selling of fuels and fuel services in the private market can distort that market when it starts implementing the program? >> i think we are aware of market dynamics. we have a team that is focused on doing this well. i'm happy to work with you on whatever congress needs to do.

i think we have the tools necessary to make sure that we build up this uranium strategy in this country so that we are secure. >> that is my follow-up. it will be harmful if we take actions to make matters worse. will you report to this committee about your plans? >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> there have been headlines in the paper the last couple of days that the dominion chief executive expects it to increase 5% each year for the next 15 years and they recognize they will need more natural gas in order to keep the lights on. another article from the "wall street journal" on april 30th that duke energy reported that they will need three new gas- fired power plants in the carolinas, otherwise they will have to keep the coal plants ( "wall street journal" article and other papers reporting this , just this week, the international energy agency, the u.s. data center electricity consumption can rise

4% in 2022 to 6% in 2026. a i could add 8%. last december , someone asked the question, how much more energy they thought they would have to have if the presidents idea of going all electric 2025 but it would be another 4.5% i think that was too low. the question is, do you believe this country needs more energy or less energy? >> more energy. >> thank you. another question that has come up, especially when we talk pjm, 2014, we had a huge polar vortex move across the u.s. my district with a massive amount of manufacturing jobs, we had a situation, the question was we were going to black out the state of ohio. fortunately we are in a situation where all power stations across was at maximum

production and we did not have a blackout. not long after that situation occurred, i asked pjm, if we had the same situation today, could we sustain what we did at that point? again, with steel production, everything you cannot shut down and they said it would not be a problem. as the years have progressed, we have seen a change in opinion. pjm on their website talks about a need for more power production. when i asked the same question recently, what would happen if we had the same situation as the polar vortex in 2014, they said, we could sustain what we have, but going in the future the likelihood we will not be able to do it. i guess the question comes down to, are you concerned about all of the retiring generation stations we have in the united states today? knowing how long it takes to get generation up.

especially the baseload capacity that we have to have. are you concerned about those generation plants? >> thank you for that question. it is really important. i know we can get 20 to 100 gigawatts on the existing system just by deploying some of these technologies that we have not availed ourselves of at this moment and they are much faster than waiting for the building of a new power plant, like re- conducting wires, virtual powerplants, like making sure we have grid enhancing technology, that is number one. number two, because of the work of congress, we now have the incentives to put clean power onto the grid, we saw, last year, 40 gigawatts of additional power added to the nation's electric grid. another 65 gigawatts i planned to be added this year. we need to do both. we need to

add new power, baseload power is important, that is why energy storage, something that did not exist during the polar vortex stage, is available now through utility grid storage. all of those tools will help to make sure that the lights stay on. i will say that the polar vortex is an example of what we will continue to get hit with because of climate change, honestly. the number of extreme weather events across the country, last year over billion-dollar events were 28. every year it has continued to climb. events are becoming more frequent and more extreme and we have a old grid. there is no doubt we need to continue to invest in the grid itself, in addition to making sure that generation is there. >> mr. chair, my time has expired, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, i will now moved to my friend from texas.

>> thank you mr. chairman, thank you madam secretary for your testimony really focusing on bipartisan accomplishments and shared goals as well as more broadly your leadership and looking to the future and developing policies and programs to ensure that the united states remains the world leader in energy production, in innovation and technology, in emissions reductions and and exports. this is particularly important to me and the people i represent in houston who have been glad to welcome you will times to our city. it is energy capitol the world and we intend to keep it that way. before i get to my questions for you, i want to note, we are seeing, in houston, some of the investments and programs you are talking about from the investment jobs act and inflation reduction act and we are thrilled at the high velocity hub in houston will receive $1.2 billion to expand the hydrogen industry. as you

know, that is really centered in houston. it has the majority of the larger share of hydrogen existing today and it is growing. i want to circle back to that with my questions. i want to note that the loan program, that is absolutely transformative, that is headquartered in my district as well as the technology that got $200 million for decarbonization and in the chemical sector. these are really important and i just want to thank you for your leadership in rolling out these programs so quickly and consistent with the vision of congress and making these things happen. i do want to circle back. before i get to that, i do want to address some of the comments that we heard this morning and what friends from the other side of the aisle keep count calling. mr. burgess asked about it, i was at the hearing in port arthur, texas a few weeks ago and i am hearing concerns from

the people who live and work in my district about the prospects for lng experts and their ability to plan. following up on some of the questions, i think it would be helpful for you to share with us your anticipated timeline for doe completion of the review. >> the review should be completed by the end of this year and the beginning of next year. >> thank you, that is helpful. i want to go back to the doe programs because i want to ask about the hydrogen program as well. in february, seven of the hydrogen hubs wrote a letter to the treasury department expressing concerns about the 45 v tax credit guidance that the treasury issued. in the letter they said the hubs are not able to fully materialize and the hydrogen market is not going to be able to take off without output from existing sources qualifying for 45 the.

i recognize treasury is responsible for this guidance and not the department of energy, i would like to know your thoughts on this issue and how you are working with other departments in the administration to address this to ensure the hub success. >> this is a really important question. there are a series of questions that have to be answered in 45v, and the guidance , treasury is working on it so i cannot say much. as a whole government we want the hubs to be successful. >> thank you. i do think it is important to get that guidance from those who are working on it and really incorporate that real-world experience. we also want this to be successful. in the time i have left i want to associate myself with the comments that mr. peters made about the importance of permitting. earlier today he mentioned the need to construct new hydrogen and co2 pipelines. when it comes to the development of those pipelines, the developers often cite to me and to us that

challenges are one of the biggest impediments to deployment. talk about how doe tends to work proactively with permitting agencies to address the challenges in the permitting space when it comes to carbon management. >> thanks for that and i know some of this is outside the purview of the department of energy, wells and pipelines are done by other agencies, however, we do have a whole government approach of getting these projects done. it is critical that we see permitting reform that gives, that causes minds to focus around a deadline, it is important. it is important as well that we have one lead agency over these permits so that developers do not have to go and find different agencies or different nepa reviews , that we

coordinate and use one document and one agency. that is all that the administration is proposing is to move it forward. as i was saying to congressman peters, it would be great to have the durability of permitting reform from congress as well. thank you for that. >> thank you so much. i have got over my time so i yield back. >> i will go to mr. walberg for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you the secretary. i just came from questioning secretary sue. i guess i'm primed for secretary sprayed i'm hoping your answers will be fuller and more complete than hers. i am not cursing the project. under president biden the department of energy has completely shifted its mission regarding energy security reliability and affordability. the department spending sways heavily towards renewables and

the administration overall anti- fossil policy will increase cost for consumers and crowd out opportunity for expanding nuclear and events fossil fuel technologies necessary for american manufacturing resurgence. president biden says he wants everything made in america but his of our mental and energy policies the opposite. as the chair noted earlier, manufacturing is not the only thing impacted. retail rates for our constituents are also going up significantly surpassing the rate of inflation. i just have to look at the "wall street journal" article and found electricity prices increased by 30% since 2021. 80% higher than the overall inflation rate, that was the case. families are paying more and what are they getting out of it? the department has set aside billions for interstate transmission projects that served renewable goals of

differing states. however, those projects have faced serious delays or have been canceled. by one developers own admission the project was not viable. transmission build out necessitates increases in retail rates that everyday americans have to pay. madam secretary, how do you justify those costs as you push build out based on political goals and not reliability or economics? why should taxpayers pay for these projects that are not viable on their own? >> first, nice to see you. we need to make sure we have a reliable grid. >> i agree. >> right now to you sees across the country are putting on rate payers the cost of making the grid reliable and shoring it up. it was built in the 50s and 60s and it is old and a lot of these utilities go to the puc's

other rate base. one thing we discussed previously was to have this be part of a infrastructure project, a national infrastructure project that we take on as a nation to have a reliable grid through, for example, investment tax credits for building up the grid. we do not have that. that is one reason why prices are going up. the president and the administration is obsessed about lowering prices. that is why the focus has been on what can we do, in the scheme of things lower the cost. we saw lowering prices take place before this a ministration took office and they were going down significantly. >> you cannot compare anything that happens today with what happened four years ago because we were in the middle of a pandemic and everything dropped through the floor. legitimate comparison is before that. no doubt, before that there was

still investment in grid, not as much as is necessary. we need a bigger investment in our national grid and we need to have it paid for. >> that is where promoting the opportunity of the free market, of our private sectors to do the jobs that they are capable of doing without the excessive regulation and i would say, respectfully, interference from the federal government that just is not working. >> that is why tax credits are a great thing. they are government enabled and private sector led. >> and taxpayer supported bridge >> yes, of course. the infrastructure that we need, the roads we drive on -- they are paid for by the taxpayers. >> the mandate that we have, jumping to that area and the grid security that you have mentioned, based on the success of the ira and the iha as well

as consumer restricting solutions, forgive me if i'm skeptical of those two entities at the white house also estimated that these will help build 500,000 ev charging stations by 2030. in the last two years they have built seven. how do we complete that? and what does that mean to the citizen? >> number one, we are at 170,000 charging stations driven by the private sector at the moment, the goal is to get to 500,000. the electric vehicle initiative was doing, it was to give funding to the states to be able to fill in the gaps where the private sector has not gone. in order to do that, that means a charging station is going somewhere where it has not been, where there may not be electricity because they are filling in a gap.

>> seven gaps -- >> it takes 18 months on average to get the electricity, the planning and the permitting for one charging station. now all of them have gotten their money, i have 35 states that have released solicitation for the installation that's my >> let's reduce the time. >> -- it is all on the states. i continue to press on governors and offices to make this happen. >> gentlemen's time has expired. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome madam secretary. every year i lead efforts in the house to support robust funding for doe clean vehicle programs, like the vehicle technology office and the loan program office advanced tech knowledge he and vehicle manufacturing program. these programs help to drive innovation with zero mission emission -- help to bring a new

boom in american manufacturing. i was glad to see funding for both of these fundings in the president's budget. these programs in combination with the inflation reduction act provides much-needed support for domestic manufacturing of vehicles and vehicle batteries, including tax credits for consumers looking to buy american-made cars and manufacturers looking to build factories in the u.s. madam secretary, can you describe how doe is supporting american auto manufacturing? and how the inflation reduction act is creating good paying jobs across the country. >> i am so delighted to answer that question because it is working. take you for your support and leadership in electric vehicles and batteries. the goal is to get electric vehicle made here and the battery made here and the guts to the battery, meeting the full supply chain. in the battery there is some separator material and

electoral like, all of it are pieces to the supply chain. all of those are things that are coming back to the united states to be manufactured here. we have now 400 companies that have announced they are expanding in either ev or batteries in the united states. pockets all across the country. i know she is not here, in moses lake, washington there are four ev battery makers that have never existed before. every place is benefiting from the incentives from the inflation reduction act to get that manufacturing back home and have us compete with our economic adversaries across the world. >> thank you very much. over the last 10 years we have seen incredible technological changes in the vehicle market. the cost of ev batteries has plummeted by more than 80% and

there are now more than 30 models in the u.s. with 300 miles in range. how is doe working to support innovation and how will that impact the price? >> innovation is critical. we have 17 national labs and a good number of been them are looking at reducing price and ev batteries and looking at substitute materials for batteries that may cause prices to be hardier higher. we know the range has expanded and the price has dropped significantly all because research and development that is done by doe labs and our partners in the private sector. that investment is benefiting citizens enormously because the price of driving a ev compared to a internal combustion engine is astonishing. if you fill up, because of these new batteries, if you fill up your average tank it cost about 45 bucks. if you drive and ev the same

amount of time and cost you $15, if you use a fast charger it may cost up to $30. the way you are saving huge amounts of money and operating that vehicle because of the technology that is embedded in these next-generation batteries. >> representative and i are leading supports for energy efficiency programs. energy efficiency not only saves americans money, it is essential for meeting our growing needs. many towns across the country are projecting significant growth in the near future. energy efficiency can play a significant role in the demand. how is the technology office working to improve efficiency and reduce energy demand? >> a number of ways. number one is to do research into materials that you can build a building with that reduce your energy use, or that generate energy.

number two, technology through the energy efficiency and renewable energy office that focuses on conservation standards, energy efficiency standards, have saved taxpayers over 2 trillion, i want to say $3 trillion, as a result of the technology. again, the private sector and labs across the country have come up with this to respond to the higher goals of more efficiency. the combination of policy, and innovation and technology has created a huge benefit for the american consumer. >> thank you very much. >> i will now go to the chair of the oversight instigation oversight committee. >> i represent one of the most economically stressed congressional districts in the country him average household income is just barely over 50,000, that is household income not individual, my people are hurting.

they are hurting because in large measure of high energy costs. it is not just gasoline. a lot of people think it is the gas at the pump, it is also electricity. utilities are constantly asking for rate increases and i am getting constant complaints about it. the reason they are asking for rate increases is in part because they are switching, at the behest of doe and eba, they are switching to more expensive fuel, they are switching away from coal and natural gas to wind and solar. at the same time, the ratepayers are still having to pay, those same people who are out there struggling and working hard, they are having to pay for facilities that were built 20 years ago with a 50 year life expectancy, or 30 years ago with a 50 year life expectancy. those utilities still have to

be paid for and the ratepayers are paying but they do not have the money to. i know it is not just doe requirements, i know it is epa as well. if you were sitting in my shoes, what would you tell the people in the ninth congressional district of virginia when they call you up and say they cannot afford to pay their electric bill at their house anymore? >> thanks for the question. i totally sympathize with this, especially with folks who have lower incomes and trying to figure how they will make ends meet and the utility bill keeps going up. i was describing one of the main reasons for this is because we have terribly old grid and utilities want to rate base the price of upgrading the transmission lines and the grid and the distribution lines and the transformers, et cetera. the price of the renewable energy is cheaper.

solar is the cheapest form of energy right now. cheaper than coal, cheaper than natural gas. natural gas is very low. but it tells you natural gas is super low right now. right now the price of natural gas -- the price of energy bills have not come down even though we rely heavily on natural gas for 40% of our energy mix. it tells you something else is going on. >> you would agree it is not just the grid, it is having to buy new sources of energy and to get that new source of energy to the grid is different than the old baseload power plants that use natural gas or coal because they have to be more dispersed around the countryside. as a result, that is part, not the only reason but part of the reason for the grid increase and they are still paying for that fossil fuel power electric generation that was built 20 years ago, or

30 years ago but it still has 20, 30 years of life expectancy and because of regulations from the federal government, not just doe, i don't want to say that it is all of yours, that is a big chunk of why the prices are going up. even if solar is cheaper -- i don't dispute or agree about that even if we accept that principle, they are having to invest, the utility companies are having to invest in all facilities when they have perfectly good facilities that the ratepayers paying for, correct? >> existing natural gas plants are not affected by the epa rule. that rule does not touch natural gas plants. on coal plants, it requires in five years technology of carbon capture to be installed so they are not polluting. many of the coal plants that have shut down , they have shut down because they are not finding it

financially viable for them and they have chosen to close it down because it is not something -- people are demanding coal. >> it is not financially viable because of government regulations. let me say this, it is something that i think about, not everywhere in my district, there are large parts of my district where people have coal in their backyard's. we even have a member of this committee one time who owned a house with a coal mine in the basement. when the prices get high enough, they will find a way to heat their home and it will most likely be would wood, or it will be coal. sometimes demonstration has a hard time understanding, people will find a way to heat their homes, hopefully safely that's not always the case. when you do not have the money to pay that big bill, that might be fine for the rich folks, that's not fine for the people that i represent.

i yield back. >> secretary granholm, thank you for all of your work. i can truly say that you and the other leaders at the agency and the employees are devoted, professionals and it is appreciated. we know that these funds are invested effectively and they will have a major impact in making us a stronger, cleaner and more competitive economy. one of the greatest and overlooked benefits of the inflation reduction act is it will save americans considerable amounts of money. one of the ways that consumers will express those savings most directly is through two new rebate programs which will be administered through state governments. i am proud that new york state, where i serve, are the first in the country to be approved for these funds. secretary granholm, people may

have a hard time wrapping their heads around a $158 million opportunity , maybe you can help. when new yorkers see reports that they can soon access rebates for electrical appliances and other energy- efficient home upgrades, can you tell us what it will mean for those consumers? >> thank you so much and thanks to new york for stepping up and being the example for the rest of the states. we have a number of states in the pipeline looking at what new york hasn't done. new york consumers will be able to access rebates are things like heat pumps, or induction stoves, or insulation or efficient windows or efficient doors, in addition to being able to access tax credits for generating energy like for solar panels, i wanted to sort of kickback to representative griffins point about people not having options. because of the inflation reduction act and the bipartisan infrastructure law, critically for people of modest means, the ability to install

or generate your own energy at home for very minimal price and gives you energy security is one thing that consumers all across the country can take advantage of. these two programs one is called here and one is called homes, the bottom line is they both ensure that citizens, no matter what your income bracket can take advantage of rebates and make your home more efficient. up to $1700 for a home if you want to install these efficient equipment. that can save up to 30% on your energy bills. >> wonderful. each states program will operate differently. can you tell us how a state might choose to run this. >> this is all being funded through the state energy offices. every state can organize it in a way that best suits them. new york had an advantage because they had a program set up so it enabled them to build

into the existing rebate program. what we expect, critically for home appliances, either the installer who comes to your home will give you a discount at the point of installation, or if you buy your client appliance at lowe's or an appliance warehouse you will get the rebate at the point of sale the point is it takes money off at the point where you pay so it makes it easier. there is another program that gives you a tax credit. those who have incomes high enough to have tax liability can take advantage of that. for most people it will be at the point of sale. >> what do consumers need to do to find out if they are eligible ? >> go to our website, energy.gov/save and it will tell you what you're eligible for. >> i look forward to working with the agency and getting the word out to new yorkers. in the budget that the president proposed will have

funds to help oversee these rebates, how important is that funding to support this network? >> clearly, we want to make sure that people are aware of the programs and that they are administered well. we appreciate the fact that there has been additional administer the funds granted in the 2024 budget for these programs. if you want them to work well, you have to have the people to make sure that taxpayers are protected and that taxpayers take advantage. >> we know critical minerals is another topic, yesterday congressman graves and i introduced bipartisan legislation called the critical materials trace act which would have doe support the development of digital identifiers, clean energy technology to enable accurate reporting of each products critical components, sources and manufacturing history. the private sector and the eu have been leading the way with this

sort of development often referred to as battery passports. can doe and play a role in ensuring critical mineral supply chains are secure and sourced in an ethical way exit >> yes. we look forward to working with you with that important piece of legislation. >> great. thank you. thank you. thank you. chair, i yield back. >> i will now go to the chair of the health subcommittee. >> i thank you for being here. last time you were here we talked about ev and mandates coming forward. i know being the former governor of michigan, great appreciation for the american automotive industry. my concern was that the ev mandates are going to make the automotive industry and efficient. after the inflation reduction act, ford motor company made a decision to build two battery plants in my district. now that the market is going

forward they are finishing both , the shell of both but they are going forward with one. you hear dealers talking about people do not want the cars now. the issue is, i know your experience to having access to batteries, this gets to my question, every time we bring up we are going to an electric cars mandate but we do not have enough charging or enough lithium, we just get a lot of naysayers in the system but there are real issues when people make decisions to buy cars. we can call us naysayers, but if somebody wants to buy an electric car i have to figure out how far i can go on it and that does factor into it. the epa is moving forward with the rule. as secretary of energy, rector of the overall transportation energy strategy, are you concerned we are moving too fast with ev's given that some

of the automotive companies have made decisions not to build out as much as they had predicted they would. >> i am not concerned that we are moving too fast. yes, we are seeing a great uptick in ev's. there is a 30% increase year over year. i think any automaker would be happy to have that. we also know as new products come online, you have to make sure the ecosystem surrounding them makes people comfortable. that is where the charging infrastructure is so very important and we are working on that. that is why we are making sure we have long-range in the batteries. if we could get a 300 mile plus battery and have that vehicle be affordable, this is why the inflation reduction act -- >> if you get a 300 mile battery with affordable charging stations, probably. if you talk to car dealers they say they cannot sell them. do you think people will buy electric cars as we move into the future? they are a good product, but

forcing it to happen as quickly as we have without the market is another. the other thing, we need to have the minerals and benchmark mineral intelligence estimates 380 new mines are needed. what is the doa working with the biden administration to make sure that we have permissibility to mine. >> first of all yesterday, the loan program office announced they were open for business for mining, for extraction for those who want to do that. >> didst to get them permitted. >> we were talking about permitting about the importance , but the importance of updating the mining act, which would make that much more easy. we can do sustainable mining in this country, our act and permitting has been woefully behind the scenes. >> permitting reforms you are right.

>> that is a good to do on your list. >> i will agree with you on that. i had to step out for another meeting but you talked about better polls and transmission, but also power generation is important. my concern, i know doe entered a mo you with epa, there are a lot of letters there, the real concern is i have had people in the power industry you said were having an increase in demand and not permitting not creating enough generation. but we are also taking generation out. plans to have useful life out because people do not like their source of generation. the question is, how can we ensure that we have ample supply of power as we move forward in terms of generation? should we be taking, i guess the question is this, should we be taking plans with useful

life out of production now that we know there is more demand coming? >> number one, the epa rule does not touch natural gas plants. existing natural gas plants that are >> there are also co- generational plants. >> yes. on the cold side if it has life ahead of it it can exist with carbon capture technology. there are ways to finance that technology so that it has life. i will say, the inflation reduction act has incentivized a huge amount generation including 40 gigawatts last year that came online, 81% of which was clean solar, 60 gigawatts rejected this year coming online and in addition those tools i was discussing before you were here, tools like re-conducting and virtual power plants and storage and grid enhancing technology can also add 100 gigawatt to the system. we just issued a lift off

report. >> i'm at a time. thank you for your answer. >> gentlest time expired. now we go to. >> thank you mature duncan. thank you so much secretary granholm for being here. i want to give you a big thank you and shout out for recognizing the pacific northwest potential for hydrogen hub it is ripe with opportunity to develop a robust industry for alternative fuel that is extremely important for sectors such as heavy-duty vehicles also baseload and emergency generation as the energy grid and disruptions become increasingly common. the hydrogen hub will allow the pacific northwest to produce the greenest hydrogen fuel in the entire nation. today, i want to discuss a

pressing issue that is top of mind for every utility across the district, certainly in my district, that is the transformer shortage that we continue to see across the u.s.. just last september i spoke with assistant doe secretary about the problems that the supply shortfall is causing and i asked what doe is doing to alleviate that shortage. i was encouraged by the assistant secretary's talk of collaboration with industry and working with them to incentivize, sharing units between utilities and creating universal standards for transformers so that they can have interoperability. i am aware of doe's efforts, we are now eight months out from that discussion. the picture generally has stayed the same. my office recently checked in with the specific public utility district that i mentioned last time. while the inventory has gotten better, their supply has not come close to meeting demand.

the lack of access has forced utilities to delay or cancel projects, affordable housing projects are being canceled right when our housing inventory is low and prices are skyrocketing. it also makes the existing infrastructure more vulnerable in case of storms, wildfires that occur in the northwest. in fact, during hurricane katrina, the affected states lost 12,600 transformers and utilities always need to have these on hand just in case. the damage, or failure of a single lpt, the large ones, can take down an entire substation. in my own district we recently had vandalism, an attack on these and thousands of people celebrated christmas in the dark. this continues to come up with utilities in my district. the ga e said the doe has done important work. i am wondering, just to speed

things along, has doe re- examined possible options and developed a rapid implementation strategy? >> thank you for the question. this clearly has been a huge problem, not just in your district across the country getting access to distribution transformers. briefings. one, we propose a rule on. we have done feedback and reevaluated and put out a new rule that encourages the full supply chain to be made in the united states. number two, we have set up i'm sure assistant secretary rodriguez was talking about how we had set up a tiger team to identify where the pinch points were. because of that, some of it was making sure that we had the right supply chain, et cetera. we have focused on that through our manufacturing and energy supply chain office. we gave out an $18 million grant

to do large power transformers in the united states, which is great. there are three companies that have announced that they are now expanding and building transformer factories in the united states. we are encouraged by that. we hopefully will start to see some loosening of the system so that utilities can access what we need. >> thank you. we, in this committee, asked for a little bit of delay in the requirement for these to be only manufactured in the u.s. be because of this crisis. i guess, in my limited time i would just encourage whatever we can do to get financial assistance, technical assistance to get these manufacturers here. as my colleague submit funding request, let's make sure that is one that is included. i wanted, in my last 14 seconds just thank you for funding our

national labs. they are doing so much of the work that will relieve a lot of our concerns about sourcing from foreign countries and being able to manufacture batteries of the future right here among other things. thank you. ideal back. >> i will now go to the gentleman from indiana for five minutes. >> secretary, thank you for being here. i just want to say at the outset, touting all of these federal grants, trillions of dollars going out the door, that's great, except for the fact when people my district go to the door grocery store they cannot afford their food or energy cost and inflation is a huge problem, that has been driven primarily, in my view, in the post-covid era by some of the legislation that was passed without a single republican vote. the people of my district know this. honestly the government handing

out money to a select few people does not make everyone else happy when inflation is through the roof. i really appreciate your time, since you last testified we continue to see debilitating effects that the ministration has rushed to green. i am strongly supportive of all of the above approach to energy and affordability, resilience, i was sport renewables and i support ev's. the current trajectory we are on will increase grid overloads and blackouts, these are the facts. as we move to the digital age, indiana is emerging as a major u.s. tech. currently indiana has a multitude of new projects in the pipeline, any of which are data centers that are projected to require additional seven gigawatts of energy before being operational. this increase need for energy amounts to 10% of indiana's

current capacity. i believe you cannot ensure reliability and resiliency with wind and solar alone cannot be done. we need nuclear, fossil, hydro, renewables. my question is, what is the plan at the department of energy to not just maintain the status quo , but if we do things like grow our technology industry or transition them to all ev's, the increased demand that we have for energy we are decreasing our ability to produce baseload power. people say ev alone, 30% demand on the grid, those are some estimates. what is our plan to not only maintain the status quo but how are we going to increase the power that we will need at the same time taking off a lot of our base power out of the system

? >> it is an issue on how we can increase demand and efficiency and make sure that we are feeding power to all of these new manufacturing facilities. indiana has 22 just in the past few years which are for clean energy products. that is fantastic but they will require additional power as is ai and data centers. we also know we have the tools with in our disposal to be able to do manage the increase. one is we are incentivizing additional generation. when you combine renewable with batteries , it becomes baseload like. we want to incentivize nuclear. we want to make sure new data centers, maybe they come with a smr or something like that. you need to think about them bringing rather than socializing the cost across the rate base. those tools are in our disposal.

we have talked about electric vehicles. there is no mandate, there is an uptick in electric vehicles. batteries for those electric vehicles and batteries associated with energy and resources and homes can create a virtual powerplant. if we are smart about how we move power and how we compensate people for the ability to access that power, that is a whole other resource that we have not had. all of these tools can get us to reliable. >> were thinking. that is the point. the ev's are more popular in dc, l.a., new york city, southwest indiana not so much. i encourage you to go to rural america and talk about the infrastructure challenges that we have. people want them, potentially but there is no infrastructure in place. i want to talk about carbon capture. in 2021 the iha established carbon dioxide transport infrastructure finance innovation program, i got that out.

the authorized 2.1 billion for low interest loans, infrastructure is essential for meaningful deployment of the technology, carbon capture, yet we have seen the co2 pipeline projects stall across the nation. have we given out any grants at all? can we report loan programs or any funding to support co2 infrastructure? >> loan program office, have they done that? i have to get back to you but i am not sure that they have focused on co2 infrastructure. however, we need co2 infrastructure, no doubt. we also need permitting reform to make sure these are happening . co2 infrastructure is also hydrogen pipeline infrastructure. >> if you could get back to the committee on the authorization of $2.1 billion in loans to support this infrastructure and what we have done so far, i appreciate it. thank you madam secretary.

>> i will now go to florida's ms. castor. >> thank you. thank you for all that you're doing to bring cleaner and cheaper energy to our neighbors back home. it is so gratifying to see the infrastructure law and the inflation reduction act passed and congress in delivering for our neighbors back home. cheaper energy through renewables or energy efficiency are being able to weatherize their homes, thank you. it was difficult for me to keep up with your opening statement, it has been difficult to keep up with the announcements on clean energy manufacturing opening up. can you go through those again? did you say 600 new clean energy projects over the last -- >> since the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law, 600 factories, 400 of those involving ev's or batteries, 600 factories, is that right?

600 factories for sure in the clean energy space and opening up and all pockets of the country. >> attracting private investment? >> of course. these factory announcements, this is separate from the department of energy funded dustless congressman peterson said $649 billion in private investment. >> the 30% tax credit and then the private sector comes in and puts in their amount. there is massive investment. >> these are good paying jobs across america? >> all across america. >> when i hear some of my friends across the aisle say this is helping china. is this helping china? >> no i think china is very upset that we are doing this to attract all of the components of the supply chain. china had a huge footprint on the critical minerals and the processing of them for

batteries. we have been very aggressive about trying to get those components back in the united states. it has worked. we have to continue to work at it. the bottom line is china sees a threat. >> the ranking member says the republicans are misleading the public, i would call this a whopper. this is a whopper of misleading the public. just yesterday, a company visited me here in washington and said that they are going to open a manufacturing plant for solar in the sunshine state, which will bring 1700 jobs, that is welcome. i have also listened to my colleagues talk about the price hikes. on the front page of my hometown paper this morning they say, why florida electric bills skyrocketed recently, here's why. you know what they say? because of the exorbitant price of frak gas. florida him as the sunshine state, would be reliant on

solar power, the abundant free power of the sun back. our utilities rely on frak gas. 75% our electricity generation comes from frak gas. what this announcement says is that the utilities, of course passed along those price hikes to consumers from 2020 to 2022, the price of gas more than doubled, a an increase that they called incredible, it is alarming to see these prices rise. it is like an apocalypse. as the gas prices have come down , the utilities have not passed along the savings. meanwhile, they are slow walking investments in solar, the state of florida is not passing along rebates for energy efficiency, they are slow walking

weatherization, what does that mean to consumers who are struggling with, by the way, the hottest temperature ever last summer in july and august, so they have to run their air conditioning. >> thank you for your leadership on the inflation reduction act and the bipartisan infrastructure law, they are providing consumers with options to be able to make their lives affordable, at least on the energy side. if you can install solar panels, and if you are low enough income on weatherization you might have solar panels installed so you can generate your own, in addition to saving energy because they install sufficient appliances. >> my time is limited, i get so worked up over this, you can tell, the grid left in freeport highlighted some of the barriers that congressman peters talked about. just this outdated structure

where you have states that are making critical decisions and throwing up barriers, are you able to work with states and rto's and others to really get onto the grid and help them with increasing line writing? >> a lot of them but some of them no. it is new. utilities are risk adverse. >> i think i understand. mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record this newspaper story florida electric bills skyrocketed recently, here's why. >> i will now go to mr. curtis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary, thank you for being here i want to give a shout out for your work with me in the caucus for visiting us and realizing that we have a lot of things in common. i just suggest that i think we can agree we are looking for

affordable, reliable, clean power. we want the u.s. to lead on that. let me talk to you about a subject that is important to all of us, nuclear energy. how do we get this rolling? i have a bill called the advanced nuclear reactor act that waives the fees for first movers to help them successfully license and deploy . i am extreme excited about the potential of next generation nuclear. i have seen firsthand the difficulties. we had a agency in utah trying to get a small nuclear reactor, they were about 10 years into it and halfway through the process, $100 million into it they had to walk away but i think we can all agree, we have to figure out how to make that not happen. my bill would fix this in part by authorizing you, the secretary of energy, to make targeted awards to cover regulatory costs of the first new technical

technologies. i wonder if you could talk for a minute about how you see incentivizing nuclear and how do we get this thing rolling? >> thank you so much. thank you for voting for the 24 budget, which did some of that small modular reactors, there was $1 billion in there, 100 million for the reactors and workforce funding as well. 800 million may not cover a 10 pack of small modular reactors. i know they want to be the first of the kind. the question is, how do we bundled them together to make the situation like that not happen again. it involved and advanced nuclear reactor and congress has been generous in supporting a couple of those as well. we have to recognize that nuclear technology is clean ace load and power is very important to the energy mix. it currently occupies any percent, almost 20% of our

overall energy supply and we need more we have to make sure that we continue to drive the prices down, the capitol expense of the first ones. this is why i think the combination of the data centers combined with some of these fm ours together to get technology companies some funding, not you giving technology companies funding, technology companies have the funding and can afford to be able to do some of those small modular reactors in partnership with the data centers so they are not pulling from the grid. bottom line is, nuclear is a very important piece. the uranium funding that was just approved yesterday in the senate, hugely important to be able to create a uranium strategy for the next generation reactors. thank you for your leadership. >> it is not a few nuclear reactors but a number. we can all agree that we want

the u.s. to lead. we do not want to lose that overseas. let's talk about permitting reform in general. i think we can all see the permitting reform is a huge obstacle to where we are going. i want to brag about utah for a minute that almost every energy source that you can imagine and storage of that in utah. and yet, everyone keeps coming to me as they probably do to you , i realize a lot of this is outside of the scope of doe. you do invest in many of these technologies that will someday be deployed to scale. how does permitting reform have an effect on your projects and what can you say to us about how we move forward? >> i appreciate congress is willingness to at least continue to work on that. in the meantime, this ministration assigned to do what it can with what it can from and administer the point of view. which is passed a rule that

allows us to have a two-year cap for permitting on transmission called i'm excited about that in utah. so, we are pleased about being able to move forward but, having a shot clock like that embedded in law, i think would be important because it organizes people. the ability to have one office be the point person for projects is opposed to having developers go to multiple offices is an important step that would be helpful in law and what we are trying to do on the administrative side. the ability to make sure that we have categorical exclusions in already developed areas for the development of generation. those kinds of things are very important. it's what we are trying to do as an administration but it would be great to have it in law. >> i would love to continue to work with you on all of those things. thank you.

>> i recognize mr. for five minutes. >> thank you very much. you will not be surprised to hear that i think you are doing a terrific job. i want to thank you for all of your work from the outset. in particular today, just talking about the amazing progress energy is making and the implementing of bipartisan infrastructure law an inflation reduction act. it's really good stuff. these investments are critical to strengthening our domestic energy profile and fortify our overall energy and national security interest in the larger global marketplace. given the precarious state of global energy markets and the impact that global conflicts such as the war in ukraine, would you have talked about have had on energy security, it is critically important we continue work in partnership with our allies to explore clean energy solutions and think carefully about our broad

energy future. the department of energy, as you are well aware, has done an excellent job in working in tandem with international partners to achieve our clean energy goals and one example of this is the implementation of the u.s. israel energy center. i wonder if you can speak about the accomplishments of the u.s. israel energy center and the importance of reauthorizing the senate. >> thanks for that. between the bird energy program and the u.s. israel energy center, which recently met at d.o.e. headquarters for the first in person executive meeting, we welcomed over 40 members of the committee executive committee of the various consortia to meet with projects. it is critical we continue to forge partnerships on technology and on advances and on entrepreneurship and learn from one another. between bird and

the u.s. israel energy center, those two mechanisms of ensuring that we get the best ideas going in both directions is very important. israel has huge expertise in things like smart agriculture and in batteries and all things that we are focused on as well given that they are so, in an area that is sensitive to not having to use fossil fuels from neighbors that may not be in their camp, i will just say. we can learn a lot from each other. >> thanks very much. building off the success of the u.s. israel energy center, you know that congress enacted a few years back the bipartisan eastern mediterranean security and energy partnership act that was in 2019 and authorized the u.s. eastern mediterranean energy center, a similar center for energy research and collaboration. in this case with cypress, greece, and israel.

modeled after the u.s. israel energy center. is a terrific opportunity, this new one, to assemble many key partners around these critical issues. in d.o.e.'s own words, this will strengthen the region's energy security, ring economic growth for countries across the region, deepen geopolitical ties among participating governments and open commercial opportunities for u.s. companies. that's a quote from concept paper that the department has developed. i know there is another paper, a revised one in the works right now. could you explain the department of energy's plans for the united states eastern mediterranean center, i called the east med center and how the department preparations will allow you to establish the center ones resources are appropriate which we are working on feverishly here to make sure there is funding in place for this initiative.

>> thank you so much for your leadership on that. making sure we can do it. this is four ties between israel, cyprus, greece, and egypt. a critical area, critical for us to be able to share ideas on energy security and as we all know, with these wall tie country centers like that, the benefit is because we are able to share researchers to be able to cross pollinate universities and research labs and that's exactly what this would be doing. we are excited to continue working with you on it and hopefully get the funding for. >> i look forward to that as well and working with my colleagues, including congressman della req. getting it stood up, it's an important bipartisan priority. thank you for all the terrific work you are doing at the department.

i yield back. >> chair recognizes the gentlewoman from arizona, miss lesko. >> thank you for being here. i want to ask you about the energy policy and conservation act and changes in appliance efficiency mandates. specifically yes or no, do you agree appliance regulation should be technologically feasible? >> yes. >> do you agree that appliance regulation should not increase net costs for consumers? >> yes. >> do you agree that appliance regulation should save a significant amount of energy? >> yes. >> efficiency mandates increase the up front cost of appliances, which can really hurt low income families and renters who do not have the luxury of waiting years for the energy savings to break in, to breakeven. do you agree that three years is a reasonable payback period

for efficiency regulations? >> i think it depends. >> and if it is not three years, how long do you think the american people should have to wait for a the oee efficiency mandates to save money? >> ideally, you would like it to actually have that payback in the first year if it is possible, but it may not be in the first year. that's why the benefit of having what congress passed in these efficiency rebates gives people the ability to reduce their cost immediately and by a more efficient appliance that allows them to save money over the course of time, and these efficiency roles have saved standards -- the standards have saved consumers more than $2 trillion by 2030. it's really important to reduce costs. >> thank you. i would love for to be a payback in one year, but i will settle for 3 years. but yesterday you finalized a rule the od'd -- d.o.e.

did on water heaters and the payback is 9.1 years. that seems like an awful long time to get paid back for the up front cost. i want to move on to another question. the biden administration has committed the united states to achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and is spending trillions of taxpayer dollars to try to achieve it. secretary graham, -- granholm do you believe the united states has a path to meet zero greenhouse gas emission goals? >> yes. >> secretary granholm, in 2022, the united nations released a report detailing the possibility of reaching the paris climate agreements goal of achieving both net zero by 2050 and temperatures not rising over 1.5 degrees celsius. the report states quote,

current policies do not trace a credible path from 2030 towards the achievement of national net zero targets. the you one report also states quote, existing policies .28 2.8 degrees celsius increase in temperatures by the end of the century. and in 2023 congressional research service report states quote, none of the modeled scenarios indicate the united states could meet its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions targets . in fact, no signatory of the paris climate agreement is anywhere near a pathway to achieve their net zero pledges, however, it appears john kerry and the biden administration continue to say these goals are achievable. why is it that the u.n. report and congressional research service reports say one thing and the biden administration and your selves another?

>> i missed the date on the u.n. report? >> 2022. >> first of all, the passage of the inflation reduction act and infrastructure law have given enormous wind in our sails to meet these goals. our modeling shows that we will receive -- as we will have a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and that's from those two bills alone. that does not account for the private sector or whatever state and local governments are doing. we think we can get to 50% which is the goal by 2030. we also think and are very bullish about the next 30 years being able to look at the technology advances that we are seeing. we do think there is a credible path to be able to get to net zero by 2050 and we are working every day to achieve it. >> i hope you are right, but a lot of the evidence doesn't show that. and other competing reports, they say the opposite. we are spending trillions of dollars of taxpayer dollars on this.

thank you and i yield back. >> i now go to mr. for five minutes. >> thank you for holding this budget hearing. i would like to thank secretary granholm for your service. you have rendered not only to the american people, to the benefit of the entire world when the united states finally decided to get back on track with addressing climate change issues that we can control in the united states. one of the biggest ways in which we have been able to do that and last congress when the democrats were fully in charge, we passed two historic laws, the infrastructure investment act and the jobs act and the inflation reduction act. these are now being implemented, thank god and it's going to take time for us to see the full implementation but we are well on our way. these landmark laws authorize the funding necessary for the u.s. to lead on addressing the climate change crisis and catalyze a clean energy

transition that is truly going to benefit everyone. i emphasize that it is for the benefit of everyone because for example, i grew up in a community where environmental injustice was therefore many generations and we are turning the corner in our community. these two landmark laws are going to help us to do so. it's very important for us to understand that, to get to net zero, these laws are going to be the main reason why we are able to do that. i believe that we are on a good track and i think the department of energy is doing an amazing job in making sure that we are increasing energy efficiency comedy carbon icing electricity, electrifying and switching to cleaner fuels. can you discuss how the department is leveraging these pathways through the iag a and i.r.a. in ways that insurers the benefits and costs of

transition are equitably distributed? >> i'm so glad you asked this question. what you have done is in bed structural equity into these investments. in other words, if a solar developer wants to do a community solar project, they get the 30% tax credit but they get an extra 10% if they locate in a disadvantaged community. they get another 10% on top if they pay prevailing wage and if they use registered apprenticeship, they get another 10% if they use domestic content. now you're talking about 850, 60% tax credit to locate in a disadvantaged community. that is working across the country. that's on the tax credit side. on the grant aside from the bipartisan infrastructure law, d.o.e. is ensuring that every grant we do has a community benefits agreement in it so that the community that is going to be centered where this project is

benefits and is at the table in a meaningful way with the company. all of the grants that we are doing ensure that. the study that has been done recently about whether disadvantaged communities are benefiting, it shows that disadvantaged communities are receiving twice the investment relative to their population as the rest of the country. so, it is happening that investments are flowing towards disadvantaged communities and that is good for all of us. >> i'm very pleased to hear it that congress did something right. and your methods of limitation are actually following the law to the letter and also making sure that the benefits and inequities that we had for generations are being corrected by this massive implementation and investment. thank you so much. when you testified before the committee i was pleased to hear about how the department of energy was advancing the justice for the initiative and ensuring communities had a seat

at the table. can you provide an update on how you have seen communities respond to the programs and incentives that department has stood up through the iaja and i.r.a.? >> we have these community benefits plans but communities may not be organized in a way that allows them to participate. we just launched a pilot called ready, which allows for an intermediary to gather community leaders and community participants so that they are at the table when negotiating these community benefits agreements. it is a way to elevate and give power to folks who might not ever have been asked before. were trying to figure out ways like that to make it happen but the community benefits agreement alone have demonstrated enormous benefit for folks who are there, whether they are scholarships guarantees of job hirings, training through local community colleges and schools,

as a pipeline, all of these things are embedded in the community benefits agreements and we are seeing them work. >> it's a national effort but it sounds like we are getting it, unless the locals are buying income is not going to work. we are making sure that they are heard and that they are listened to. thank you very much. i yield back. >> we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that the nations most recent nuclear reactor came online 100% this week. the next congressman's district. >> regulations. >> thank you very much. we are very excited about this. first and in 30 years. america needs to learn how to do big things again and thank you for holding this hearing. secretary, thank you for being here today with us. even as we -- we made

tremendous progress in georgia but our country is facing an energy crisis. we are seeing skyrocketing energy prices as this administration continues its war on fossil fuel. i have been hearing for my constituents that how unsustainable energy prices are for them, and of course it affects everything in their lives. everything. it is not filling up the gas tank. there has been an aggressive push by this administration to electrify every sector of our livelihood without weighing reliability or affordability. i believe we must unleash our domestic energy capabilities for the safety of our nation and well-being of those we serve . the ministers leads the rest of the world in reduction of our carbon footprint and it is a substantial. it has all been done because of the transition to our clean natural gas, which burns 42% cleaner.

as mentioned, the earlier restrictions recently announced, it's really a kick in the teeth to europe and its funding the question war machine. europe would substantially reduce their emissions by using our clean natural gas. if we could get these pipelines built, we would substantially damage russia's economy and iran's capability of funding terrorism. this week as mentioned, we were celebrating a milestone entering commercial operation, meaning we are doing our part in georgia, making plant vocal the largest power station in the country. we have been working to advance nuclear energy policy bypassing the atomic energy advancement act. in the atomic energy advancement act, i have a provision that requires the

nuclear regulatory commission to update performance metrics and milestone schedules for its regulatory programs. the department of energy also has spending programs for deployment of nuclear energy. do you have a program for updating your own performance metrics and milestone schedules? >> for all of our big projects, yes. >> can you let us know what that process is? >> it is through our --. for the big demonstration projects, it is through our manufacturing and energy supply chains office as well as through our office of clean energy demonstrations. there are project developers and experts who are in those offices that have measurements, charts, milestones that they are working against. same thing on our nsa side. we have very large projects

that are done by professionals who understand the importance of project management. >> and so this is making -- we are making progress with this? >> yes we are. >> next i would like to note that you use your authority in the nepa process for transmission, solar and storage projects providing exclusions to speed up permitting decisions. you just said there should be a two-year shot clock or categorical exercises for transmission or permitting, and as far as the nuclear demonstrations, will d.o.e. work to do the same for any nuclear fuels and infrastructure projects under its jurisdiction? >> we would certainly work with congress because some of that might require you to act. we believe there needs to be significant work done on permitting reform whether from nuclear or any other project in the country to be able to speed that up. >> let's talk about building

codes. the republicans on this committee chair rogers subcommittee sent you a letter scenting regarding d.o.e.'s funding announcement to encourage the adoption of expensive building codes. i have about 17 seconds. would you respond to that? >> we did. >> do you realize what that is going to do? >> it's not amended, just to be clear. for those who raise their hand want technical assistance to adopt next generation building codes, it's not a requirement. >> i have another question but i will submit it in writing. thank you, secretary. >> i will now go to miss for five minutes. >> i want to say i very much appreciate your calm demeanor and very thorough answers to our committee. i'm going to switch gears here. hydropower and pump storage or critical part of our clean energy system. these resources

help incorporate more wind and solar onto the grid and recent d.o.e. study find it can provide up to 10% of the operating reserves necessary for the biden administration to achieve our climate goals. do you agree that hydropower is a key part of our clean energy system? >> absolutely. >> great. while hydropower plant a critical roll in our energy system, the future may be in doubt one third of asset owners are actively considering surrendering their licenses and decommissioning their facilities . this puts 17 gigawatts of clean flexible energy, enough to power over 13 million u.s. homes and businesses at risk. one of the main factors leading hydropower asset owners to consider surrendering their license is the lengthy and uncertain relicensing process.

should congress work to ensure that the relicensing process is not driving reliable, dispensable, clean energy projects off-line? >> yes. >> great, i agree. i'm pleased that there are bipartisan bills in the house and senate to meaningfully reform the licensing and relicensing process and i would like to talk to you about the common features of those pieces of legislation. recognizing that the federal energy regulatory commission has jurisdiction over hydropower licensing and is an independent agency within d.o.e. , i want to ask you some high- level questions about how we can improve hydropower licensing process. do you think it is prudent for congress to empower ferc to work with agencies and stakeholders in the relicensing process to resolve inconsistent or conflicting license terms? >> yes. >> ferc denied an application

for preliminary purpose for a pump storage facility that had not adequately consulted with the drive on whose reservation the project would be cited. should congress do more to ensure tribal consent throughout the license process? >> impossible, yes. if possible on congress aside but we should definitely consult with tribes. >> in england, there are many small 100+-year-old hydropower facilities that may have outlived their useful life. it may be more economic for these asset owners to surrender the license then operate the facility that may be a hazard to the community and not making any money. should we consider ways to make it easier for obsolete facilities to make end-of-life decisions? >> yes. >> it is clear there are many areas of congressional and administration agreement and i look forward to working with the d.o.e. and my colleagues in this committee to get a bipartisan hydropower licensing reform bill

signed into law and i would commend or chair kathy mcmorris rodgers for working with my team for that. switching gears, i want to thank, thanks to the tax credits and grants from the inflation reduction act, the very last coal-fired power plant in new england, which is in my district in new hampshire is going to transition into a solar plant and battery storage facility. i cannot tell you how relieved my constituency will be for the clean air and the savings to our planet and the impact on climate change from that decision. secretary granholm, can we count on the d.o.e. to give fair consideration to this facilities applications for i.r.a. grants to help facilitate this transformation? >> this kind of transformation is exactly what you have provided for. you all in congress, and making

energy communities get the benefit of still powering our nation for the next 100 years as well through providing jobs and extra nation technology. congratulations on that. will want to see more of that. >> we are very excited about the news. thank you for your leadership , for working with this committee in a bipartisan way. you will find we have many areas of agreement with regard to clean energy and saving the planet and we look forward to working with you. thank you so much. i yield back. >> i now go to mr. weber for five minutes. >> we are glad you're here. do you know how many lng plants we have in texas 14? >> how many? >> we have two currently operating. we have another one that has gone through phase one. it is poised for phase two but the skids were put on. it makes

investors nervous. we have what across the louisiana state line. it is about seven or eight miles from us. energy is a big thing so as a cabinet level secretary of energy responsible for courting the nation's energy policy, of course you took it on yourself to be providing the president with good energy policy and that's your responsibility. can you describe for us exactly what john's roll in the administration? >> i would like to let him describe the roll but as you know , he is responsible for energy technology and climate. >> do interphase? >> yes. frequently. >> do have discussions about lng? >> yes. he supports the notion of doing an update so that we can make sure we can assess what's in the public interest. >> you would agree, that the uncertainty that creates in a

phase two construction project because we don't have time of day to certain is a problem, right? >> as we have said both to industries as well as our international partners, this is an update that is only for the purpose of a study and it will be done by the end of this year and beginning of next year, so it is limited in time and scope. it does not affect any of the existing authorizations. >> it does because they have to make plans and i won't pry and ask if you ever owned or operated a business, but i have for 35 years. one of the things business owners want is certainty. they don't want things changing on a whim. they need certainty, especially to plant something that far out and that big. i have been told -- to mr. podesta, who might have a brother who works in some fashion for some foreign energy infrastructure, are you aware of that? >> no. >> okay.

you all canceled your plans to refill the strategic petroleum reserve. >> i see what you are saying. we still land to fill strategic petroleum reserve, that one solicitation was over the amount that we wanted to purchase it at. >> what a surprise to find that we have 60% of spr in my district on the gulf coast? >> no, it would not surprise me. >> what the president does and what congress does is extremely important to our district. what are your plans going forward to refill the spr? i might have missed out on the discussion. >> our plan is to continue to seek solicitations. our hope was to be able to get purchases under $79 per barrel. whistled at on average 94-95 and we wanted to achieve a savings for the taxpayer. we repurchased 32 million barrels after this point and as you are well aware, the spr has

a couple of sites under maintenance and can't take in, so hopefully by the end of this year, everything will be up and running. >> what is the volume? >> 360? 360 something. >> when you are talking -- >> 360 million. >>.it. we always is in texas, things are bigger. we get that. with things on the geopolitical stand around the world, do you all consult with the state department when you are making these kinds of decisions that could actually impact our ability to respond to a strategic event, strategic petroleum reserve? >> yes, of course. we have the largest petroleum reserve even now in the world. even the amount of barrels that we have from a government owned strategic petroleum reserve, we have the largest in the world.

>> will we have to fight a war on more than one side, i think you would agree that amount would be woefully on ready for us to be in the good -- we would rather have a full spr to supply our military. that be a better scenario? >> sizing the spr and what the strategic amount needs to be, do we have to have the full amount of the current spr? that is a good question. we want to continue to fill it and we will. we are proud that we have been able to do so at a savings. >> let me leave you with one question. it is better to have more of the spr fill or less? >> more. >> thank you. i'm glad you understand. >> i will now go to -- pick >> thank you. texas relays, i happily took the baton from my good friend mr. weber to talk about that bipartisan infrastructure law and inflation reduction act and how this benefited texas.

bp solutions received 31 million from d.o.e. and materials received 5 million from the office of clean energy demonstrations. the texas division of emergency management received 60 million in grant funding for deployment office. that is great news for texas as all around the country people are saying they are concerned about the economy and money. i wanted to talk about how that money is coming back to texas. i think that is awesome. last weekend, we thwarted vladimir putin's plans and we helped provide funding for ukraine and in addition to thwarting his plans, i want to tell you how president biden's thwarting his plans. in 2023 the united states produced a record of 38 trillion cubic feet of gas and a record 4.7 billion barrels of crude oil.

that created a record 23 -- 238 megawatts of solar power and a record 6.4 gigawatts of new batteries that were on the grid batteries that were on the grid but those numbers to talk about with the gas, and the oil, that thwarted vladimir putin's plans. i congratulate the president on that. we need to keep europe free and secure and democratic. madam secretary, you know that texas and lng is a big deal for texas. we were concerned about the lng pause and i was hoping that you could talk a little bit or explain to what extent the national labs are factoring the investment that has gone into their study and what i'm referencing is the fact that

they provided about 1.5 billion for grants, rebates, contracts and loans to support emission monitoring and methane reduction efforts here in the u.s. can you talk about that a little bit? >> yeah. congresswoman dingle, i think your spot is right there. sorry. i think the and mrv, the methane mitigation verification and reporting is a really important part of the strategy for us as a nation to have lng or ng that is well received by those who receive our exports. that's an important thing and i think the natural gas industry recognizes that as well, the lng terminals. everybody is focused on making sure we are buttoning down our

methane leakage. i'm not sure if that's exactly what you were asking. but we are investing in that from our office of fossil energy and carbon management. >> good. i also wanted to ask you and switch gears a little bit to nuclear fuel, specifically the idaho national labs nuclear fabrication and deal that they have through the nda last year and appropriations bill, congress authorized and funded the nuclear fuel security act to carry a process and provision fuel that will provide american independence from russia in the production of nuclear energy. the molten assault record and texas is a test of a for new nuclear reactor design and molten salt that could be used to help safely address critical energy needs when it comes to water, medical license, and other important areas. can you provide an update on d.o.e.'s implementation of the nuclear fuel security act and

more specifically can you provide assurances that the d.o.e. will prioritize the idaho national labs fabrication of a fuel that blends -- that blends this molten salt that is being stored at the national level? >> we are excited about what idaho is doing. we are excited about the partnership with abilene christian university and their efforts on this. and about how this whole effort might fit into our overall uranium strategy that was passed by congress in the 2024 budget. that will be part of the fuel cycle considerations that we have through our office of nuclear energy, et cetera to be able to continue to work with them on that. >> thank you very much. i yield back pick >> i will now go to mr. balderson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you secretary for being here today. last year you and administrator

reagan agreed to a memorandum of understanding on electrical grid reliability. what is the status of that m.o. you. >> we entered into it. the epa issued its rules regarding 111 and the vehicle rules as well. >> you have held meetings both public and private? >> yes. our teams have. >> would you be willing to follow up with the details of those meetings with epa? including any transcripts to the committee? >> i don't know that there were transcripts because they were meetings, but happy to follow- up. >> thank you, i appreciate that. i want to follow-up during your budget hearing a few weeks ago. you have expressed concerns about impacts increasing lng exports may have on domestic natural gas prices. that concerns are one of the reasons your department went

forward with the pause on approving new lng exports, is that correct? >> it's one of the issues that are being researched by the national labs as we consider what is in the public interest. >> thank you. i would like to follow-up on the concern. since 2016 you have increased our lng export capacity from zero to over 11 billion cubic feet per day. we are now the world's top lng exporter and guess what, the spot price of natural gas has remained stable and affordable, in fact the current henry have a spot price is well below two dollars and is lower now than at any point between 2000 to when we began exporting and 2016 despite record inflation. under president biden, gasoline prices have gone up 48%, home heating is up 33%, electricity is up 29% and total energy cost are up 39%.

in this administration was interested in affordable energy for our constituents, you wouldn't block leasing on federal lands, raise fees on natural gas producers or force existing reliable generations into early retirement. you touched earlier on the fact that the epa's claim powerplant 2.0 does include existing natural gas fired plants. however, the epa has begun the process of separate rulemaking to target emissions from existing natural gas-fired power plants. given the objectives of the mou, have you discussed this potential rulemaking within the administrator reagan? >> i have not yet. >> as that rule is developed, will you commit to working with grid operators and powerplant operators as to the real world effects of forcing existing natural gas-fired plants to retire and urging the epa to do the same? >> i will definitely do that. >> thank you. as we have discussed for -- and

resource -- jiminy christmas, adequacy. sorry, i apologize for the luster to have. last thursday, the epa decided to move forward with her emission rules for existing coal and natural gas-fired plants. at any point the department of energy expressed concern to the epa regarding the rules impact on reliability and forcing existing reliable generation into early retirement? >> we have worked with the epa and it is our opinion that it will not do that. >> okay. recently announced final roll for distribution transformers and somewhat scaled-back from the original proposed rule. the final rule extends the compliance timelines and just efficiency targets to require less. we are already facing a supply-chain shortage and utilities are having difficulty

producing transformers. i still believe the final rule to this supply-chain crisis. can you explain how do you we -- doa plans to do this moving forward? >> the number this division roll alleviate this concern and it extends another five years as well as make sure that there is ample supply of green oriented electrical steel for those transformers made in the united states. there are issues still. we were just discussing this, and because of the clear demand, there has been an additional three transformer manufacturers that have announced they are expanding and we just give a grant to one of them for large power transformers, which is siemens. we are encouraged by the private sector stepping up to the challenges and we have also hoped that we can see some funding through the defense

production act to continually reinforce that we need additional transfer manufacturing in the u.s. >> do you believe lng has the ability to reduce the co2 footprint in developing nations? >> potentially. that is an issue that will be studied by the labs in the update. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i recognize mr. palmer for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thought we had another democrat ahead of me. i appreciate the opportunity. secretary granholm, thank you for being here. earlier you said the power sector rules do not touch existing natural gas units. but the administration announced it will be on a rulemaking to set standards for existing gas units. is it coming next? and it is coming next. i think really soon. who support the administration for setting it's rule making on

existing natural gas units? >> i support looking at that, yes. >> that is going to further increase energy costs that is bettering families. i heard you and a number of my colleagues across the aisle talk about the inflation reduction act, which was either intentionally misnamed or complete total failure because inflation has gone up 19%. it is 40% on energy cost. are you aware -- just for instance -- what percent of the increase of food is related to energy cost? >> the percent of the percent? there is a component of --.

>> math is tough for some of you. it is 60% of the increase in food costs related to the increase in energy costs. making groceries unaffordable for many families. are you aware to -- of how much it has impacted people's household utility cost? >> i'm aware that prices for electricity and energy on a monthly basis have gone up. they are up about $150 a month on average and the question is, why? why is this happening? we were discussing before that the why is, in large measure because the utilities are socializing the cost of upgrading the grid, and rebasing those. >> energy policies being imposed upon energy producers, the regulatory burden, the amount of uncertainty that mr. weber brought up increases the

cost of capital. that all gets passed on to the consumers and businesses don't pay regulatory costs. they pass it onto the consumer, and it's really hurting families in my district. the food bank was surprised to find out 35% of the people who are having to rely on them for free groceries are senior citizens who can't afford their household utility bills and medicine. are you aware of how much pharmaceuticals feedstock is related to petroleum? how much of that, for making pharmaceuticals? it is 99%. all of this cost gets added and passed onto the consumer. i have another question. this is also a national security issue. the house with unanimous democratic support, i might have been wrong, there might have been a few democrats who

didn't support ukraine, but this administration has put a pause on exporting lng, forcing europe to buy more natural gas from the russia. from the data i have here, france just paid russia ,600 million. the eu is spending about $1 billion each month on question gas. how does it make sense for the u.s. taxpayers to provide for the defense of ukraine, which i think is important, but yet the administration wants to limit the amount of gas that we can export to europe and allows russia to continue to sell gas to use that money to fund their war machine against ukraine? that seems to be in opposition. >> let me clarify a couple of points that you made, number one, there is no restriction on exports for any facility.

the pause is for authorizations for the future, but the existing -- we are the largest exporter, none of the exports of lng have diminished. there are another -- there is another. >> you are misrepresenting what i'm saying. i just made the point that you create uncertainty in the marketplace and europe cannot rely on united states to increase exports of natural gas, lng. so they are having to buy it from russia --. >> not because of our action. nobody is stopping the existing authorization --. >> you put a pause on additional exports. >> we have a capacity of exporting -- we have authorized

48 billion cubic feet, all of that is going forward, so to suggest that our actions are causing europe to purchase from russia is inaccurate with respect. >> that is an inaccurate response to a clear question. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i will go to mr. pence for 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member for holding this. thank you, madam secretary for being here. back home on and the indiana six district. i spent my entire life in the petroleum distribution business and i would like to say i got the energy where it needed -- when it needed to be there, affordably in the quantities and at the right time. i have held roundtables in indiana every two or three months. it includes the state of indiana, utilities, research and universities like purdue, parking and mobility experts, charging station development.

they all joined together and shared with me what is happening on the ground. that is the most important thing. of course, like all my peers i met with folks out here that tell me what is going on. let me ask you a question i always ask others, it is a goofy question. do you know how many cars they sell in europe every year? >> no i do not. >> 8 million. do know how much they sell in the united states? >> we have over 300 million on the roads. >> how many cars do they sell in china where we know they want ev? >> a lot more. >> 28 million. sometimes i worry that what we are doing is rolling out supporting the automobile industry so that they can sell more cars in china. i would laud toyota that it has look at hybrids. why haven't we looked more at hybrids instead of saying,

let's go to ev's so fast? >> we are in favor of hybrid electric. >> did you mandate hybrids by --. nobody is mandating anything. hybrid electric vehicles are absolutely qualified for the tax credit. >> nobody is mandating but you are incentivizing the heck out of --. incentivizing hybrids. >> in these roundtables, the first when i had about 18 months ago i said, and there is about 30 people there. we share what is happening out in the marketplace, i said you are all here because of the incentives and grants and the dollars that the federal government are putting out. now, tell me how that is going. and it is one horror story after another. are you aware of the problems with the charging stations? with the processing systems in the charging stations, with the inability to get the electricity to where they want to put the charging stations, with the problems they have in

urban areas where ev's or charging stations are a real problem in parking garages and apartment complexes? >> 100% i'm aware. that's what the infrastructure initiative is all about, to fix those very problems. >> so, to give money to solve a problem? a problem being created by this administration? >> to fix the gaps in the infrastructure associated with electric vehicles, yes, our goal is to get 500,000 charging stations out there across the country. today there are 188,000. there are still gaps and it is difficult. >> you are aware of how many of those are not operating and not working? >> part of that whole initiative is to do a rip and replace. >> why doesn't --. here's what i'm saying. i'm not here to argue with you today. i'm for all of the above like everybody else. why can't we be a little more --

be a little more cautious and take our time on rolling this out, going after the carpet industry. i'm a little concerned about -- i talked with the epa, the last time he was here i think he will be here in two weeks. i didn't know what a wrens. why can't the administration take a little bit of a time-out and reassess what is happening out in the field, that my constituents tell me about. >> we are assessing every single day. in fact there is a lot of wish for us to move much faster on the one hand and some --. >> it can't be by the people who are out there implementing these things pick the people i meet with, they are putting in the charging stations. they are the utility companies. they are the distribution companies. however is telling you to move faster is not part of the solution of getting where you want to go and where we would like to go.

>> i know we talked to different folks but we are trying to solve for those very problems that you are describing. it takes 18 months on average to pull electricity to an area for a charging station for fast charger, or doesn't already exist. the state of indiana has the funding to be able to do this and they are doing it. >> there is a short is on transformers and things like that. >> all of those things, everywhere all at once. >> thank you for your time. i yield back. mckay go to the next governor of north dakota. >> thank you, mr. chair. earlier you and my friend misty get had a conversation and were talking about capture the methane and you said it's wasteful. nobody wants methane in the air. producers don't want it. i'm assuming the d.o.e. has a financial incentive to capture that as well, right? >> when you say we have a financial incentive meeting we put out grants for those who can capture? >> a lot of that --.

i will backup. do you know what the federal lease rate is? >> on -- no i don't. >> it's 3/16 or 16.6 and so this is one of the arguments that frustrates me because -- you know what associated gas is? it is gas that is produced with oil and gas. there is only two ways to fully capture methane. either shut down oil production in order to get 100% capture or replace the infrastructure with infrastructure pipeline, all of those things, it captures 100% of all of them. and so, if we have an incentive and everybody says it is wasteful to do it, today wti is trading at 79 a barrel of oil, which is amazing. russia has

invaded ukraine. we have a hot war in the middle east and at any other time in history, oil would be over $120 a barrel and a big reason for that is laces like north dakota and the --. gas is trading at $1.92 mcf so the royalty rate applies to both of those. the financial incentive part of those economically recoverable has been a frustrating argument to me. the only way to recover that $.32 on 1.92 mcf of gas is to lose three dollars and 32 gas oil. there's no dollars -- there is no way to do it. if you are shunning oil production or you are shutting the old production to replace infrastructure you take 1000 barrels of oil off and let's say you are taking 1000 mcf of gas off at the same time, you are losing -- $79,910 on oil and $1920 on mcf of gastric the

problem is you don't get that thousand barrels back till the end of life of the oil. >> so this is why -- your point is that it's not in anybody's financial interest to take care of this. >> no. my point is, if it is economically recoverable at three point sixteenths, it's recoverable at 13/16. regardless of how we feel and wherever we are at on climate and we don't want to release the methane. we want to do that as well. we can agree that oil companies are good at making money and they look at these things in an economic standpoint. but when you are in the geographic center of the united states and your double regulated from head to market and part of the reason you can capture the gas is because you can get the federal permit to get the gas in the pipeline, and then the response is you have to shut your oil and we have far too many people saying, you have an economic incentive to recover that methane, you don't. because, anybody who understands math, particularly if you are dealing with this, is going to take the $79,910

versus the $1920. we talk about what the requirements are and all of those things, but if it was economically recoverable to capture that methane, the federal government should help pay for the infrastructure. the ngo should pay for the infrastructure and ask for the profit. the reason they don't is because it is not. we can talk about climate but it frustrates me when we have these comments that say, it's economically recoverable and we don't want to waste it. it is recoverable it is a product i don't think anybody wants to waste outside of any other part of this, but it is not economically recoverable because we can't get the infrastructure. >>is something we should be working on together to make sure that it is economically feasible for them to do that. some of the programs that were passed in the bipartisan infra structure lucky with the ability to do grants for this purpose, but it is not enough. and so maybe that is something

we should work on together. >> we can continue -- we get as much pipeline infrastructure in the ground in north dakota as we possibly can. if we can get some permits and interior permits as quickly as possible, we would have a lot less stranded gas and we could reduce more oil and gas because the state has done a pretty good job of tapping down. nobody wants to flare. i come from western north dakota were oil and gas is absolutely revolutionizing the economy out there and even we don't like to see flare is when we have them. but, we have to recognize where we are at and the difference of 3/16 on a dollar 92 versus 3/16 on 7091 is a pretty significant difference for states like north dakota, the federal government. with that i yield back. >> i will now go to the gentleman from texas, mr. pflueger. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, is there not a presumption, a long-standing presumption through many departments of energy studies

that lng exports are in the public interest? >> there has been, yes. >> when was the last study completed? >> 2018. >> okay, what did it say? >> a lot for the condition in which it had public interest. >> when he took over, did you believe that 2018 study, that it was in the public interest? >> i didn't have any reason to dispute. since 2018 we were exporting at that point for bcf. we have the capacity to do 14 with another with up to 48 authorized and so that is such a huge volume increase. >> a lot of it is in my district and other producing areas. you are still invited out there. we are waiting for you to visit. do you agree that the natural gas act authorizes you, the department of energy to both conduct environmental studies and permit review simultaneously well conduct another study? >> it does authorize us.

>> are you doing that? >> no, we are putting a hold while there is all of the stuff in the queue for the study so that so we know when we authorize next what that entails. >> it is more of a ban menopause? >> it is not a ban. >> every administration has done this simultaneously. >> i do not that is true. >> please provide us the administration that did this. let me move on to the next subject. i asked you last year, you said you are one of the principal advisors to the president of the united states on energy. you -- who are the other advisors? >> representative of the climate office. john podesta -- >> when did you make the recommendation on or before

january 26 to pause exports of lng? was that your recommendation of the president? >> that was my recommendation. >> did anybody else join in that meeting? >> we have a group that joints to advise the president. yes. >> was john podesta there? >> yes. >> did you meet with tiktok lng critics with john podesta? >> no. >> did john podesta meet with tiktok lng critics? >> i don't know. >> did any of your under secretaries meet with the tiktok -- >> i don't know what that is. sorry. >> the reporting and admittance of those meetings with john podesta. >> i am not. >> talk me through -- i want to put myself in the cabinet room

and understand what you told the president that has changed on our ability to export lng to our partners and allies around the world and why now? it seems very politically motivated. tell the committee why it is not politically motivated and why you would say this is an existential threat and we cannot approve any other lng exports to any non-fta countries. >> that is not what we said. >> we have such an explosive growth in exports. the last time we did it in 2018 we are only exporting. >> do we have a study >> the national laboratories energy laboratories in west

virginia and in washington. >> but we don't have a study -- >> they are in the process of doing this. >> we don't really know much about this. >> i have said in this hearing and and others that by the end of this year may be the beginning of january or february next year. >> okay. talk to me about what allies have said to you. there's only 14 fta's. what are the non-fta allies saying in response to this? >> when we have told them it does not affect any existing exports or any that have been authorized that it will not affect the amount and they will still be able to access and they will only last until the end of this year.

>> they are operating under a misconception. >> i think they are operating in reality. to believe this has a negative effect on long-term contracts? >> not those that are currently under operation. >> the secretary director told me they were not pleased. >> i understand that some in the industry may have pending authorization requests. our review is in the public interest and not in the interest of the oil and gas industry. >> i will go to mr. joyce for five minutes. >> thank you for allowing me. i want to thank you for testifying. we have discussed at length in this committee the problems with the drive for electric vehicles especially the california ev mandates that

would ban sales of internal combustion is -- engines by 2035. one of these major issues his infrastructure. i am concerned the federal government is abusing programs for ii'ja to bailout states that do not have the infrastructure. they identified the strategies are of employment estate with regulations and structures supporting the zero emission vehicles. secretary granholm, is the joint office of energy and transportation attempting to prioritize awards to states that have tied themselves to california standards when the law requires that awards for $5 billion in ev chargers be distributed on a formula basis to all states, not just those tied to california.

>> the money has gone in formula to all of the state. all of the programs have been approved. 31 states have started solicitation. >> of those 31 states, how many are tied to california mandates? >> i don't know that any of them are tied to california mandates. don't understand that. 26 states i believe have actually done solicitations and accepted those. we are taking steps forward and we are encouraged by what we see across the country. >> moving on, hydrogen will be an important energy source in the future. we recognize that. my home state of pennsylvania was chosen by d.o.e. . we are very excited about the possibilities of this new technology. would you agree that it will be impossible for hydrogen to succeed without private capital and companies investing significantly in the development? >> all of the hubs have

significant private capital investment. >> in pennsylvania we also have as you know a robust natural gas and nuclear industries that are anxious to get involved in the hydrogen production. the problem is the proposed guidance for tax credit making it nearly impossible for blue or pink hydrogen to participate . with hydrogen hubs already expressing concern about the guidance, do you share with me the concern that the treasuries, the proposed guidance might cripple the hydrogen hubs before they even get off the ground? >> the proposed guidance was open for participation from stakeholders they received thousands and thousands of comments. suffice it to say we want these hopes to succeed. >> i share that. i do want to see these succeed particularly in pennsylvania. you being the most senior energy official in america, are you engaging with the treasury to make sure that it does not

stifle hydrogen development? >> we are engaging with the treasury. >> another innovative technology being developed is carbon capture utilization and storage. in pennsylvania we are very excited about this potential to see -- keep the coal and natural gas power plants running for decades to come. in the recently finalized epa roles covering existing power plants they say it is achievable. the problem that i have is that d.o.e. continues to award grants to spur the development of ccus and skill commercial demonstrations. is ccus adequately demonstrated and commercially viable or juxtaposed to that, is it a promising yet unproven technology worthy of billions of dollars of research and development? >> it is a proven technology.

>> so why is that disparity? why does that occur? why are we seeing a different algorithm being provided by the department of energy than what we are seeing from the epa? >> the department of energy agrees with the epa on the viability of this technology. we are issuing grants and demonstrations for different use cases. we know that the technology actually works. petra nova in texas is an example. previously there has not been a price essentially. now there is on the gathering of carbon and co2. so that gave the financial liability a leg up. that approves that the technology is good and the market is good. >> thank you for being here today. >> i think the gentleman. we will now go to the michigan

senator for five minutes. we are glad you are here. >> thank you, esther chairman, and thank you for letting us move on. when you see the three of us you know you are getting close to the end. it is wonderful to see you madam secretary. i agree with my colleague on the other side about hydrogen hubs. we are very excited we have them in michigan as well. when we do talk about alternative vehicles of the future, it is not all ev's. i keep saying, that the world is gone there. i want to start by acknowledging how crucial the biden administration infrastructure law has been to helping us into the future and updating country infrastructure . we created the joint office of energy and transportation to help align resources to successfully elect fire roads.

through this joint office, and we were talking about a before, we've seen initiatives like the national electric vehicle infrastructure program which has allocated $7.5 billion for national electric vehicle charging infrastructure. despite this significant advancement the rollout has progressed slower than anybody wants. we need to be perfectly frank. can you tell us what specific obstacles has the department of energy faced in building the national ev charging network, and how is the department working to overcome these challenges? >> thank you for the question because it is really important. right now we have 181,000 chargers across the country. must've that, of course, from the private sector. the goal is to get to 500,000. we approved all 50 states for funding informally to be able

to do that. 35 states receive solicitations. 21 states have announced awards. we expect there will be 1000 stations under this program by the end of 2024. there is the corridor program where we are filling in gaps in transportation corridor's. we are replacing existing charging stations that are broke we have as much charging availability as possible. the challenge is that it takes about 18 months on average to pull electricity to a charger where electricity doesn't already exist. they have permitting issues at the state level. they are finding difficulty. all of these solicitations are out. we will start to see more and more of the public chargers available through the course of this year.

>> let's build on that. michigan briefly announced a new award to develop new ev charging stations. how are we supporting the state transportation agencies and planning and implementing the charging rollout? i would like to talk a little bit because one of the complaints i get is a lot of the chargers don't work and it's a real problem. >> the joint office between transportation and d.o.e. has people doing technical assistance with planning, permitting, design et cetera. it is the charging and fueling infrastructure to replace 7500 chargers. we need to make sure that states are doing that. they have been given funding for that as well. the funding is for two parts.

hopefully that has happened. the rip and replace should be easier. we don't have to worry about permitting. we encourage states to take that on first even as they get permitting for the other ones. >> i do need to bring this up. last summer there was significant distraction from storms. southeast michigan keeps getting hit by these storms every year including heavy rainfall, strong wind and tornadoes. four of them in my district leading to bridge closures, fallen trees, warm weather et cetera. at the peak close to 500,000 customers lost power. my goal is to ensure we are better prepared for these increasingly severe weather events impacting

communities. how are you working with utilities to quickly restore power to consumers and also strengthen grid resilience during and after events like this. >> we are leading the coordinating council to do quick responses to help get up but ultimately it is the utility responsibility to get the transmission lines across. the second thing is congress gave us funding to support expanding the grid and making it more resilient. i think that michigan got some of that. this is a huge infrastructure. we need to invest in that as well. >> madam secretary, we usually

yield back. we recognize mr. carter for five minutes. >> thank you for that outstanding reference. secretary, thank you for being here. these are so close to the background levels and even areas that meet the standards won't be able to permit new and expanded manufacturing that is critical to building a clean environment. the energy infrastructure that this administration is pursuing and pushing so hard. so have they taken into consideration the new permits that are created by epa. >> as we give out grants, we

take into account what they are asking for and the time -- kind of technology. >> you support that even though it is so close to the background that many places are not going to be able to >> the largest project in the state of georgia is taking place right now in my district. that is a $5.5 billion investment with many more jobs. am appreciative that it's going there. do you realize that project would not be permitted today if these standards were in place? >> i do not have information on that. >> it is true. i know that you want that project. i figure there will be a market for ev's.

i don't agree with a lot of things, with the government picking winners and losers, but at the same time i think they are making a wise decision and i think they will be successful. i hope that you will look at that because these are quality jobs and high-paying jobs. >> there are 35 factories in georgia. >> absolutely. aren't you concerned? you are obviously pushing this as much as anyone. aren't you concerned there will be other projects that are going to be permitted? >> it is my understanding that that is not the case. >> we have heard reports recently and we are certainly alarmed that the biden administration is pressuring ukraine to halt strikes on russian energy facilities out of concern it will impact russia's capacity and lead to an increased crisis. as i understand it, u.s. the

secretary of the department of energy it is your responsibility or whomever might hold that position of secretary it is your responsibility to advise the president on matters relating to energy security and global energy markets. did you advise the president on this? >> it is not in my remit. that is department of state and not department of energy. >> with an energy issue like this -- you don't have any influence on this? >> not on that decision. >> can i ask you, do you believe that disrupting russia's energy facilities will drive up global prices? >> i do not have an opinion on that. >> surely you do. you are the secretary of energy. i find that hard to believe. perhaps i need to be educated here as what the responsibilities are. it is a

cabinet post. i thought you were an advisor to the president. >> i am an advisor to the president on domestic energy issues. there are many people in the white house that advice both on energy issues and global energy issues. there's a whole national security implication there. >> so you are washing your hands of this? >> i'm not washing my hands. i'm involved in the things i'm involved in. not this. >> fair enough. let's talk about the lng quote unquote pause. >> it is not a band. it is a pause. >> i assume you were involved in that decision. >> i was. >> i think it is the worst decision that could be made. i think economically from a global emission standpoint it was an awful decision but nevertheless i am not the secretary of energy, you are. there was a 2019 study that found that the lifecycle of

greenhouse gas emissions of the u.s. lng is more than 40% greater than russia. certainly we should take that into consideration. do you believe that u.s. lng is cleaner than russian natural gas. >> i do. >> to agree that energy workers deserve some credit. are you concerned that this 'could undercut the profits that americans and our allies are making to reduce emissions. >> it will not. >> it will not? >> because they will be using russian lng that you just said is dirty. >> the pause is to conduct the study on what is in the national interest given volumes. it does not affect current exports or anything that has been authorized. we have authorized 48 billion cubic feet of exports currently. >> will it impact any exports

in the first of next year? >> we are waiting to see what the results of the study based on a number of things. >> thank you for being here. thank you for allowing me through this frustrating exchange. >> the gentleman yields back i would like to think madam secretary for being here today. members may have additional written questions which they will submit in writing. i ask that they do that within 10 business days and you respond within 10 business days of receiving the questions. we will insert into the record documents it included on the documents list. without objection that will be the order. seeing no other members we will stand adjourned. >> thank you.