    [House Hearing, 117 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                            OVERVIEW OF THE SCIENCE
                         AND ENERGY RESEARCH ENTERPRISE
                        OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
                                 AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 27, 2021

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 117-18

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    44-539PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                 HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon                 Ranking Member
    AMI BERA, California                 MO BROOKS, Alabama
    HALEY STEVENS, Michigan,             BILL POSEY, Florida
        Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
    MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
    ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           PETE SESSIONS, Texas
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois                MIKE GARCIA, California
    DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
    DON BEYER, Virginia                  YOUNG KIM, California
    CHARLIE CRIST, Florida               RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
    CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
    DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina         JAY OBERNOLTE, California
    GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin                PETER MEIJER, Michigan
    DAN KILDEE, Michigan                 VACANCY
    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
    VACANCY

                            C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  May 27, 2021

                                                                       Page

    Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................     7
        Written Statement............................................     8

    Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
      Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
      Representatives................................................     9
        Written Statement............................................    10

                                   Witnesses:

    The Honorable Jennifer Granholm, Secretary of Energy, U.S.
      Department of Energy
        Oral Statement...............................................    12
        Written Statement............................................    14

    Discussion.......................................................    21

                  Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    The Honorable Jennifer Granholm, Secretary of Energy, U.S.
      Department of Energy...........................................    68

                            OVERVIEW OF THE SCIENCE
                         AND ENERGY RESEARCH ENTERPRISE
                        OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 27, 2021

                              House of Representatives,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

         The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 o'clock p.m.,
    via Zoom, Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the
    Committee] presiding.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. This meeting will
    come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to
    declare recess at any time, and before I deliver my opening
    remarks, I want to make note that today, the Committee is
    meeting virtually. I want to announce a couple of reminders to
    the Members about the conduct of the hearing.
         First, Members should keep their video feed on as long as
    they're present in the hearing. Members are responsible for
    their own microphones. Please also keep your microphones muted
    until you are speaking. Finally, if Members have documents they
    wish to submit to the record, please email them to the
    Committee Clerk, whose email address was circulated prior to
    the meeting.
         Good morning to everyone, and thank you, Madam Secretary,
    for appearing before us today. It is so great to see you. As
    you know, this Committee has jurisdiction over all of the
    Department of Energy's (DOE's) essential science and energy
    research and development (R&D) activities, their laboratories,
    and facilities. So, I very much look forward to working with
    you throughout this Congress.
         We are meeting today at a critical time in history.
    Unfortunately, climate change remains a growing threat across
    the world. Many of us have been firsthand and have seen
    firsthand the devastating effects it can have in our
    communities. We are going through some of that right now in my
    community with lots and lots of rain. Especially our front-line
    and disadvantaged communities are suffering. At the same time,
    this novel coronavirus has substantially disrupted the world as
    we knew it. And that includes much of the critical scientific
    research that we spend a lot of time on this Committee learning
    about and discussing.
         But with great challenges, great opportunities. We are
    currently in the midst of a budget season, and we are very
    eagerly awaiting release of President Biden's detailed budget
    request. I was pleased to see the preliminary request that
    included a 27 percent increase from the fiscal year 2021 levels
    for the Department of Energy's applied energy programs. This
    includes support for advanced nuclear technologies, electric
    vehicles (EVs), and hydrogen production, just to name a few.
    There are brighter days on the horizon.
         Members of this Committee are also currently working on a
    bipartisan reauthorization of the DOE Office of Science. I
    support the administration's goal of additional funding for the
    Office's critical efforts to improve our competitiveness and
    decarbonize our country. However, I would also urge the
    administration to consider the benefits of additional funding
    to support some of our Nation's most important science and
    energy research programs and facilities. The discretionary
    request for the Office of Science includes a $400 million
    increase to a total of $7.4 billion. While this is certainly
    appreciated, I believe that this level of growth is not
    sufficient for the current needs of the world-class user
    facilities, research programs, and national laboratories
    stewarded by the Office. So, I hope that we will do better when
    Congress acts on DOE's budget request later this year.
         Moving forward, the budget we are here today to provide an
    opportunity for our Members to ask questions pertaining to any
    and all of the science and energy research activities carried
    out by the Department. Constituents from Member districts on
    both sides of the aisle benefit greatly from these programs,
    and we believe it is our duty to ensure the responsible use of
    their tax dollars.
         I am proud to say, though, that a lot of thoughtful hard
    work and dedication, we were able to authorize many of these
    programs in a bipartisan fashion in the Energy Act of 2020,
    which was signed into law late last year. We look forward to
    working with you on the implementation of that new law, among
    many other areas of mutual interest.
         One last note to my colleagues. The Secretary will have to
    depart at 4 p.m., so I encourage you to keep your questions to
    5 minutes so that we can have ample opportunity to engage with
    all of our Members, and I will endeavor to do the same.
         So, with that, I would like to thank you again for being
    here, and I look forward to a productive session.
         [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

        Good morning everyone, and thank you, Madam Secretary, for
    appearing before us today. It is so great to see you. As you
    know, this Committee has jurisdiction over all of the
    Department of Energy's essential science and energy research
    and development activities, laboratories, and facilities. So I
    very much look forward to working with you throughout this
    Congress.
        We are meeting today at a critical time in history.
    Unfortunately, climate change remains a growing threat across
    the world. Many of us have seen first-hand the devastating
    effects it can have in our communities, especially our front-
    line and disadvantaged communities. At the same time, this
    novel coronavirus has substantially disrupted the world as we
    knew it. And that includes much of the critical scientific
    research that we spend a lot of our time on this Committee
    learning about and discussing.
        But with great challenges come great opportunities. We are
    currently in the midst of budget season, and are very eagerly
    awaiting the release of President Biden's detailed budget
    request. I was pleased to see the preliminary request, which
    includes a 27% increase from the FY21 levels for the Department
    of Energy's applied energy programs. This includes support for
    advanced nuclear technologies, electric vehicles, and hydrogen
    production just to name a few. There are brighter days on the
    horizon.
        Members of this Committee are also currently working on a
    bipartisan reauthorization of the DOE Office of Science. I
    support the Administration's goal of additional funding for
    this Office's critical efforts to improve our competitiveness
    and decarbonize our country. However, I would also urge the
    Administration to consider the benefits of additional funding
    to support some of our nation's most important science and
    energy research programs and facilities. The discretionary
    request for the Office of Science includes a $400 million
    increase to a total of $7.4 billion. While this is certainly
    appreciated, I believe that this level of growth is not
    sufficient for the current needs of the world-class user
    facilities, research programs, and national laboratories
    stewarded by the Office. So I hope that we will do better when
    Congress acts on DOE's budget request later this year.
        Moving beyond the budget, we are here today to provide an
    opportunity for our Members to ask questions pertaining to any
    and all of the science and energy research activities carried
    out by the Department. Constituents from Member districts on
    both sides of the aisle benefit greatly from these programs,
    and we believe it is our duty to ensure the responsible use of
    their tax dollars. I am proud to say that through a lot of
    thoughtful hard work and dedication, we were able to authorize
    many of these programs in a bipartisan fashion in the Energy
    Act of 2020, which was signed into law late last year. We look
    forward to working with you on the implementation of that law,
    among many other areas of mutual interest.
        One last note to my colleagues--the Secretary will have to
    depart at 4 p.m. So I encourage you to keep your questions to 5
    minutes so that we all have ample opportunity to engage with
    the Secretary, and I will endeavor to do the same.
        With that, I would like to thank you again for being here,
    and I look forward to a productive discussion this morning.

         Chairwoman Johnson. I now recognize Mr. Lucas for his
    opening statement.
         Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman, for hosting this
    hearing. Today, we welcome Secretary of Energy Jennifer
    Granholm to discuss the Department's priorities for fiscal year
    2022 and beyond. I'm looking forward to hearing how the
    Department will provide robust support for the high-priority
    research programs and infrastructure carried out by the
    Department.
         DOE is one of the Nation's largest Federal sponsor of
    basic research in the physical sciences, and is world leader in
    technology development and innovation. As such, it's critical
    to our work on the Science Committee to address two of the
    biggest challenges facing our country right now: climate change
    and global competitiveness.
         To address climate change and continue our economic
    growth, we must develop cleaner, more reliable energy sources.
    But we have to approach this in a way that doesn't raise energy
    prices and take away American jobs. We need to invest in
    research that produces next generation technologies, ensuring
    America is the leader in affordable energy production and
    global emissions reductions for years to come.
         At the same time, we face serious threats to our
    scientific leadership from the Chinese Communist Party. In
    order for the U.S. research enterprise to keep its position as
    the world's leader in innovation, we must make significant
    investments in R&D that provide a stable, sustainable path
    forward in key technology focus areas, and across the
    scientific disciplines. DOE is uniquely positioned in both of
    these challenges. It is our responsibility on the Science
    Committee to ensure that the Department has the authorities and
    the resources it needs to get the job done.
         Last Congress, we worked together to pass the Energy Act
    of 2020, the first comprehensive update of U.S. energy policy
    in over a decade. This bill includes more than a dozen bills
    from this Committee and focuses on diverse and competitive
    clean energy solutions driven by research across DOE's applied
    energy offices. It recognizes that the most effective way to
    improve energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gases, and
    maintain U.S. energy independence is through technological
    innovations, which we can support by investing in basic and
    early stage research.
         This afternoon, I look forward to hearing from the
    Secretary about DOE's plans to fully implement this
    legislation, to build on the successes of the Energy Act, and
    to ensure that DOE's essential contributions to the Federal
    research enterprise, we must work together to pass
    comprehensive DOE Office of Science legislation.
         Today, Chairwoman Johnson and I released the text of a
    bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Office of Science, increase
    our investment, and provide a roadmap for DOE's research and
    development work. This is the first comprehensive
    reauthorization of the Office of Science, and it could not
    possibly come at a better time. Working with the Energy
    Subcommittee Ranking Member, Mr. Weber, and Subcommittee
    Chairman, Mr. Bowman, we drafted a bill that will invest nearly
    $50 billion over 5 years, giving the Office of Science and our
    national labs the resources they need to continue to excel. We
    need cutting edge facilities for our Federal scientists and
    researchers with academic and industry to conduct big science,
    research that can't be done in individual labs and requires
    massive equipment that industry cannot provide, like advanced
    light sources and neutron sources. This Office of Science
    legislation which will be formally introduced tomorrow is the
    part of a two-pronged approach to build up America's research
    program, along with the NSF for the Future Act.
         Chairwoman Johnson and I have taken a deliberative
    approach to revitalizing American research. We are doing so
    within reauthorization bills which comprehensively fund the
    National Science Foundation and the Office of Science. Rather
    than throwing money at these agencies or pitting them against
    each other for funding, we are investing in the programs that
    work, creating new ones where needed. We are giving agencies
    the resources to sustainably scale up their work. The last
    thing we need is a massive, one-time injection of money that
    will dry up when the attention turns away from America's
    research needs.
         The NSF for the Future Act and this Office of Science
    reauthorization are both in line with the Securing America's
    Leadership and Technology Act, SALSTA, a bill I introduced to
    double the Office of Science funding over the next 10 years,
    invest in our national labs, and improve technology transfer,
    and protect American research from theft by foreign
    adversaries.
         I appreciate Chairwoman Johnson's commitment to our shared
    goal of strengthening our research enterprise. I look forward
    to working together to pass these bills into law. And I also
    want to thank the Secretary for her testimony today, and for
    outlining her plans to execute DOE's mission objectives in the
    upcoming fiscal year and beyond. I look forward to a productive
    discussion.
         Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, and I yield back the
    balance of my time.
         [The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]

        Thank you Chairwoman for hosting this hearing. Today, we
    welcome Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm to discuss the
    Department's priorities for fiscal year 2022 and beyond. I'm
    looking forward to hearing how the Department will provide
    robust support for the high-priority research programs and
    infrastructure carried out by the Department.
        DOE is the nation's largest federal sponsor of basic
    research in the physical sciences and is a world leader in
    technology development and innovation. As such, it is critical
    to our work on the Science Committee to address two of the
    biggest challenges facing our country right now: climate change
    and global competitiveness.
        To address climate change and continue our economic growth,
    we must develop cleaner and more reliable energy sources. But
    we have to approach this in a way that doesn't raise energy
    prices and take away American jobs. We need to invest in
    research that produces next-generation technologies, ensuring
    America is the leader in affordable energy production and
    global emissions reduction for years to come.
        At the same time, we face serious threats to our scientific
    leadership from the Chinese Communist Party. In order for the
    U.S. research enterprise to keep its position as the world's
    leader in innovation, we must make significant investments in
    R&D that provide a stable and sustainable path forward in key
    technology focus areas and across the scientific disciplines.
        DOE is uniquely positioned to meet both of these
    challenges. It is our responsibility on the Science Committee
    to ensure the Department has the authorities and the resources
    it needs to get the job done.
        Last Congress, we worked together to pass the Energy Act of
    2020, the first comprehensive update of U.S. energy policy in
    over a decade. This bill includes more than a dozen bills from
    this Committee and focuses on diverse and competitive clean
    energy solutions driven by research across DOE's applied energy
    offices. It recognizes that the most effective way to improve
    energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gases, and maintain U.S.
    energy independence is through technological innovations, which
    we can support by investing in basic and early-stage research.
    This afternoon, I look forward to hearing from the Secretary
    about DOE's plans to fully implement this legislation.
        To build on the successes of the Energy Act, and to secure
    DOE's essential contributions to the federal research
    enterprise, we must work together to pass comprehensive DOE
    Office of Science legislation. Today, Chairwoman Johnson and I
    released the text of a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the
    Office of Science, increase our investment, and provide a
    roadmap for DOE's research and development work. This is the
    first comprehensive authorization of the Office of Science, and
    it could not come at a better time. Working with the Energy
    Subcommittee Ranking Member Randy Weber and Chairman Jamaal
    Bowman, we've drafted a bill that will invest nearly $50
    billion over 5 years, giving the Office of Science and our
    National Labs the resources they need to continue to excel.
        We need cutting-edge facilities for our federal scientists
    and researchers from academia and industry to conduct big
    science-research that can't be done in individual labs and
    requires massive equipment that industry cannot provide, like
    advanced light sources and neutron sources. This Office of
    Science legislation, which will be formally introduced
    tomorrow, is part of a two-pronged approach to buildup
    America's research program along with the NSF for the Future
    Act,
        Chairwoman Johnson and I have taken a deliberative approach
    to revitalizing American research. We're doing so within
    reauthorization bills, which comprehensively fund the National
    Science Foundation and the Office of Science. Rather than
    throwing money at these agencies or pitting them against each
    other for funding, we're investing in the programs that work
    and creating new ones where needed. We're giving the agencies
    the resources to sustainably scale-up their work. The last
    thing we need is a massive, one-time injection of money that
    will dry up when attention turns away from America's research
    needs.
        The NSF for the Future Act and this Office of Science
    reauthorization are both in line with the Securing American
    Leadership in Technology Act (SALSTA), a bill I introduced to
    double Office of Science funding over the next 10 years, invest
    in our national laboratories, improve technology transfer, and
    protect American research from theft by foreign adversaries I
    appreciate Chairwoman Johnson's commitment to our shared goal
    of strengthening our research enterprise and I look forward to
    working together to pass these bills into law.
        I want to thank Secretary Granholm for her testimony today,
    and for outlining her plans to execute DOE's mission objectives
    in the upcoming fiscal year and beyond. I look forward to a
    productive discussion. Thank you Chairwoman Johnson, I yield
    back the balance of my time.

         Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas.
         If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
    statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
    point.
         At this time, I will now like to welcome our esteemed
    witness, who really needs little introduction, but I will give
    some.
         The Honorable Jennifer Granholm is the 16th United States
    Secretary of Energy. She served as the Governor of Michigan
    from 2003 to 2011, as well as Attorney General of Michigan from
    1998 to 2002, and was the first woman to serve in either role.
    After two terms of Governor, Ms. Granholm joined the faculty at
    the University of California at Berkeley as a distinguished
    professor of practice in the Goldman School of Public Policy,
    focusing on the intersection of law, clean energy,
    manufacturing, policy, and industry. She also served as an
    advisor to the Clean Energy Program at the Pew Charitable
    Trust.
         I look forward to working with Secretary Granholm to help
    build an equitable clean energy future, and so, thank you,
    Secretary, for joining us today. You will have 5 minutes for
    your spoken testimony, and your written testimony will be
    included in the record for the hearing. When you have completed
    your spoken testimony, we will begin questions and each Member
    will have 5 minutes to ask questions.
         You now can begin your testimony.

             TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JENNIFER GRANHOLM,

             SECRETARY OF ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

         Secretary Granholm. Great. Thank you so much, Chairwoman
    Johnson, and thank you to Ranking Member Frank Lucas, and to
    all of the Members of the House Committee on Science, Space,
    and Technology. It is a treat to be before you today, and it is
    a treat to be able to share the Biden Administration's vision
    and priorities for the Department of Energy.
         So, as the 16th, as was said, Secretary of Energy, it is
    my mission to carry out the basic science and national security
    efforts that have long been pivotal to the Department's work,
    and at the same time, driving forward the research and
    development deployment of cutting-edge clean energy
    technologies that are going to power our energy and economic
    security throughout the 21st century.
         We have made a lot of progress just in a few months' time,
    but we've also come to recognize how urgent some aspects of our
    work really are. And we can start on that score with, for
    example, the Colonial Pipeline issue.
         As you know, on May 7, the Colonial Pipeline company fell
    victim to a ransomware attack that forced them to shut down
    their largest fuel pipeline on the East Coast, and President
    Biden immediately launched an interagency whole of government
    response, which was coordinated by the Department of Energy.
    And I am proud that the quick efforts helped to move those fuel
    supplies to the impacted areas, and of course, supporting the
    company while they attempted to resume operations quickly and
    safely. But the incident really made clear that as these
    systems that Americans rely on in our daily lives grow
    increasingly interconnected, so too do the vulnerabilities in
    these systems and the potential for disruption.
         So, we have to take a wide view of the possible risks, and
    we have to engage every relevant part of the Federal Government
    to develop the safeguards and the best practices to keep the
    systems that touch that critical infrastructure a step ahead of
    our adversaries. So, I would welcome conversations with this
    Committee around the steps necessary to keep America's energy
    systems secure, and clearly, the Department of Energy has a key
    role to play.
         So, as you know, DOE has many core competencies. You all
    have been very busy passing bills and working in these quantum
    information sciences and advanced computing and artificial
    intelligence, you know, just to scratch the surface of all that
    we deploy at the Department, and of course, led by the
    unparalleled research capacity of our 17 national labs. It is
    not lost on us that the Members of this Committee have rightly
    pushed to authorize the Department to advance these
    specialties, along with propelling advanced manufacturing and
    so many other areas of applied science that we excel in. I
    really appreciate the Chairwoman's great support and remarks
    about the importance of investing in science, and I can just
    tell you in the short time that I have been leading the
    Department, I am in awe of the work that our scientists and our
    researchers are doing. So, we really thank you so much for
    recognizing the invaluable contributions they make to their
    fields, but also to the Nation.
         So, we hope to continue working in a collaborative,
    complementary manner with the full suite of federally supported
    scientific enterprises. The research and development work,
    though, would expand by orders of magnitude with the passage of
    the American Jobs Plan. As you know, it is a just a once in a
    generation investment that would supercharge these research and
    development efforts around clean energy, while creating
    millions of good paying jobs. It would really launch us to the
    forefront of clean energy innovation worldwide. It would ensure
    that American scientists are the ones making the major
    breakthroughs in cutting edge technologies like carbon capture
    and storage and hydrogen. It would--the American Jobs Plan
    would position American entrepreneurs to take these
    technologies to scale. It would give American workers the
    opportunity to build them in factories right here at home. The
    American Jobs Plan would also deliver essential upgrades to
    both the brick-and-mortar facilities, and the computing
    capabilities of our national labs, along with other research
    infrastructure across the country, and it would make the
    necessary investments in the industries of the future. It would
    also help us take major leaps over barriers to diversity in
    America's STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
    mathematics) fields by making long overdue increases in support
    for historically Black colleges and universities, and other
    minority-serving institutions.
         So, I am so pleased to note that the President's proposed
    2022 discretionary funding request would put $46.2 billion
    behind all of these key priorities, along with our very
    essential work to strengthen the Department's nuclear security
    mission, and advance our environmental management programs.
         So, these are ambitious objectives, and yet, the global
    march of innovation makes it imperative that we achieve them. I
    am really humbled to lead the wealth of talent that we have in
    the Department of Energy as we work toward these ambitious
    goals, and I am confident that with your continuing
    partnership, we will be successful.
         So, thank you so much.
         [The prepared statement of Secretary Granholm follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Chairwoman Johnson. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary.
         At this point, we will begin our first round of questions,
    and the chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes.
         Madam Secretary, here on the Science Committee, we are
    planning to introduce a comprehensive bipartisan authorization
    bill for the Office of Science tomorrow. I was encouraged to
    see that the Office of Science was one of the few line items
    provided for the Department of Energy in the initial
    discretionary budget request. However, I am disappointed in the
    level of increase, as it is unlikely to be enough to support
    the current needs of these facilities, research programs, and
    the national laboratories stewarded by the office.
         Given the major construction activities currently being
    carried out by the Office of Science to build and upgrade its
    various world-class facilities, this level of support may well
    result in a cut to major research accounts, or it could lead to
    inadequate funding to keep the Office's construction activities
    on schedule and minimize their costs.
         Could you address how the administration arrived at 5.7
    percent increase in the Office of Science, especially in
    comparison to the major increases proposed for DOE's Applied
    Energy Programs and the National Science Foundation? Is this
    any indication of the lack of support or appreciation for the
    unique and significant role that the Office of Science plays in
    fostering U.S. competitiveness?
         Secretary Granholm. Not at all. I so appreciate your
    question.
         Obviously research and development is so critical to our
    competitiveness, and although I certainly share the sentiment
    that stronger funding for R&D would further support our
    competitiveness, I would note, as you did, that the Office of
    Science is receiving a $400 million increase from enacted
    levels, which would enable us to support all of the key areas
    that that office covers, from quantum technology to biology.
         But I also want to say, this is the--this represents the
    single-largest budget, if it were enacted, at DOE, so there is
    no reason to think that this is anything but huge. Plus,
    billions will be added to the labs and the Office of Science
    through the American Jobs Plan, assuming that Congress passes
    it.
         So, believe me. This administration is all in on funding
    scientific research. We recognize that we need to up our game
    in the basic sciences and research and development, and that
    those investments are needed and that the administration is
    deeply committed to the national labs and the Office of
    Science, and so that's why the American Jobs Plan is so big and
    robust on funding research and development.
         So, we are very excited about that and to work with you,
    and so grateful for your expression of support for the Office
    of Science.
         Chairwoman Johnson. Well, thank you.
         How will you keep the Office of Science's major
    construction activities, including our commitment to the ITER
    (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)
    International Fusion Project, on track with this level of
    funding?
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah. The ITER Project, as you know,
    is a very important priority for the Office of Science, and
    certainly important for this administration. They are committed
    to the ITER Project, and I can assure you that the U.S.
    contributions to the ITER Project are being effectively and
    efficiently managed by the Office of Fusion Energy Science and
    by the U.S. ITER Project Office with its associated national
    laboratories, including Oak Ridge National Lab and Princeton,
    and the Savannah River National Lab.
         So, the goal, of course, with this project is to
    demonstrate the feasibility of fusion as a large-scale and
    carbon-free source of energy. It is the holy grail, and I am
    super eager to see the project succeed.
         Chairwoman Johnson. Well thank you. One last question.
         Will you be able to support these projects at levels that
    the Department has previously estimated would be necessary to
    minimize their total costs? Or would these cost estimates need
    to be increased as a result?
         Secretary Granholm. No, I can assure you that the
    Department is committed to bringing resources to bear on
    these--this project and other projects. It is a priority for
    you. It is a priority for Members of the Committee, and I look
    forward to working with you on it.
         Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
         I now recognize Mr. Lucas for 5 minutes.
         Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair.
         The United States has vast global geothermal resources. If
    harnessed correctly, these resources have the capacity to
    provide clean, renewable, secure load-based power, not just for
    Oklahoma, but for Americans across the country. This is why
    last Congress I introduced the Advanced Geothermal Research and
    Development Act, which I'm pleased to see was incorporated in
    the Energy Act of 2020. This Congress, I am closely following
    the Department's progress in carrying out the activities
    authorized in my bill.
         Secretary, can you please provide us with a brief
    description on the update on the Department's continued
    implementation of these provisions on geothermal.
         Secretary Granholm. You bet. You bet, thank you, Ranking
    Member Lucas. I really appreciate the question, and all of the
    great work that this Committee did really in a bipartisan way,
    which we hope can be replicated this year to get that Energy
    Act of 2020 passed.
         You know, the--many of the pieces we are already working
    on, for example, on the geothermal side like the Forge
    Initiative, which I know you are very supportive of, enhanced
    geothermal systems represents the largest opportunity for
    geothermal power production in the U.S., and the 2019 DOE--I
    think they had a geovision report that suggested that those are
    the enhanced geothermal systems, if they're used to their
    maximum potential, could provide up to 8-1/2 percent of all
    power generation in the U.S. by 2050. I feel like geothermal is
    an underused resource. I am a big believer in it. I have met
    several times with our own geothermal office to make sure that
    we can accelerate this.
         You know, we could say on the storage side of things, too,
    because the Energy Act was so bullish on storage, as it should
    have been. I mean, DOE has continued to support the Energy
    Storage Grant Challenge as well, which is obviously a
    comprehensive program that cuts across all of our offices. And
    because that Energy Act of 2020 was a great authorization for a
    lot of programs and a lot of that Energy Act, it has informed
    the American Jobs Plan. So, if we can get the appropriations
    attached to the great projects that were identified there, we
    can really take off.
         So, thank you for your leadership.
         Mr. Lucas. Absolutely, Secretary.
         And along with that, the President's proposed an advanced
    research project agency focused on climate called ARPA-C
    (Advanced Research Projects Agency--Climate). So far, we have
    limited information on ARPA-C, but it sounds a lot like DOE's
    ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy) program. As
    longtime supporters of ARPA-E, Chairwoman Johnson and I
    successfully reformed and reauthorized the program last year.
         So, Secretary, I have got a series of short questions
    about the ARPA-C proposal that hopefully can get me a set of
    brief answers.
         First, do you support the creation of ARPA-C?
         Secretary Granholm. Yes, I do.
         Mr. Lucas. Second, what role will DOE play in its
    management? Do you know that yet?
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah, well, we want to work with you
    all on it, but we expect that ARPA-C and ARPA-E will work
    together. We don't want them to duplicate, which is a question
    I can understand that people might have. ARPA-C could invest in
    different kinds of research, critical research areas that are
    beyond the purely energy-focused work of ARPA-E, to look at,
    for example, non-energy related emissions reduction
    technologies, or an entire area of climate-related work, like
    the work of making our society more resilient, for example, to
    the effects of climate change that are already occurring.
         So, we expect that they would work together, hand in
    glove. They could be working maybe under the same umbrella, but
    I like the expansion of the notion of energy and climate under
    an umbrella that would fall within the Department of Energy.
         Mr. Lucas. So, in the time I have left, let's visit for a
    little bit about how you will balance implementing the ARPA-E
    provisions authorized in the Energy Act while supporting the
    establishment of ARPA-C? As you can see, ARPA-E has tremendous
    support in its present form on this Committee. Tell me about
    how you balance those two things as you implement them with the
    stuff authorized under the Act?
         Secretary Granholm. I mean, as you know, ARPA-E really is
    focused on energy, and they have--we would expect that they
    would work together, as I say, hand in glove, but they would
    have distinct areas of focus purely on energy. One on non-
    energy-related climate work. And you know, it could be that
    they are in the same office. It could be sort of the same--you
    know, an expanded umbrella, but we want to work with you on
    what that looks like, especially in light of all the climate
    challenges that we have seen in communities across the
    country----
         Mr. Lucas. Absolutely.
         Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Related to----
         Mr. Lucas. Madam Secretary, I would agree. And success in
    developing new forms of clean, consistent energy will address
    many of those other issues.
         So, I have faith in the market economy. We just need to
    provide the resources to the economy to respond.
         With that, I yield back, Chairwoman. Thank you very much.
         Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
         We'll now go to staff support to begin our question
    periods.
         Staff. Ms. Bonamici is recognized.
         Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much to Chairwoman Johnson and
    Ranking Member Lucas, and thank you, Secretary Granholm. I
    truly appreciate your strong commitment to transitioning to a
    clean energy economy, creating good paying, high quality union
    jobs, and promoting energy justice to support front line
    communities.
         And as we work to mitigate the climate crisis and
    transition to 100 percent clean energy economy, we cannot
    ignore our oceans.
         So, last year, this Committee worked in a bipartisan,
    bicameral manner to pass the comprehensive energy package we've
    been talking about, including my bipartisan Water Power
    Research and Development Act to strengthen the efforts at DOE's
    Water Power Technologies Office.
         So, in Oregon, we are at the forefront of marine energy.
    In large part because of the sustained support from the
    Department of Energy, Oregon State University recently received
    the first of its kind lease and license to build and operate
    the Nation's first wave energy test facility, PacWave, which I
    invite you to visit.
         The project, which is located off the coast of Newport,
    Oregon, will provide wave energy developers with resources to
    harness the power of waves, tides, currents, and transmit
    energy back to the electrical grid. Marine energy has
    tremendous potential as one of the last untapped clean energy
    sources, and Federal investment can truly help unlock it.
         So, I have two questions and I'm going to ask them both
    now, and then give you the balance to answer.
         So, Secretary Granholm, what steps has the Department
    taken to implement the marine energy provisions in the Energy
    Act of 2020, and is there an opportunity in the American Jobs
    Plan to scale that up? And then the second question deals with
    historically, we've had Federal investments that have focused
    on the conceptual and early research stages, leaving valuable
    projects to face a commercialization or valley of death. In the
    coming months, I am going to be reintroducing my Regional Clean
    Energy Innovation Act to establish a network of regional energy
    innovation and development institutes to address this issue,
    and I look forward to working with you on this.
         So, the second question is what steps can the Department
    of Energy take to connect regional governments with academia,
    businesses, and clean energy stakeholders to help post research
    innovations in clean energy thrive on a regional scale, and
    meet market needs?
         Secretary Granholm. I love these questions, so thank you
    for that.
         I mean, the full range of--on the first one on water power
    technologies, you know, the Department of Energy puts a lot of
    effort into, and I want to thank you for your leadership and
    support on marine energy in particular, including the
    provisions you included in the energy package. I want to
    especially congratulate Oregon State for the progress they've
    made on bringing this world class marine energy test facility
    to fruition, like PacWave.
         You know, you'll see support for the Water Power
    Technologies Office in the budget, and getting appropriations,
    of course, is the key to the first step in acting on that. I
    would love to work with you on how to pursue these
    opportunities. We are very bullish on marine energy, whether it
    is offshore wind or wave energy. Research still has to go on.
    We want to commercialize those technologies, which leads to the
    second question that you had regarding commercialization and
    regional innovation.
         You know, local partnerships and--I mean, I just say this
    as a former Governor, too, that these regional partnerships
    with business and industry are so important, because that's
    where progress happens on clean energy, and it's how we can
    make sure that the economic benefits of our research and
    development--the new businesses, the new jobs benefit local
    communities. So, we do a ton of this kind of work across our
    applied energy offices. We're going to figure out how we can
    ramp up regional place-based strategies to make sure we're
    taking the opportunity to help different regions and
    communities take on the specific challenges, and take advantage
    of their unique opportunities, and that includes making sure
    that--I would say, I must plug the disadvantaged communities
    who have experienced disproportionately impacts of pollution
    for far too long, and that they see the benefits of clean
    energy. And it also includes making sure that coal communities
    and other communities that have been left behind, I'll say, by
    the transition and the clean energy economy do not remain left
    behind. The American Jobs Plan has as part of it some
    community-based grants, State-based grants to encourage and
    foster these kinds of technologies and the jobs that go with
    them, and so, there's a whole new window that could open up on
    these kind of place-based economic development strategies if
    the American Jobs Plan is passed.
         Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary. And as
    we know, the regional approach is so important because the
    needs are different in various regions, and the resources are
    different. So, I really appreciate your commitment.
         Thank you so much, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
         Staff. Mr. Babin is next.
         Seeing no Mr. Babin, Mr. Waltz is next. OK. Mr.----
         Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Excuse me, Madam
    Chairman. I'm having some technical difficulties there. Can you
    hear me OK?
         Staff. Yes, we can hear you.
         Mr. Waltz. Madam Secretary, thank you so much for joining
    us today.
         Your opening statement, you mentioned your coordinating
    role for the Colonial Pipeline engagements, and I would imagine
    in that role that you directly engaged with the private sector,
    and particularly with the Colonial executives. Is that the
    case, as part of your remit?
         Secretary Granholm. Yes.
         Mr. Waltz. And so, in that, did Colonial inform you or
    inform your office of their intent to pay a ransom?
         Secretary Granholm. They did not. They did not. The FBI
    (Federal Bureau of Investigation) had been in contact with
    them. We did not discuss that with them, nor did they tell us.
    Of course, if they had, we would have said do not pay ransom.
    But they didn't--we didn't--that wasn't part of our charge with
    them.
         Mr. Waltz. So, that's what I want to get to, you know, you
    have an international affairs office which does great work.
    Part of its objective is enhancing energy security by
    countering malign influence. So, it's your department's stated
    policy that our infrastructure, in particular, our pipeline
    managers, should not pay ransom as part of ransomware attacks
    or any other type of attack, is that correct?
         Secretary Granholm. That's correct.
         Mr. Waltz. That's reassuring to hear.
         With the recorded ransom payment or with the ransom
    payment, one thing that I think a lot of people are struggling
    with is we have this incredible attack by Russian-backed
    hackers, many of which moonlight for Russian security services.
    You know, they don't have the same distinctions that we have. A
    ransom is paid, and really little else is done in response to
    that attack, particularly to established deterrents. And then
    just a short time later, we lift all sanctions on Russia's
    pipeline.
         What level of engagement did you have--what type of
    engagement do you have with our European allies on the lifting
    of sanctions on Nord Stream?
         Secretary Granholm. I did not, but I know obviously others
    in the Federal ecosystem did, and of course, the two were not
    related, given that these were actors of Russia. But there is
    no indication that they were directed by--at least, we don't
    have any information on that now. I'm not saying it's not true,
    but I know it's a subject that--I've learned that it's a
    subject that the President is----
         Mr. Waltz. You know, I think there's an established
    pattern that if Putin wanted to stop these attacks----
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah, no doubt.
         Mr. Waltz [continuing]. He certainly could.
         Secretary Granholm. And he should.
         Mr. Waltz. What did the United States get in response, or
    what did we get in return for the lifting of these sanctions?
         Secretary Granholm. I wasn't--again, I wasn't part of
    that--those discussions with respect to the sanctions. So,
    you'd have to direct that to the Department of State.
         Mr. Waltz. So, the Department of Energy, the Department of
    International Affairs with the ENR Bureau, the Energy Bureau,
    State Department, is there not coordination with the Energy
    Department when it comes to engaging our European partners and
    the pipeline?
         Secretary Granholm. Generally, yes, and we obviously
    oppose the pipeline. And I'll say from the Department of
    Energy, one of the reasons that in addition to the geopolitical
    issues relative to Russia, one of the reasons why I think that
    pipeline is very dangerous is because it is carrying the
    dirtiest form of natural gas on earth----
         Mr. Waltz. That's right.
         Secretary Granholm [continuing]. With no security on
    methane emissions, et cetera. So, I think for a variety of
    reasons, it is a problem.
         Mr. Waltz. No, that's absolutely right. So, it's actually
    encouraging, from a climate standpoint, which obviously you
    mentioned extensively in your opening statement, this is worse
    for the climate, for a climate agenda, because it does carry--
    --
         Secretary Granholm. Not just for a climate agenda.
         Mr. Waltz [continuing]. Some of the dirtiest--so, the
    Department of Energy opposed the lifting of the sanctions, so
    the President made that decision over the Department of
    Energy's objections?
         Secretary Granholm. Well again, I was not in the
    discussion over those particular sanctions, and I know
    obviously the administration has opposed the continued
    expansion of Nord Stream 2, and there may have been other
    considerations that went into it. You know, arguably this issue
    about sanctioning a pipeline should have come much earlier in
    the construction of it, because it is at the very tail end now,
    and we ought to--it's a good lesson for going forward. We ought
    to have stopped it before it was built, essentially, rather
    than after it has been built.
         Mr. Waltz. Well, I certainly agree, but I think just
    lifting the sanctions for little in response, for nothing in
    response, which is actually countervailing to a climate agenda
    that will move dirtier oil and make our EU partners more
    dependent on Russia. From a geopolitical standpoint, from a
    climate standpoint, I think it was an incredibly bad decision,
    and I find it more disturbing that your department wasn't a key
    part of it.
         But I'll have some further questions for the record. Thank
    you, Madam Secretary, and Madam Chairman, I yield my time.
         Staff. Mr. Bera is recognized.
         Mr. Bera. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
         You know, Madam Secretary, one of the most ambitious parts
    of the President's American Jobs Plan and infrastructure plan
    is this transition from gas-powered vehicles to electric
    vehicles, and the infrastructure that, you know, will take
    place to build EV charging stations and help folks transition.
    You already--obviously in your home State of Michigan, you're
    seeing a lot of that. The automakers started to make those
    plans to go to all electric vehicles.
         Can you expand on DOE's role in helping make this
    transition, plan out what that infrastructure looks like, where
    these charging stations will be, et cetera?
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah. We----
         Mr. Bera. How we also address equity in there as well.
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah, this is a great question.
         Obviously, you know, if the private sector was going to
    step up and do this on its own, that would have already begun.
    But unfortunately, we have gaps. We have gaps on highways where
    people don't--wouldn't charge up as much, and we have gaps
    inside of communities that have been left behind.
         So, we have--our labs have started the process of doing a
    map for the United States about where the necessary charging is
    going to have to step in to fill that gap, the federally funded
    necessary charging to fill that gap, so that all parts of the
    country, all pockets of America have access to electrification.
    And we all know that, you know, there's a chicken and egg issue
    of people are uncomfortable buying an electric vehicle because
    they feel like they may want to take a longer trip and not have
    the ability to charge up. That's going to prevent them from
    choosing an electric vehicle. So, we have to address that very
    important infrastructure issue, which of course, is addressed
    in the American Jobs Plan through the President's commitment of
    500,000 charging stations across the country in areas where
    it's sparse and in areas where the private sector has not
    stepped up, particularly in low-income communities.
         So, it's that, and incentivizing them--the purchase of
    electric vehicles at the point of sale, and making sure we've
    done the research necessary to keep the continuous improvement
    of the electrification of the vehicle, which includes the
    research being done at our national labs on the battery.
         Mr. Bera. And so, that all is very encouraging. And
    obviously, the battery side, I think from a technology and
    economic perspective, we want to maintain that innovation edge
    over other competitor nations in terms of battery technology
    and battery production.
         If I were to play off a question--or an answer you gave to
    one of Ms. Bonamici's questions. I understand the human
    reaction, you know, in places like the Rio Grande Valley in
    Texas or in West Virginia as we transition off of older
    energies and fossil fuels, and some of the anxiety about job
    loss, et cetera.
         How is DOE thinking about--you know, we think about
    strategic investments and, you know, helping some of these
    communities leave some of the older fossil fuel jobs or coal
    mining jobs, but also then thinking about the job training to
    help transition communities to, you know, better paying jobs
    and jobs of the future.
         Secretary Granholm. This is my favorite question, because
    I think that there's so much promise in these clean energy
    jobs. They're not just one-off jobs. These are careers and jobs
    that can go to communities like you have described that have
    been left behind. So, you know, if you're in coal country or if
    you're in an oil and gas area, you know, you've got workers who
    know how to do that work. Well, why not have them transition to
    be able to be mining, for example, for geothermal or laying the
    pipes for CO2 for carbon capture and sequestration,
    or attaching that CCUS (carbon capture, utilization, and
    sequestration) technology onto power plants, or laying pipes
    for hydrogen? I mean, the American Jobs Plan has got these 25
    demonstration projects in hydrogen and CCUS. Those in the kinds
    of communities we're talking about could be utter game
    changers, could help those communities see themselves
    empowering the future of America, insofar as they have seen
    themselves as powering the past. And we don't want them to feel
    like they have been left behind, so that's why strategically
    investing these kind of demonstration projects on a place-based
    strategy manner--the President created an intergovernmental
    working group on coal and power plant communities. In that
    intergovernmental report, there were 27 communities that were
    identified that were at greatest risk, the coal and power plant
    communities. Those communities could be the places that
    actually take us to the next level, not just in the United
    States, but globally with the technology that we could deploy,
    take to scale, work on research, develop. It's really exciting
    if that act is passed for those communities to be part of the
    future, and not viewed as or feeling like they're just part of
    the past of America's energy.
         Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you for that answer.
         Madam Chairwoman, I'll yield back.
         Staff. Mr. Gonzalez is recognized.
         Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Secretary, for your time and attention today, and your
    testimony. The COVID-19 pandemic has certainly justified the
    importance of American innovation. It's impossible, almost, to
    imagine us getting through this if we hadn't innovated in
    testing therapeutics, and of course, the vaccine development. I
    think, similarly, it's hard, or I would argue impossible, to
    imagine addressing energy and environmental challenges without
    further innovation in energy storage, nuclear, carbon capture.
    I'm pleased to see you mention those technologies. And
    innovation's always been a core strength of our country. In our
    geopolitical competition with China, Russia, and Iran, we have
    to stay advanced and ahead of the game.
         I want to focus specifically on nuclear for a second, if
    we could. I've been pleased to read some of your comments
    regarding commercial nuclear energy here in the U.S.,
    particularly the importance of maintaining our existing fleet,
    which I think is critically important, in the face of looming
    shutdowns, oftentimes driven by backwards politics. But I want
    to get your thoughts on our progress with advanced nuclear
    reactors and fuel specifically. Last month I sent a letter to
    you alongside a bipartisan group of lawmakers in support of the
    Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program and Advanced Nuclear
    Fuel Availability Program. What actions are you and the agency
    taking to ensure these programs are fully implemented, and what
    role do you anticipate advanced nuclear will play as we
    transition away from more carbon intensive energy sources?
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah. It's going to play an important
    role, and I want--I would love for people on both sides of the
    aisle to appreciate the fact that 55 percent of our clean
    energy now comes from nuclear, and America has the most
    rigorous and thoughtful safety regime. It's not a question of
    safety. Most people--for many people it's a question of waste,
    and we can talk about that as well, but I think nuclear energy
    can and must play an important role in helping the U.S. meet
    its clean energy goals. We pursue, at the DOE, both
    demonstration and early stage research and development efforts
    for multiple nuclear technologies based on where those
    technologies are in their development, and how they are
    developing relative to the field's needs. For instance, DOE's
    Advanced Reactor Program supports the development of multiple
    initiatives and innovative U.S.-based design for the small--
    SMR, small modular reactors. This technology, I think, has the
    potential to provide, you know, clean, safe, cost-competitive
    energy generations options for both domestic and international
    markets. We're already seeing promising results with the work
    of NuScale, which is the first small modular reactor developer
    to obtain the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) approval
    of its final safety evaluation report. So hopefully that
    NuScale reactor will be on track to be the first full NRC
    certified reactor mid to late this year.
         Mr. Gonzalez. Yeah. I want to stay on the NRC for a
    second. As I talk to a lot of companies who are developing
    advanced reactors, one of the top criticisms I hear is how ill
    equipped the NRC is to evaluate and approve them, and they
    almost feel like they're trying to get to no, as opposed to
    trying to find ways to get to yes. How's the agency engaging
    with the NRC to alleviate these concerns and streamline the
    deployment of advanced reactors?
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah, it's--this is a great question.
    I have heard this as well, and am looking into it. We are well
    aware, and, if you like, I can get back to you on the specific
    steps that we are taking, but I appreciate you raising it. We
    want the NRC, as all of our commissions and committees, to be
    effective, and nimble, and efficient, and we want to make sure
    that we support the NRC in getting there.
         Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. And then, final question on
    nuclear, you mentioned waste as one of the objections that is
    constantly brought up. How do you respond to that? I'd be
    curious for your thoughts on it.
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah. I mean, as a nation, we have got
    to figure out the waste issue. We have got to figure out where
    it is going to be. Yucca is not an option, Yucca Mountain, so
    the question is what's next? You're aware, I'm sure, that the
    Blue Ribbon Commission suggested a consent-based siting process
    for interim storage, and we at the Department are going to
    launch a request for information about, and start that
    conversation with communities. You have to do this in
    partnership with communities in a thoughtful way, with
    sensitivity, and we want to begin those discussions, because we
    want to find a location that is safe, and secure, and accepted.
    And it may mean that we have to, and that we should, compensate
    communities who decide to raise their hand to do that. So that
    process we're going to start.
         Ultimately, though, of course, you want to develop--you
    want to have nuclear in a way that doesn't generate that kind
    of waste, which gets back to the ITER question, the question of
    fusion, and perhaps exploration, research-wise, of what you can
    do with existing waste. All of that is within the purview of
    DOE, and all are things we're pursuing.
         Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. I look forward to working
    together on this, and I yield back.
         Secretary Granholm. Great.
         Staff. Ms. Stevens is recognized.
         Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you. Secretary Granholm, how
    wonderful to see some Michigan energy, and have some Michigan
    energy, on the Committee today. And, you know, I have some
    remarkable memories, going back a long time, with you,
    particularly when we were working on the U.S. Auto Rescue. And
    for those who don't know, for the record, our then-Governor of
    Michigan really led one of the most comprehensive economic
    overhauls of our State, developing programs like the State
    Small Business Initiative--Credit Initiative to give credit to
    our suppliers and small businesses who, in a very different
    financial time, couldn't get it, and that program resulted in
    the creation of the State Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. And
    it was because Michigan was leading the way under a very
    skilled Governor.
         And so now, as the Secretary of Energy, I wanted to ask
    you about the leadership, and the way in which you are seeing
    some of the programs that the DOE is responsible for with
    advanced vehicle technologies, particularly also the
    investments that come from the ATVM (Advanced Technology
    Vehicles Manufacturing) Program, and how you intend to lead the
    Department of Energy with those programs, what we need to do
    with them, you know, if it's plussing up, because certainly
    we've got to move on the access to the materials for these
    electric vehicles, and also what's going to go into the
    battery.
         Secretary Granholm. Well, thank you so much. It's so great
    to see you. And, you know, as I was working on the outside of
    Federal Government with the auto industry, I know you were
    working on the inside, and without your leadership we would not
    see a domestic auto industry like we see today. I mean, the
    fact that General Motors has gone all in on electric vehicles,
    the announcement by Ford yesterday, you know, I mean, it's so
    exciting, the future. So you talk about the ATVM, the--we want
    to make sure the Advanced Technology Vehicle Provision of the
    Loan Program Office (LPO) includes not just light duty
    vehicles, but heavy duty vehicles as well, because you see that
    Ford--going into the truck and making sure that the F-150 is
    all electric, we want to make sure that we continue that kind
    of research, and development, and deployment.
         You know, the American Jobs Plan supports all parts of
    electrifying transportation, from the vehicle, to the charging
    infrastructure, and everything in between, and that means not
    just re-tooling vehicle factories, but making sure we've got
    full and robust supply chains from components back to batteries
    and critical minerals, so it also means more than cars. It
    means, as I say, SUVs (sport utility vehicles), and pickups,
    and long haul trucks, and ships for long distance shipping, and
    the ferries that make many communities unique, as well as
    aviation. So I look forward to working with you to make sure
    that we've got all of the pieces in place to accelerate
    deployment of electric vehicles, broadly defined, and
    particularly passenger vehicles, as we know the American Jobs
    Act--or Plan is supportive of.
         And I just want to say, on the supply chain issue, because
    you--and I've come from this great manufacturing State, we want
    to make sure that we support and incentivize manufacturing here
    at home. I know the American Jobs Plan does some of that. that
    48(c) tax credit was----
         Ms. Stevens. Um-hum.
         Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Embedded in that----
         Ms. Stevens. Yeah.
         Secretary Granholm [continuing]. So we want to make sure
    that we do all we can, policy-wise, to ensure that we are
    building stuff here in America, using it here, and then
    exporting it to other places.
         Ms. Stevens. Yeah. Over a decade on, and the 48(c) tax
    incentive being overprescribed, and still ready to go, we would
    love to see that get done, Madam Secretary. And you also have
    the full support of the mapping of the supply chain for the
    battery, identifying those missing middles where we aren't
    producing here. I know in a community you know well,
    Northville, Michigan, there's a company called SoulBrain that
    does the electrolytes manufacturing that goes into the lithium-
    ion battery. I would love to take you there. They are the only
    one in Michigan, and one of two. The other type of manufacturer
    along these lines is located in Oak Ridge, but I'd love to take
    you here, because I--you know, they are growing, but they are a
    part of that supply chain, so, alongside the Department of
    Commerce, we support you in those efforts. And, with 10 seconds
    left, if you have anything else, Madam Secretary, otherwise
    I'll cede it back over to a colleague.
         Secretary Granholm. I'm just so proud that Michigan now
    produces 1/3 of all North American batteries, so let's keep it
    going.
         Ms. Stevens. Let's keep it going. And with that, Madam
    Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
         Staff. Representative Baird is next.
         Mr. Baird. Yes. Thank you, and I want to thank Chairwoman
    Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas for holding this overview of
    science and energy research enterprise. And, Madam Secretary,
    we certainly appreciate you being here, and I think you're
    holding up extremely well to be the only witness on the
    program, so----
         Secretary Granholm. Well----
         Mr. Baird [continuing]. Congratulations on doing that.
         Secretary Granholm. All right. Go easy on me, then.
         Mr. Baird. I'll give you a break. I've got about a
    paragraph or two, and then I'm going to get to the question.
    But anyway, I represent Indiana's Fourth District, which is
    heavily reliant on agriculture production and research. My
    background is in animal science, and I currently serve on the
    Ag Committee, along with being on the Science Committee, which
    works out extremely well, in my opinion. But accordingly, I
    understand the relationship--or I think I do, parts of it--the
    relationship between humans, and animals, and plants, and
    biology in general, and I also recognize the need to invest in
    biological research, and biological research infrastructure,
    within the Office of Science to improve this understanding in
    the knowledge that we obtain, and this is the reason why I
    introduced the DOE BIO (Biological Innovation Opportunities)
    Act, which really reauthorizes DOE's--those Bioenergy Research
    Centers, and establishes a program to develop, construct, and
    maintain those biological and environmental research user
    facilities because I think that increases the access that young
    researchers and U.S. researchers have to study some of these
    very complex biological and Earth and environmental systems.
         So, with that kind of background, my question to you is
    how do you feel the Department of Energy is uniquely qualified
    to provide leadership in this U.S. biological science research
    and development activities?
         Secretary Granholm. We are. Thank you for that. I mean,
    there is a critical need to sustain U.S. preeminence in this
    emerging and globally competitive, really, bioeconomy, which
    spans the entire research and biotechnical innovation space for
    the life sciences, for economic, you know, for--I mean, we know
    that the innovation space for social and national security
    benefits, et cetera, it all touches on this bioeconomy. DOE
    specifically focuses on the genomic science of plants, and
    microorganisms, and microbial communities to achieve its
    mission goals.
         You know, a priority clean energy activity in the Office
    of Sciences before Bio Research Centers, which are tackling the
    basic science challenges that are needed to produce fuels, and
    chemicals, and other products from sustainable and renewable
    biomass resources. So fundamental geonomic science--genomic
    science on plants and microorganisms is leading to the
    development of dedicated and resilient bioenergy crops, which
    is great, and important, and a broad range of modified
    microorganisms and capabilities to advance the biotechnology
    solutions that are needed to underpin a burgeoning and globally
    competitive bioeconomy, and so we're going to continue to move
    on that.
         And I would just put a plug in as well for biofuels, and
    for--especially biofuels related to aviation. Hugely important.
    The aviation world is all in on those advanced biofuels, and I
    think the Department of Energy and the Department of
    Agriculture can be partners in making some of those refineries
    reality in the United States.
         Mr. Baird. So for whatever it's worth to you, I really
    think you're right on target. I agree with you, and one of the
    things that I see happening is--looking at the genotype in
    soybeans, and then, with cameras going across the fields,
    taking in a tremendous amount of data so that we can connect
    genotype to phenotype, and that in the interest of trying to
    improve productivity, and increase crop yields, and so on, and
    so that requires tremendous computing capabilities----
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah.
         Mr. Baird [continuing]. And you have access to the quantum
    computer, so--I guess I'm about to run out of time. I certainly
    would have other questions, but I think you're right on target,
    and I appreciate the opportunity to share that with you.
         Secretary Granholm. 1,000 percent. Thank you so much.
         Mr. Baird. And I yield back. Thank you.
         Staff. Mr. Sherman is next.
         Mr. Sherman. Why thank you. One comment on recharging
    stations, and that is, while it's important to have them out on
    the highways for vacation, the most important thing is that
    they be available where we work and where we live, and we need
    to require all of the--those who provide paid parking, those
    employers that have over 50 parking spaces, big office
    buildings, to provide enough places for people to recharge, and
    we need to make sure that landlords who provide parking to
    their apartment residents provide at least some of those spaces
    with recharging stations.
         Madam Secretary, I want to thank you for concluding your
    prepared testimony by acknowledging the Department of Energy's
    duty to clean up contaminated sites, many of them leftover from
    World War II and the cold war. And I want to direct your
    attention to the Santa Susana Field Lab, which was the subject
    of a 2007 consent decree. There's some 90 acres that is the
    responsibility of the Department of Energy. There's adjoining
    acreage that is the responsibility of NASA (National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration) and of Boeing. This
    contaminated site is immediately adjacent to the city of Los
    Angeles, so it affects hundreds and hundreds of thousands of
    people. Some 700,000 signatures have appeared on the petition
    demanding full cleanup of the site, and I'm going to be getting
    to you the documentary ``In the Dark of the Valley'', that
    being the San Fernando Valley, about the effect of this nuclear
    contamination on hundreds of thousands of people. And I would
    like to know whether we can count on you to use the Department
    of Energy to comply with the 2007 consent decree, and hopefully
    do what has not happened since 2007, and see major action taken
    on the ground in furtherance of that decree.
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah, thanks for asking. As you
    alluded to, we're already out of compliance with the decree.
    There were steps that needed to be taken, like the cleanup of
    soil, that have not been completed at this point, and so I look
    forward to working with you, and with the State of California,
    to put in place progress steps that we can see. I know that
    there is--if I'm not mistaken, a building was just taken down,
    and there's another one that will be completed by the end of
    this year, and--so that the soil now can be the next up--teed
    up on our list.
         Clearly, in this case, as well as the other environmental
    management sites, you know, the Department used to have, I want
    to say 116 of these sites, and we're down to 16 of them, or
    it's 107 and we're down to 16, something like that----
         Mr. Sherman. Um-hum.
         Secretary Granholm [continuing]. So they've made progress,
    but some of these are more difficult than others, as you know,
    and a lot of it relies upon resources to make happen. You have
    my commitment. This is a priority in the Department----
         Mr. Sherman. And your predecessor, Secretary Perry, came
    to visit the site. I would welcome if you would do that, but
    more important, we actually have to take the action, and of the
    16 remaining sites, this is the site that's--it seems to be
    second from the bottom in terms of money that's available. I do
    want to--so I look forward to working with you on this, and I
    want to commend to you, and I will get to your office, the
    documentary ``In the Dark of the Valley''.
         Secretary Granholm. Very good.
         Mr. Sherman. One other issue is wind. Much of the wind is
    offshore, and marine engineering is difficult, and has its
    challenges. On land, an awful lot of the wind is up on the
    mountain, where you don't have a road. And you're trying to get
    up there with, like, a 100-ton device, then a blade on the
    rotor of 160 feet long. And, one, sorry, you can't do it
    without a road. You may not be able to build a road, and if you
    build a road, it's got to be a pretty big road, because you're
    talking about big stuff. One other way to do this is with an
    airship, and I hope that the Department of Energy would focus
    on the ability to use a buoyancy control airship, which is just
    in development now, to be able to get these items to the top of
    the mountain.
         Secretary Granholm. Well, I'm so interested in this. I
    mean, I have heard of this idea, of using innovative aircraft
    for wind farm construction, especially when you're talking
    these logistical challenges. So I want to see it, I just
    haven't--I hope--I don't know if there's one near where you
    are, or if there's--but if there is an opportunity for us to
    partner on something like this, we're always looking for these
    innovative solutions. Our Office of Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy is working on these logistical challenges. As
    you know, the wind, especially with large blades, it's just
    so--it's--they're very difficult to move into very large--very
    large blades into spaces, so I'd be super interested, and I
    would love to connect with you and your staff.
         Mr. Sherman. We'll get you some information. The ship----
         Secretary Granholm. Great.
         Mr. Sherman [continuing]. Doesn't exist yet, but an awful
    lot of engineering and prototypes do, so we'll get them----
         Secretary Granholm. All right.
         Mr. Sherman. I yield back.
         Staff. Mr. Garcia is recognized.
         Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for pulling this
    together, Ranking Member Lucas as well. Secretary, it's a
    pleasure to see you. Hopefully get to meet you in person soon.
    I will get to my question here shortly, but I do want to follow
    up on my colleague Mr. Sherman's question. He and I share a
    border. Santa Susana Field Lab actually straddles, and is many
    ways, the delineating line between----
         Secretary Granholm. Um-hum.
         Mr. Garcia [continuing]. Our two districts. I do support a
    cleanup. I think the definition of full cleanup is what's at
    issue right now, not only at the State level, but at local
    levels. I think there's a lot of data. I think we need to clean
    up the areas that do, in fact, have waste, and I think there's
    different approaches, so I would just recommend that before we,
    at an administration level or at the DOE level, move forward
    with anything additional, that we look at exactly how we're
    cleaning up, and simply removing eight to 10 feet of dirt from
    40 to 60 acres of land may actually expose the citizens around
    that area to more risks, and actually do more damage, so I
    don't think our policies and our funding streams should be
    supported by documentaries that are, in some cases, outdated,
    and had bad data. That's more of a commentary.
         My question actually revolves around the nuclear waste
    issue that you mentioned. I think you were spot on. I don't
    think that there's a question about safety. I think we need to
    figure out how to scale up. I do think it's the right answer.
    When it comes to clean energy, other nations have figured it
    out similar to us, but maybe at higher levels, but the waste
    issues still remains I'd say the long pole in the tent on us
    actually being able to scale up, given what's happened at
    Yucca, and basically now the 80,000 or so metric tons of waste
    that's scattered across the country.
         We've seen prospects developing in different industry that
    are actually being able to recycle some of this high level
    waste, and breaking it down to the point where, instead of
    getting down to, say, background radioactivity levels after
    100,000 years, the recycling process and breaking it down
    actually gets it down to below 300 years. Would you support a
    domestic nuclear recycling program--and I think it may even be
    mature to ask if you support a program. I think that there's a
    need for feasibility studies, tech demonstration funding levels
    at lower dollar values for some of these companies that are
    figuring this out, and then tech maturation programs where we
    can actually compete multiple businesses to figure out exactly
    what they have. But the prospects of being able to effectively
    recycle a lot of this waste, and actually get to reactor grade
    plutonium that would support some of next gen reactors that we
    were discussing earlier, I believe is actually a very
    encouraging sign. I just wanted to get your comments that----
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah.
         Mr. Garcia [continuing]. And any sort of R&D efforts
    behind it.
         Secretary Granholm. You know, I mean, obviously I'm
    supportive of science, and I'm supportive of the Department of
    Energy being the Solutions Department, and this is a big
    problem, and it's a big problem that potentially could have
    some solutions, and so efforts related to that, I would love to
    work with you on, and I think that there would be a team in our
    Fossil Energy Office that would be very excited to work on this
    further as well.
         With respect to specific efforts that are happening inside
    the labs, I think there are some, but I just don't have those
    at the top of my head, but I'm happy to get back to you, and
    have the staff get back to you, on exactly what's happening
    right now on the specifics of recycling.
         Mr. Garcia. That would be fantastic. Happy to cooperate
    with you on that. I think there are a lot of great
    opportunities here, and there's actually some companies that
    are already moving out on their own----
         Secretary Granholm. I'm sure.
         Mr. Garcia. R&D--efforts, and we can probably leverage
    that as well. Before my time is up, I do just want to put a
    quick commentary about the sanctions on Russia and the Nord
    Stream 2. You made the statement that we should've stopped it
    before it was built. I know that you weren't part of those
    discussions. I think, actually, that that's a mistake, to not
    have the DOE as part of those discussions on the waiver of
    sanctions, but I do believe that there's a bit of an irony that
    we actually stopped the Keystone Pipeline in the midst of its
    construction on our own soil, and I do think it's more than
    just anxiety about job loss. There were literally thousands of
    jobs lost as a result of that decision. And, honestly, I think
    it's shameful at the national level that we waive sanctions on
    a Russian company in support of their gas lines, which are
    dirty, which are going to do harm, and we actually stop ours
    which did have a great opportunity. So I was discouraged to
    hear that you weren't allowed to be part of those
    conversations, and I'll save the follow-up question for the
    next round. Thank you, Madam Secretary, I'm out of time.
         Staff. Mr. McNerney is next.
         Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Secretary Granholm, it's great to
    see you again after last week's appearance at Energy and
    Commerce.
         Secretary Granholm. Yes----
         Mr. McNerney. I truly appreciate your enthusiasm, and your
    breadth of knowledge, and I hope to continue to have access to
    your office in the future. So the DOE possesses some of the
    most powerful computers in the world, and you're scheduled to
    deploy even more of those later this year. These systems are
    critical to develop artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities
    and other research areas. Can you provide us a preview of the
    Department's scientific computing agenda under your leadership?
         Secretary Granholm. Now, we are obviously--the labs have a
    broad swath of supercomputing capabilities, and the Federal
    Government has invested enormously in those capabilities, and
    that is fantastic, and we don't want to lose that edge. And I--
    let me just say slightly off to you--off of your question, but
    I really am concerned that America is falling behind in
    developing advanced supercomputers, because last year a
    Japanese system became the top supercomputer, and the U.S.
    dropped from having four of the top 10 supercomputers to only
    two of the top 10. So, as you know, that is a problem.
         So high performance computing is needed to maintain the
    leadership of the U.S. in these--computational and data
    science. We remain on track to deploy the Nation's first
    exascale computer this year at Oak Ridge, which is great. If
    that computer performs as expected, we anticipate that the
    United States is going to regain the top spot for the Top 500
    list this fall. And our second exascale computer is on track to
    be delivered at Argonne in 2022, and our third at Livermore in
    2023, so very exciting stuff. The high performance aspect of
    computing is also needed to maintain the leadership, so we're,
    you know, we want to make sure that this exascale computing
    initiative, and strategic computing, remains an administration
    priority, and I think with the American Jobs Plan, and the
    investments that have been articulated here, we will be able to
    do that.
         Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I like that enthusiasm. I believe
    that our society will sooner or later need to count on fusion
    to provide clean, reliable energy to human civilization, which
    our--with our growing energy appetite. Do you agree with that
    assessment?
         Secretary Granholm. Absolutely.
         Mr. McNerney. Very good. Is there room in the Department's
    fusion research budget for work that is high risk? In other
    words, not necessarily in the mainstream, but has potential for
    high payback?
         Secretary Granholm. I think there's always room. Of
    course, you know, fusion would require a major further
    investment, since these projects are very large, and very cost-
    intensive, but the reward could be enormously beneficial. So
    we're looking into ways to support public/private partnerships
    in fusion energy, including through the Innovation Network for
    Fusion Energy, INFUSE, I think it's called, which is an
    initiative to help provide promising fusion energy companies
    with access to technical and financial support from the
    National Labs to bring their technologies closer to
    commercialization.
         Mr. McNerney. Well--see, this past December Canada joined
    a list of countries that plan to simulate the production of
    hydrogen. You've already talked about hydrogen a little bit,
    but according to the International Energy Agency's (IEA's)
    Hydrogen Projects Data base, nearly 320 green hydrogen
    production demonstrations have been announced worldwide, with
    new ones being added every week. Do you foresee the Department
    leveraging your capabilities to keep pace with the global
    hydrogen technology trends?
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah, but we've got to get on it. I
    mean, this is why what's happened in the American Jobs Plan,
    with these 25 demonstration projects, 15 of which would be for
    hydrogen. I mean, we want to make sure that we are in the game
    on this. I speak with my counterparts in other countries all
    the time, and, in addition to fusion, which is a little further
    out, hydrogen is the holy grail in terms of dispatchable,
    transportable power, clean, and green hydrogen. So we know that
    all of these countries are rushing to make it happen. We need
    to be in the game, and that's why--it can obviously create jobs
    in regional areas, but it also can put the U.S. in the
    leadership.
         We just announced that we would be part--leading part of
    the hydrogen initiative at the G7, the United States will be,
    so--but in order to have any credibility, we've got to be able
    to fund these demonstration projects, which is why I hope that
    this Committee, and others, are supportive of the demonstration
    projects to enable us to get into that leadership position.
         Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary. I yield
    back.
         Staff. Ms. Bice is recognized.
         Ms. Bice. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Secretary,
    for being with us this afternoon. We've talked a little bit
    about electric vehicles, and so I want to focus briefly on
    that. Right now there are about 1.5 million EVs on the road.
    The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) researchers
    found that through 2028 the overall power system could support
    up to 24 million EVs, or about 9 percent of current traffic in
    the United States. So while the growing number of EVs is
    admirable, I worry about the grid's capacity to handle the
    amount of electrification this administration is calling for.
    What happens after that 9 percent threshold is reached? Are we
    going to have to sacrifice electricity for our homes and
    businesses to power electric vehicles?
         Secretary Granholm. No. What we have to do is to increase
    the capacity and the resiliency on the grid. I mean, it's
    another reason why--I don't want to be, you know, Johnny or
    Jenny One-Note, but the American Jobs Plan has those
    investments in grid capacity so that we can add more renewables
    and accommodate more demand on the grid. We're going to need it
    anyway. I mean, there's just massive demand out there for
    interconnections, even without additional EV charging. So we
    just--we need to accelerate this, and making the--putting the
    incentives in the right place, which is what the American Jobs
    Plan does, it would enable us to expand the grid to be able to
    accommodate that additional demand, as well as to accommodate
    renewable energy that we want to put on the grid.
         Ms. Bice. I do worry about picking and choosing where to
    invest, though. I mean, candidly, you know, States like
    California tend to be more open at wanting to move toward an
    EV, but they're having a difficult time powering their own
    infrastructure currently. States like Oklahoma, who tend to
    rely more on a fossil fuel strategy, don't have those
    challenges, and so are we going to be sacrificed at the expense
    of putting more electrification in California? So just
    something that I think about.
         The second question, as it relates to EVs, is who's going
    to pay for the electrification of these EVs? And what I mean by
    that is are we going to ask convenience stores, or States that
    you mentioned having 500,000 new charging stations across the
    country. Where's the cost of that burden going to lie?
         Secretary Granholm. Well, it depends, right? So in some
    places the private sector decides that it's in their interest
    to have a charging station, and therefore they will pay for the
    electricity, the output of it. So if you're a 7-11, maybe you
    decide that it's worth your while to pay for the electricity
    because somebody might be in the store longer and buying more
    things. If you are an individual in and driving down a freeway,
    then you have perhaps an arrangement with a charging company
    that allows you to pay for it with a card as you pull up to a
    charger somewhere that may not be associated with a private
    enterprise. I think it depends. It's all very contextual. But,
    you know, it is paid for. Just a question of, you know, where
    the----
         Ms. Bice. Who's paying?
         Secretary Granholm. Well, the person might be paying, like
    you pay for filling up your gas, or the business might be
    paying, if they decide that it's in their best interest.
         Ms. Bice. So, speaking of that, in my home State of
    Oklahoma, the current gas tax is used for critical
    transportation infrastructure expenses. The average Oklahoman
    drives around 19,000 miles a year, with a per gallon tax rate
    at 18 cents federally and 20 by the State, and it results in
    about $345 million in revenue. How are we going to make up the
    loss in revenue with the shift to electric vehicles?
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah, it's a good question. We have to
    have a discussion about that, about how we fund our
    infrastructure. Are we simply going to continue to rely upon
    these user fees, it's--as some have suggested, or do we want to
    take this on as a Federal enterprise and say we need to invest
    in this infrastructure through more generalized--through our
    more generalized general fund, or our, you know, special
    purpose funds. The bottom line is I think that, in this
    administration anyway, there's not a desire to raise the gas
    tax on everyday citizens, but it's--this conversation about how
    you fund infrastructure I think is happening probably--even as
    I speak among those who are putting forth various proposals,
    and I think it's a worthy discussion.
         Ms. Bice. Well, it's been in a discussion in my home
    State, and, as a matter of fact, I championed some initiatives
    to try to address it here a couple of years ago, so I think we
    need to be mindful as we're talking about infrastructure as a
    whole. It's not just charging stations, or subsidizing electric
    vehicles, but there's also a very real need for infrastructure,
    and I think that needs to come first. And so I thank you for
    your time today, and, Madam Chair, I yield back.
         Staff. Mr. Tonko is next.
         Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Could you hear me?
         Secretary Granholm. I can.
         Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you, Secretary Granholm, for joining
    us today, and it's great to see you again. I appreciated the
    opportunity to engage with you in your appearance before the
    Energy and Commerce Committee last week, and look forward to
    discussing DOE's efforts to develop science and energy
    research, and was very, very pleased by your responses at that
    Committee meeting.
         Wind power will play an important role in achieving our
    clean energy goals, and as we look to increase clean energy on
    the grid, innovation is key to greater technical efficiency and
    economic growth. For example, in my district, researchers at
    General Electric's Global Research Center in Upstate Niskayuna,
    New York are working on a way to make massive wind turbines
    float by themselves in the middle of the ocean. This technology
    could significantly increase the amount of offshore wind
    production, and I am excited indeed that New York's Capital
    Region is helping lead the way. So last Congress my Wind Energy
    Research and Development Act authorized the Office of Wind
    Energy. What role can the Office of Wind Energy play in
    improving the efficiency, the reliability, and the capacity of
    wind energy technologies?
         Secretary Granholm. Yes, thank you for asking that. Our
    Wind Technology Office, and, of course, our relationships with
    the labs who are doing all of the research--so much of the
    research on this is obviously leading the way. I'm very bullish
    on these floating turbines as well. I know they're not quite
    ready for prime time, and a lot of--there's a lot of effort
    right now going into making sure that they work, and that they
    are particularly in the areas where a land-based effort is not
    that feasible. Often opposite from you, but on the West Coast
    we're seeing a lot of effort in that.
         You know, the notion--I--can I just say broadly, on wind
    energy, it is really a top priority, because we have so much
    untapped wind across the country, both offshore and onshore,
    along with solar, of course, and it's so--it's become not just
    one of our most reliable sources of carbon free energy, but,
    because of DOE's R&D efforts, you know, cost competitive,
    cheaper, cheaper than any other source of power now. So rapidly
    accelerating deployment of wind and solar is a big component of
    how we're going to build our clean energy economy and meet the
    climate goals of getting to 100 percent clean electricity by
    2035, and net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but, of course,
    there are those new innovation horizons as well, and we are
    deeply committed to them. You know, the triple win of offshore,
    because not just jobs, huge jobs----
         Mr. Tonko. Um-hum.
         Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Right, in construction
    and manufacturing, good union jobs. The combination of
    proximity to population centers and high wind resources off the
    coast means it can play just a critical role in moving that--
    the country to the 100 percent goal. And we know that the
    President has committed to this national goal of 30 gigawatts
    of offshore wind by 2030, and so it's going to--and it is
    taking a whole of government coordinated effort between, you
    know, DOE, and the Department of Interior, and the, you know,
    all of these entities that are really focused on making sure we
    can do this, including the Department of Defense, which, you
    know, often use an--offshore as a way of doing maneuvers, and
    are working with us to make sure we carve out areas that are
    capable for wind development.
         So, bottom line--and let me just say, the administration
    took another big stride toward that goal this week with the
    announcement of nearly 400 square miles of sea off of the coast
    of California that it's going to make available early next
    year, which unlocks the potential for this Great American Wind
    Project in the Pacific Ocean, and it could be the first
    commercial floating wind project as well. So, bottom line, I'm
    with you 100 percent on it. Very excited about it.
         Mr. Tonko. Thank you, and thank you for the enthusiasm.
    What other additional DOE research is needed to ensure that we
    maximize wind energy's potential?
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah, I would say a couple of things.
    One is clearly on the floating turbines. So, you know, we've
    had conversations, and we know others have as well, with, for
    example, those who do the rigs for oil and gas, and those, you
    know, platforms have gone through a lot, and so the wind
    turbines themselves that are floating have to withstand a lot
    of motion, and so the research related to the best sort of
    anchoring of a floating thing on top of the water is critical,
    and that piece of research is going on. Continual research on
    whether you can use offshore wind to also create green
    hydrogen. Can you put electrolyzers, for example, in the base
    of one of these massive wind turbines to create green hydrogen
    from the wind turbine? So----
         Mr. Tonko. Um-hum.
         Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Stuff like that, a
    creative combination of things, whether you have a platform
    perhaps that is also doing tidal energy as--below, and wind
    energy above, that kind of research is very interesting, as
    well as material science research continually on the blades,
    those massive blades. The bigger they get, the more you have to
    have a very sophisticated strategy on materials. So all of
    that's super exciting.
         Mr. Tonko. Madam Secretary, my time is up. I'll just tell
    you that Plug Power is an industry leader in hydrogen. They're
    located in my district. I have other questions on hydrogen that
    I'll forward you----
         Secretary Granholm. Great.
         Mr. Tonko [continuing]. And would appreciate your
    response, but----
         Secretary Granholm. You bet.
         Mr. Tonko [continuing]. Congratulations on the
    appointment, again, and look forward to working with you.
         Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
         Mr. Tonko. I yield back, Madam Chair.
         Staff. Mr. Feenstra is next.
         Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, and Ranking
    Member Lucas. Secretary Granholm, thank you for testifying
    before the Committee today. As you know, Iowa is a leader in
    our Nation in producing clean biofuels, and my congressional
    district is the No. 1 producer of biofuels in the country. I
    appreciate the work that the DOE is doing to look at the
    innovative uses for our biofuels, such as helping decarbonize
    our airline industry, and expanding their use as low carbon
    fuels. I am actively working on legislative solutions for these
    issues, and I look forward to working with the DOE. I also look
    forward to working with the DOE to continue to advance our
    biofuel industry toward being a net carbon negative fuel
    through innovative research. Today I would like to focus on
    some recent research findings and reports by your Department.
         Secretary, earlier this week the DOE Argonne National Lab
    released a study. I'll quote the headline for you. ``Corn
    Ethanol Reduces Carbon Footprint and Diminishes Greenhouse
    Gases''. This study showed that from 2005 to 2019 corn ethanol
    resulted in more than 500 million tons of greenhouse gas
    reductions, and carbon intensity in ethanol decreased by 23
    percent. This shows that corn ethanol created significant
    emission reductions and biofuel's overall carbon footprint is
    rapidly declining. Based on this data, would you agree with me
    that today's current biofuels have already created significant
    emission reductions in our auto sector?
         Secretary Granholm. Yes, today and for the future as well.
    We've got a whole biofuels and bio energy team that's working
    on this. You mentioned the Argonne study. I'm glad you asked
    about that. We--you know, electric vehicles obviously have
    emerged as this great technology for light duty vehicles, and
    cars, and SUVs, and pickups, but the heaviest duty
    transportation modes that really need energy density liquid
    fuels, which is where biofuels obviously are going to play a
    critical role, and, as you mentioned, aviation and marine fuels
    as well, so it's a very----
         Mr. Feenstra. Well, thank you.
         Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Exciting area----
         Mr. Feenstra. Yeah.
         Secretary Granholm [continuing]. And I'm glad to see that
    Argonne study.
         Mr. Feenstra. Yeah. Thanks, Secretary. Are you aware that
    in February of this year the Energy Information Agency
    published their 2021 annual energy outlook, and it estimates
    that by 2050 liquid fuel vehicles will still account of 79
    percent of the new vehicle sales? Did you note that?
         Secretary Granholm. I saw that, yes.
         Mr. Feenstra. Yeah. I just want you to know that the
    Information Agency has a whole subsection highlighting the
    gasoline and flex fuel vehicles, and we'll only see 16 percent
    decline by 2050. Given this, it seems wise to me that we
    continue investing and expanding in biofuels. My concern, Madam
    Secretary, is that even though the facts paint a clear picture
    that biofuels present a solution to automotive emissions, the
    Biden Administration has hardly mentioned them when discussing
    the American Jobs Plan. Instead, Biden has called for 174
    billion in spending in electric vehicles that the DOT
    (Department of Transportation) projects will account for less
    than 20 percent of the vehicles by 2050. Would you have--we
    should have automotive competition in low carbon automotive
    marketplace, and we can't ignore the findings of your own
    department. Biofuels have a significant and essential role to
    play as we move forward into the future. Can I get your
    commitment to take these DOE findings to President Biden to
    ensure that biofuels are part of this administration's future
    automotive policy?
         Secretary Granholm. I mean, honestly, I believe that
    biofuels are going to be a big part of this administration's
    future policy with respect to transportation, as I mentioned,
    particularly on heavy duty and aviation, so I think that you're
    pushing on an open door.
         Mr. Feenstra. Well, thank you, Secretary. I just want to
    reiterize how important it is that our auto industry can also
    use biofuels and ethanol, and ethanol is so paramount. And I
    know the administration and yourself talk about--well, it's
    important to, you know, larger aircraft and all this other
    stuff, but, just like the facts point out, there's still going
    to be a large percent of our cars that need liquid fuels. So I
    hear what you're saying, I hear your support, but the American
    Jobs Plan does not include biofuels, and that's where I'm
    really concerned about it, and I hope, I passionately hope,
    that you and the administration can advocate for biofuels as we
    move forward. Thank you, Secretary, I yield back.
         Staff. Mr. Foster is recognized.
         Mr. Foster. Thank you. Am I audible here?
         Secretary Granholm. You are.
         Mr. Foster. OK. Well, Secretary Granholm, first off,
    congratulations on your confirmation, and in taking what one of
    your predecessors, Governor Rick Perry, called the coolest job
    in the world.
         Secretary Granholm. It is. It is.
         Mr. Foster. So I'd like to use my time to encourage you to
    throw deep, and with major new investments in the sort of large
    science facilities and initiatives that the United States
    Department of Energy is really uniquely positioned to propose,
    to lead, and to execute. You have, at the Department of Energy,
    an organization with a unique capability, and an incredible
    track record for successfully executing technically challenging
    large scientific projects. But, for most of the last 10 years,
    the pipeline of those large transformative projects has been
    largely running dry, at least in the United States, because the
    U.S., science generally, and DOE Office of Science
    specifically, has been struggling even to preserve its already
    inadequate budgets.
         Over the last decade we saw Paul Ryan budgets proposing 17
    percent cuts to science. We saw the Trump/Mulvaney proposals
    for 100 percent cuts in various areas, so that, for many of the
    last 10 years, even preserving a flat science budget sometimes
    seemed like a victory. As a result of this, the U.S. has been
    increasingly forced to become a relatively minor participant in
    large international projects, rather than the host of world-
    leading scientific facilities that was our traditional role.
         But that attitude, fortunately, has changed, at least on
    the House Science Committee. It was over a year ago, well
    before COVID, that we were graced with the wonderful prospect
    of dueling Republican and Democratic proposals to double the
    scientific research budget. And then they both concentrated
    especially on the fundamental scientific research that will be
    necessary in the long run to solve climate change, to meet our
    other challenges, and to preserve the U.S. leadership in
    understanding the mysteries of the universe. And I remember out
    on the campaign trail Vice President Biden--then Vice President
    Biden would oscillate between doubling and tripling the science
    budgets, which I guess is the range of flip-flopping that we
    can--most of us can tolerate. So I'm really very proud that,
    under the bipartisan leadership of Chair Johnson and Ranking
    Member Lucas, this Committee is working toward a thoughtful and
    technically feasible reauthorization, you know, not only for
    the Department of Energy, but across our entire science
    portfolio. That's the way our government and budget process
    should work.
         You know, you could take the opening statements of our
    Chair and Ranking Member, and you could interchange them
    without noticing a difference, and I don't know of another
    Committee in Congress that you could say that of. You know, but
    there is a long list of large science investments that are
    overdue--that are really overdue. For example, infusion. As the
    large international ITER Project is approaching the finish
    line, the international community is now looking at the design
    and the site of the next machines. Good candidates for this
    include a next generation either light tokamak, or perhaps in a
    significantly higher field, or perhaps an optimized
    stellarator, the U.S. invention which was successfully
    prototyped in Germany that promises a simpler and more
    economical operating path for fusion, or many other designs.
    And there are many similarly large new projects, many waiting
    in the wings for over a decade, in high energy particle
    physics, in bioinformatics, quantum, cloud-based biology,
    neuromorphic community, you know, the list goes on.
         There are opportunities for big new investments in DOE
    also outside of the Office of Science. At NSA (National Nuclear
    Security Administration), after a decade of progress at NIF
    (National Ignition Facility), we are now in a position to write
    down the design of a next generation laser ignition facility
    that could reliably be projected to achieve robust laboratory
    scale thermonuclear fusion, which is perhaps the most
    scientifically exciting use for our stockpile stewardship
    workforce. And we--many Members here have mentioned the nuclear
    waste problem, and while we have struggled for decades with the
    politics of nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain, in Europe
    there is a project underway to demonstrate that instead of
    finding someplace to store long nuclear waste, you can simply
    incinerate it using a charged particle beam that's very much
    like the one the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge uses
    every day. But unless we make these big new investments on
    these large new projects, our competitors are going to get
    there first. So I'd like to echo Chair Johnson's observation
    that a 5 percent increase doesn't really cut it for the Office
    of Science, and I hope that we do better when this procedure
    settles out. So throw deep, as I said. You know, the Department
    of Energy team has a lot of good receivers, and they are wide
    open, and they are far downfield. In Congress, we are ready to
    hand off the ball to you, the budgetary football, but you have
    to call the plays, you have to hit the open targets. You have
    to put a few scores on the board, and we can have a pretty good
    first quarter. And I have now used up my time, but I look
    forward to working with you.
         Secretary Granholm. That was beautiful. Thank you for
    that.
         Staff. Ms. Kim is recognized.
         Ms. Kim. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, and Ranking
    Member Lucas, for holding this important hearing, and I want to
    thank you, Secretary Granholm, for being with us today.
         You know, unfortunately, residents of my home State of
    California have firsthand experience with energy infrastructure
    that cannot meet the demand. Like, last summer, over 800,000
    customers suffered power outages over two evenings in August.
    You may recall that. Californians only averted another round of
    rolling blackouts in the coming days through emergency measures
    and voluntary conservation. And California adopted a
    requirement that renewable energy and zero carbon resources
    supply 100 percent of retail electricity by 2045. So as this
    plan requires fossil fuels to be phased out, are advances in
    grid resiliency keeping pace with the increased use of
    renewable energy necessary to meet the standard?
         Secretary Granholm. I'm sorry, the question is are----
         Ms. Kim. Advances in grid resiliency----
         Secretary Granholm. Yes.
         Ms. Kim [continuing]. Pace with the increased use of
    renewable energy----
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah, we clearly need to do both. I
    mean, there is no doubt that the grid issues--I mean,
    California's grid issues are a combination of things, right?
    One of them is that you've got an old grid, and the grid is on
    poles that were put up in the 1950's, and you need to
    underground--you--not you personally, but California needs to
    underground the wires so that it is resilient from wind. A lot
    of the outages had to do with anticipated high wind events,
    where we didn't want to create fires, and so people, you know,
    saw their system shut down as a result of that. We shouldn't--
    in the 21st century we shouldn't have that kind of a system. A
    grid should be resilient, it should be reliable, it should be
    secure, and we should have enough capacity to be able to meet
    the energy needs of our citizens, and we--so we need to work on
    that in California.
         I think the importance of investing in the technology of
    grid, in--and what--the American Jobs Plan is a signal for
    this. You know, being prepared means a lot more than having a
    plan, it means making the investments in the transmission
    system, and the generating resources. The grid itself has got
    to be resilient enough to be managed under various extreme
    weather circumstances, and that challenge is connected with the
    generation, you know? So, bottom line is we've--it's very
    complicated, but we have to invest in the basics, which is----
         Ms. Kim. Sure.
         Secretary Granholm [continuing]. A grid that is
    underinvested in. And California doesn't have the resources to
    pay for it all by itself, so this is why we need to have an
    aggressive public/private partnership with the transmission
    operators to get these new lines built, and to underground the
    lines that we have.
         Ms. Kim. So how are DOE's research and development
    activities preparing utilities to address that high demand on
    hot, windless days, as temperatures peak in the afternoon and
    early evening, while solar generation decreases as sunset
    approaches?
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah. I know that the Office of
    Electricity is looking at various technological advances on
    energy grids, first of all, to make sure that grid dispatching
    is efficient, and that means AI, and making sure we've got the
    right technology on the grid to make it efficient, but it also
    means that we have got to invest in the kind of wires that are
    resilient. So that means replacing a lot of wires, making them
    resilient to heat, making them, you know, further research and
    development to lowering the cost of undergrounding, where it's
    appropriate to be able to do that. So a lot of the work that we
    are doing is, you know, learning from what has happened both in
    California, in Texas, you know, and across the country to make
    sure that we--but ultimately we need to invest to get--to
    upgrade the system.
         You know, in Europe they do a huge amount of
    undergrounding of high speed DC wires, and they underground
    them in trenches, and they may run underneath agricultural
    land. You don't even know that they're there. They may
    compensate the owners for it. So there's a lot that we could be
    doing policy-wise to shore up and harden----
         Ms. Kim. Secretary, I have 30 seconds left so I----
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah. I'm sorry.
         Ms. Kim [continuing]. Let me reclaim my time, because----
         Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
         Ms. Kim [continuing]. Express my concern that a shift to
    renewable resources for which our grid is not prepared could
    increase the frequency of blackouts. And I believe you have
    stated that our country's electric grid is unprepared for
    extreme weather events such as wildfires, so, in your opinion,
    what is the greatest challenge in improving grid resilience and
    minimizing service disruption in areas frequently threatened by
    wildfires, and how is DOE addressing this?
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah. I mean, honestly, what we have
    to do is invest in the grid to harden our defenses. It doesn't
    mean that we shouldn't be adding capacity like clean energy to
    the grid. It means we have to add capacity, and we have to
    shore up the existing lines and wires, whether it's
    undergrounding, or adding the microchips that make it smart for
    dispatchable power to be sent where it needs to go at the time
    it needs to go. So, you know, the--we have to invest in all
    aspects of the grid, including cyber. But right now we have
    been--we have really turned our back on the grid, and this is
    why--this is a moment. We're all in this moment of being able
    to say this is a time to invest in this piece of
    infrastructure. And I would really posit that while we're
    talking about infrastructure investment, investing in the grid
    is infrastructure.
         Ms. Kim. OK. Well, thank you so much. I think my time's
    up. I yield back.
         Secretary Granholm. OK.
         Ms. Kim. Thank you, Secretary, for being with us.
         Staff. Ms. Ross is recognized.
         Ms. Ross. Thank you so much, and, Secretary Granholm, I
    could not be happier that you're where you are. Clearly you're
    thinking the right way, and you're thinking about the future,
    which is the most important thing. I represent the Research
    Triangle area in North Carolina. As a matter of fact, I've seen
    you at NC State University talking about renewable energy and
    clean energy. And, by the way, the Chancellor told me he really
    wants you to come back, so this is an open invitation to come
    back to NC State. And I've learned that both NC State and Wake
    Tech Community College, which is very near NC State, have
    programs in cybersecurity, training up the next generation to
    help us avoid problems like the Colonial Pipeline crisis that,
    you know, we experienced so directly here in North Carolina.
         But because so many of my colleagues have asked you
    questions that I was going to talk about, including the one on
    the grid, great answer, and the one about offshore wind, I want
    to focus on something that we are not hearing enough about, but
    I think is really a big part of solving the climate crisis, and
    that's energy conservation, and making sure that we have better
    buildings, and ways of making sure that we have energy
    resilience, and so the less energy we use, the less energy we
    have to produce. But our utilities don't have an incentive to
    implement these conservation programs because they sell less
    energy. If they build fewer things, then they have less to put
    into their rate base, and less of a rate of return.
         And I've seen this here in North Carolina. I represented
    municipalities who wanted our monopoly utilities to give them
    better ways to load ship, to have more advanced meters, so that
    people could figure out what they were doing, and how to reduce
    their energy bills. And I would like to know how we can move
    forward on this, because I'm all for all the new and different
    ways of having energy and having a new grid, but wouldn't it be
    great if we could just conserve some and save our constituents
    some money?
         Secretary Granholm. Yes, yes, yes. I mean, both have to
    happen. We have to generate renewable and clean energy, and we
    have to have energy efficiency, and we have to put the
    incentives in the right spots, right, for the utilities to be
    able to produce what used to be called the fifth fuel, which
    was energy efficiency. This is why having a clean energy--an
    energy efficiency standard, which is what is contemplated in
    the American Jobs Plan, is such an important piece of things.
    You can see the benefit if you put the incentives in the right
    places. We did this in Michigan, a number States have done
    this. There is--there are ways to construct it, and I would say
    the American Jobs Plan as well gives States--allows us to shape
    State block grants that would reward States that do that, that
    reward efficiency.
         I mean, you know, there's a big emphasis in the American
    Jobs Plan for increasing weatherization and building--
    retrofitting homes and buildings, and, honestly, the energy
    efficiency piece, it's not just about the climate. It's really
    about the climate, but it's not just about it. It's also about
    people. I mean, when you think about how much, particularly
    poor families, pay, up to 30 percent of their income on energy,
    it's just wrong. We need to have secure homes that don't leak,
    and it would be wise for us to make sure the incentive
    structures are accurate, and right--and placed in the right way
    so that we can incentivize building back better for all
    communities.
         Ms. Ross. And could you speak a little bit about how we
    inspire our people to want to conserve energy, and maybe turn
    off the lights, and things like that. And it--when I was
    growing up, that's what we did, because we had energy--an
    energy crisis, but I think that we've taken for granted that
    we're always going to be able to plug in our devices, and
    everything's going to be there, and, you know, it might be good
    if we inspire people to be a little bit more conscious of what
    they're doing.
         Secretary Granholm. 1,000 percent. One would hope that the
    financial savings would be inspiration enough. I would also say
    that sometimes it's difficult to inspire individuals, but you
    can construct technology that does the work for you so that
    people don't really have to think about it. So smart buildings,
    for example, energy savings in building's management that will
    automatically turn off lights when there's no movement, the
    smart and efficient appliances that save people $600 on average
    per year, and if that's not enough on their own, but having
    that as part of building codes I think is a critically
    important piece of a comprehensive strategy with respect to
    energy.
         Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, and I yield back.
         Staff. Mr. Babin is recognized. Mr. Babin is not with us
    anymore.
         Mr. Babin. Here I am.
         Staff. There----
         Mr. Babin. Here I am. I'm sorry. I apologize. I've got a
    few questions that I'd like to ask. Appreciate you being here,
    Madam Secretary. Thank you so very much.
         Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
         Mr. Babin. And this is a very, very important subject and
    issue. On the first day in office President Biden announced
    that his intention to was to rejoin the Paris Agreement. In
    April he submitted the United States Nationally Determined
    Contribution, which was an emissions reduction target of 50 to
    52 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2030. The submission
    did not offer much information, other than vague phrases on how
    it was determined, like saying the National Climate Advisor
    conducted an inter-agency process across the Federal
    Government, and consulted a range of other stakeholders. The
    Obama Administration's pledge to reach 80 percent reduction by
    2040 was estimated to cost the United States economy $3
    trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs. Therefore, I
    want to ask, and well, let me just say this. I believe that the
    American people deserve transparency, and a justification if
    their jobs and economy are really on the line like this. So,
    Secretary Granholm, what was DOE's role in determining this
    target, and did you meet or communicate directly with the
    National Climate Advisor, Ms. Gina McCarthy, and what, if any,
    models or data sources from DOE were used to inform this
    process? Please, ma'am.
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah, thank you for asking that. Yeah,
    it's part of a whole of government approach. We are all about
    making sure every agency is looking at this. They've used a
    number of resources, economic models, I've certainly talked
    with them, et cetera, and the whole point is that there a
    number of paths that one could get to. You ratchet up one a
    little bit higher, one maybe going a little bit lower, but
    there are a number of reports out there that are publicly
    available that suggest that there are different paths to be
    able to achieve getting to that goal of 50 percent reduction,
    or 50 to 52 percent reduction, by 2030.
         Mr. Babin. Yes. OK. Well, I understand. Now, the second
    one I want to pivot to touch on a topic relevant to my role as
    the Ranking Member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee.
    The ability to use to nuclear power in propulsion systems
    safely, securely, and sustainably is vital to maintaining and
    advancing U.S. leadership in space. The National Strategy for
    Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion was issued last year in an
    effort to increase coordination and collaboration across all
    relevant Federal agencies, and maximize efficiency and return
    on taxpayer investment. Additionally, capitalizing on the
    commonalities among space nuclear power systems and terrestrial
    nuclear systems, especially fuels or fuel variants, could
    shorten the timescale for the development of critical
    capabilities.
         And, Secretary Granholm, how is DOE coordinating with
    other Federal agencies on existing and future space nuclear
    power initiatives, especially with an eye toward future
    applications of the Department's current R&D efforts, and how
    is DOE engaging with the private sector to meet the needs of
    civil and national security space? In one instance, should
    agencies consider issuing a request for a proposal for the
    development and construction of an in-space or lunar surface
    power reactor system or demonstration? I know I packed in about
    three questions.
         Secretary Granholm. Wow. You've got a lot in that one.
         Mr. Babin. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
         Secretary Granholm. That's OK. That's all right. So let me
    just say, I'm excited and really proud of how the Department of
    Energy assists NASA in its important space exploration
    missions. So, for example, our national labs, like Idaho, and
    Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge developed and assembled the plutonium
    power source for the Perseverance Rover that landed on Mars
    earlier this year, so--and DOE itself has built nearly 50 radio
    isotopic power systems units that have powered and--more than
    two dozen, I think, space missions. So we have partnered with
    NASA, and we're excited about that, and of course DOD--DOE and
    the National Labs are also leading teams to develop new nuclear
    thermal propulsion rockets that have the potential to be able
    to move, you know, and, I would say, to carry and significantly
    reduce travel times. And we're also working with the Department
    of Defense on the development of fission power systems,
    especially microreactors, that could perhaps provide surface
    power for missions on the Moon, and maybe even Mars. So I look
    forward to working--continuing to work with NASA, and I'm glad
    to know that you're really interested in that as well, and
    space exploration. So, you know, we look forward to working
    with you and with the Committee on that.
         Mr. Babin. Well, thank you so very much, Madam Secretary.
    That's a very good answer. And so, with that, Mr. Chairman,
    thank you, I'll yield back. Appreciate this informative
    hearing.
         Staff. Mr. Crist is recognized.
         Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Secretary
    Granholm, it's great to see you, and thank you for joining us
    today, always a pleasure. The Department of Energy recently
    announced an ambitious and laudable goal of cutting the cost of
    solar energy by 60 percent within the next 10 years. What
    programs and initiative does the Department plan to use to meet
    the goal, and what can Congress do to help you support that?
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah, thank you for asking. I mean,
    obviously the cost of solar has dropped so dramatically, but we
    announced we're cutting it yet again by 60 percent. And we do
    have a great plan. I'm really proud of how we're going to keep
    that price of solar coming down, and down, down. And, as you
    noted, you know, we were really being aggressive about it, so
    to help us get there, we're committing funding, and we're
    committing assistance to support that goal. It's a
    comprehensive plan. Every bit of the process, from the raw
    materials, to the point a solar panel is delivering electrons
    to your house, it includes--this plan that we're getting there
    to reduce by 60 percent includes continuing the front end R&D
    on material science to develop lower cost and higher performing
    solar technology, like our work in perovskites, as one example.
    Just this past March we announced more funding for that effort.
         And it also includes things people don't even think about,
    like, for example, the soft costs of permitting and siting, so
    there's--I'm--those soft costs, they are a big part of why, as
    cheap as solar has gotten, it's still more expensive to install
    than--here in the United States than in other countries. So, as
    one example, we are partnering with State and local governments
    to use this online permitting tool so that people can get
    standard rooftop solar permitted instantly, rather than waiting
    for months, and our solar office--I'm not getting ahead of
    myself here, but we're going to be announcing this--launching
    this app next month to completely eliminate the soft waiting
    time, et cetera, and the cost associated with that, so you can
    appreciate the role of getting all these distributed energy
    resources online in Florida for sure, and making sure that
    they're benefiting Floridians. Long story short, there's a lot
    going on in this area. I'd be happy to have your team connect
    with our Solar Energy Technologies Office if you'd like even
    more detail.
         Mr. Crist. Well, thank you, that would be great. While
    solar energy is growing in Florida, my home State hasn't
    exactly lived up to our nickname as the Sunshine State, so, as
    I'm sure you're probably aware, Secretary, State energy
    policies in Florida can make it difficult for homeowners to
    install, integrate, and fully benefit from solar panels.
    Meanwhile, Florida is arguably the State most susceptible to
    the impacts of climate change, and therefore the State most in
    need of increased renewable energy development. How can the
    Department of Energy incentivize States to increase integration
    of renewable energy into the grid?
         Secretary Granholm. That's a great question too. I mean,
    this is critical, as we need States, and localities, and
    companies to all work together, along with the Federal
    Government, to achieve our goals for renewable energy. And so
    the State Energy Program, SEP we call it, is in the Office of
    Energy Efficiency inside of DOE--Energy Efficiency and
    Renewable Energy, and it's working this year to strategically
    engage the leadership of States in deploying clean energy
    technologies across the country. SEP funding helps to establish
    and to implement these clean energy policies and programs to
    reduce energy costs, and enhance competitiveness, and all of
    that, and improve the environment.
         And in addition, our national labs, and all of our program
    offices, have tools to help States integrate more clean energy
    onto the grid. But we can do a lot more, and want to do more,
    and the American Jobs Plan would help us do that, and also to
    give States, and local units as well, incentives to come up
    with their own homegrown strategies to move toward 100 percent
    clean energy. You'll see that in the jobs plan, the State Clean
    Energy Block Grant Program, that I like calling the Build Back
    Better Challenge Grant Program. And my vision is really to work
    with States to come up with the best strategies to maximize
    clean energy, and if the State government is not so interested
    to work with the local units of government inside of that State
    to do the very same thing to support these resources. And the
    further they go in figuring out how to integrate clean energy,
    the more resources we would get to them to help them fulfill
    that vision. So I'd love to work with you on developing that
    program too.
         Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Secretary, I truly appreciate
    that, and I yield back the balance of my time.
         Staff. Mr. Obernolte is recognized.
         Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Secretary Granholm, for what's been a really fascinating
    hearing. In your testimony you mentioned the problems with the
    Colonial Pipeline, and the threats to the civilian supply
    chain, and, obviously, that's something that the Committee here
    has been very concerned about also. We had an Investigations
    and Oversight hearing on that exact topic this week. Although
    we were more focused on the government supply chain, obviously
    the economic supply chain for the rest of the country is even
    more important. I'm wondering what you think needs to be done
    to try and address those vulnerabilities, because,
    unfortunately, your job is even harder than the job that we
    were looking into because you run the risk of over-regulating
    if you require everyone to comply with something, and also you
    create changes to the competitive landscape if you were to
    require things that only large companies were positioned to
    comply with. So----
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah.
         Mr. Obernolte [continuing]. What do you think needs to be
    done about this, and how can we help you get that done?
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah, I appreciate you asking. It is
    really a sensitive issue, because you want to, you know, you
    want to encourage innovation, and you want to cure--encourage
    adaptation of whatever the solutions are that you are
    promoting, but you also, you know, you want to make sure that
    everybody can do it, right? So, you know, you're aware, of
    course, since you had had a hearing on this, and you saw this
    week, that the TSA (Transportation Security Administration)
    has--who has regulatory authority over pipelines, right? So--
    but at this--up to this point it's been voluntary. On the
    electricity side, that--the utilities have really been grateful
    for the fact that there are some minimum standards that are on
    their end, and--that they use to make sure that the, you know,
    that the transmission grid and distribution system is as safe
    as possible.
         One wonders whether we can borrow from what is happening
    on the electricity side to put over to the oil and gas side to
    make sure that we at least have knowledge of what is going on.
    So, for example, on the electricity side, we--many of the
    transmission operators have technology that was developed by
    PNNL, actually, and is on the grid, called CRISP (Cybersecurity
    Risk Information Sharing Program), and it identifies when there
    is a threat, a hack, et cetera, and it also alerts PNNL. It
    alerts those who are monitoring it, and CESER (Cybersecurity,
    Energy Security, and Emergency Response), and make sure that
    our intelligence community is aware, especially if there is an
    international threat. There's no such system like that on the
    pipeline side, and so one wonders if that might be something
    that we should require, or if that should be considered.
         You know, the utility community is all in on making sure--
    because they see it happening, and so should the folks on the
    pipeline side. So TSA announced this week that it was going to
    be requiring pipeline operators to tell them when there was a
    hack, and I think that's an important step. And the final thing
    I'll say--I'm sorry to go on, but I think it's a really
    important question--that NIST (National Institute of Standards
    and Technology), over at the Department of Commerce, has
    developed some basic cyber floor, I will say, that entities
    should be using, in terms of cyber hygiene. And I think that
    having some basic requirements on these systems is important,
    because we have to continually upgrade, but we also make to--
    need to make sure that everybody has some basic protections on
    systems that we all benefit from.
         Mr. Obernolte. Sure. Thank you. That was a great
    discussion, and I think you're absolutely right. The point that
    came up over and over again in our Subcommittee hearing earlier
    this week was that it's not enough for NIST just to upgrade
    guidance. You know, it's going to require some kind of--and if
    not regulation, then maybe some automation, as you say to----
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah.
         Mr. Obernolte [continuing]. Highlight the vulnerabilities
    that we have in the supply chain, because otherwise this is
    just going to continue to happen to us.
         Secretary Granholm. Agreed.
         Mr. Obernolte. And then, lastly, if I could ask you about
    some of the research programs at DOE? I know you share my
    concern for the U.S. falling behind in its competitiveness in
    programs like exascale computing and artificial intelligence,
    you know, things that really have the capacity to fundamentally
    transform our economy, and I think it's just vital to maintain
    our competitive stance there. What can we do to better assist
    the DOE with implementing those programs? Because my concern is
    not just the basic research, but also vocational training for
    the next generation of Americans to prepare them to compete in
    this space.
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah. I mean, I agree with you that we
    have to continue to buildup the STEM workforce. I acknowledge,
    I think, that you have a Master's degree in artificial
    intelligence, and you're, like, the only one in Congress that
    may have that. That's pretty amazing.
         Mr. Obernolte. I haven't researched that. I don't know.
         Secretary Granholm. But it would be great to see more
    interest in areas that often are seen by young people--you
    know, if they're not interested in computers off the top, then
    they may not be at all looking at--in this space, but we need
    to really build out this pipeline. Today DOE announced an
    initiative--a $100 million initiative to fund the research of
    young science efforts to make sure that we are continuing to
    support these young STEM future career workers, but we need to
    get--go deeper and go younger to really expand that STEM
    pipeline, and a lot of times--I mean, I taught at Berkeley.
    There's a class there that is essentially computer science--in
    the Computer Science Department, but for Liberal Arts majors.
    And the number of women, the number of diverse folks who took
    that class because they felt it was less threatening, perhaps,
    was amazing. They had enormous success. We need to develop--we
    need to be thinking about how young people view it. And, if
    they don't see themselves as a math person, they might not be
    interested in going into this field, and I think we've got to
    be more creative.
         I will say that the labs have been great about expanding
    the STEM pipeline, and really focusing, and now this is our
    effort inside on a diverse STEM population, because, in the
    space of artificial intelligence, in the space of designing,
    programming, if you don't have good inputs, you're going to
    have bad outputs, as you know, and if you don't have a diverse
    population at least providing some of those inputs, you're
    going to see like what we did with the facial recognition
    software, way overidentifying African-American men, for
    example, in the criminal justice space, et cetera. So we need
    to have a diverse pipeline of inputs and there--and of STEM
    workers in order to be able to achieve what we want to achieve.
         Mr. Obernolte. Well, it's an exciting initiative, and I
    know we're looking forward to working with you on that, so----
         Secretary Granholm. Great.
         Mr. Obernolte [continuing]. Thank you very much, Secretary
    Granholm, and I yield back.
         Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
         Staff. Mr. Kildee is recognized.
         Mr. Kildee. Thank you. And, hey, Secretary Granholm, how
    are you? It's good to----
         Secretary Granholm. I am great. It's great to see you too.
         Mr. Kildee. Both to you and Dan. Congratulations again on
    your confirmation. It's good to have you, as a Michigander, as
    a Midwesterner, in this administration, particularly in this
    role. Obviously we're focused very much on the auto sector, and
    knowing that the future of the automotive industry is electric.
    We know that we have to act boldly and aggressively, if not,
    China will lead the future of this industry, and we have to
    have specific and strategic Federal policy to make sure that
    American workers and American companies can compete in this
    21st century economy, particularly in this space, and
    particularly given the ascendancy of China in this particular
    area. Right now electric vehicles make up about 2 percent of
    vehicle sales. So, as you know, and we've chatted about this,
    I'm working with Senator Stabenow to extend and to expand the
    electric vehicle tax credit to increase demand for electric
    vehicles, and to lower costs for the purchase of those vehicles
    for consumers, but that's just one of the tools that we need to
    help grow this industry.
         So, as you and Representative Stevens discussed earlier,
    at the Department of Energy there's a program, the Advanced
    Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program, the ATVM
    Program, which provides loans to support the manufacture of
    advanced light duty vehicles. So far this program has supported
    the production of more than four million advanced technology
    vehicles. Unfortunately, however, past administrations have not
    used this program as Congress intended, and as such there
    hasn't been a loan disbursed since--really since 2012. There
    are billions remaining in this loan authority, and I would like
    to see it used more aggressively to help us essentially take an
    all of the above approach to making sure that we're going to
    win the future. Do you have thoughts on how to use the ATVM
    Program to support production of EVs, and to create those
    really good paying jobs that we know that it can create right
    here in the U.S.?
         Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thank you for asking this
    question, and thanks for your leadership and concern,
    especially about expanding the definition of what is available
    for access to the ATVM Program, including heavier duty
    vehicles. So you are aware, I know, and for everybody who may
    not be following this so closely, we have brought in a fellow
    named Jigar Shaw to run our Loan Programs Office, which
    includes the ATVM Loan Program, and he is--he's an--he's a--he
    comes from the financial world, and is completely obsessed with
    retooling the loan program to make it accessible. I mean, the--
    it has been moribund. Not just the ATVM, but the other Loan
    Program Office, you know, opportunities.
         You know, before--I mean, the LPO had demonstrated great
    success in providing financing, for example, to Tesla as an EV
    startup, right, and it recapitalized Ford's manufacturing
    plants in a number of States, and it also helped to refinance
    the Nissan plant in Tennessee. But there are--we just need to
    go further. I mean, there's whole a whole--there have been a
    series of hurdles that were set up at the Loan Program Office
    that made it inaccessible not just to those big players, but to
    smaller players as well, and we want to, you know, let 1,000
    flowers bloom, and that means allowing, you know, bringing down
    some of the initial costs that make that a barrier to entry, et
    cetera. So Jigar Shaw is working on a whole plan on this. He is
    an impatient soul, and I think you will be seeing some results
    from this very quickly. But we know this is a huge opportunity,
    and we are not going to miss it.
         Mr. Kildee. Well, I appreciate that. Changing the subject
    just slightly, you may have touched on this, I've had to come
    and go during the hearing, but I wonder if you could comment on
    your Department's strategy around research on storage. The
    whole broad range of issues around energy storage. Obviously,
    with renewables, one of the challenges we have is dealing with
    peak demand, and one of the ways to address that is with more
    effective technology related to energy storage. Is there--who's
    the--who's got the tip of the spear on that research, and
    what's the U.S. DOE's role in that?
         Secretary Granholm. Well, there are a number of labs that
    are doing research on storage, but I will say--and I just came
    from a virtual tour of one of them, the Pacific Northwest
    National Lab, where we have this whole grid storage launch pad
    on--particularly on energy storage--on energy storage--on
    utility scale storage, and that is very exciting. We have a
    whole--you know, the Vehicle Technologies Office is doing a
    huge amount on batteries, and the storage component of it, we
    want to bring down the cost of utility scale storage, and we'll
    be announcing an initiative on that in the next couple of
    weeks, in terms of a challenge to be able to get it down to the
    cost that we need to have it be readily adopted.
         You know, the ARPA-E has been focused on that as well, and
    has been--has announced challenges related to storage and
    materials. We've looked at critical minerals as a component of
    the need--on the vehicle side in particular to make sure that
    we have the capacity in the United States to build the
    batteries in the United States, and so making sure we are
    mining in a responsible way for these materials. So, for
    example, DOE has funded--in the Salton Sea in California, has
    helped to fund a project by--that was--had been funded by BHO,
    which is a responsibly mined geothermal project where we pull
    lithium from the Salton Sea, and that lithium is being used now
    in vehicle batteries, or will be used in vehicle batteries.
    It's just starting up. So the bottom line is we have to be--we
    have to look at the supply chain of energy storage from soup to
    nuts, and from vehicles to utilities, and the 17 national labs,
    I would say probably half of them have got energy storage
    initiatives, working on different components. We're
    coordinating, and working on different components, to make sure
    that we are, you know, are being responsible.
         And I will say thank you to this Committee, that adopted
    the Better Energy Storage Technology Act, the BEST Act, from
    the Energy Act of 2020. You know, it was signed into law, and
    we're working on a lot of the priorities that emanated from
    that. It needs to be funded, right, but we are--we've got all
    this cost cutting research and development work that the Act
    certainly gave--pushed us in the direction of, and we're
    excited to be able to take that to scale with both the American
    Jobs Plan, and/or with funding that is--that was--that--funding
    the authorization of that Act.
         Mr. Kildee. Well, thank you very much. I really appreciate
    your thoughtful approach to all these issues. Keep up the good
    work. I look forward to seeing you in person soon.
         Secretary Granholm. Very good.
         Mr. Kildee. Thanks.
         Staff. Mr. Sessions is recognized.
         Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. Ms. Secretary, I want
    to thank you for taking time not only to join us today, but for
    your service to this country. I think it's important that, as
    this Committee engage you, and other Members engage you, we
    give you the real sense that what we're trying to do is to move
    forward the best positions the United States to be prepared for
    its future. And one of the things that we have talked about in
    earlier Committee hearings is American competitiveness, and
    American competitiveness means that we grow what we have in our
    universities, that we grow in our labs, and we grow in
    collaboration with public/private partnerships with companies
    that can take on, perhaps, more specific things, and take
    things further down the road.
         One of the things that I would say to you is that, in your
    role, I wholeheartedly encourage you to know that a viewpoint
    that is not always shared by everyone is a word that we use,
    all of the above. And that is that we believe that, if you live
    in the Northwest, or have something that is--where you have
    hydropower, good for you. If you live in Texas, or if you live
    somewhere where the resources might be different, or in the
    Northeast, where they might be entirely different, that you
    utilize those that make sense, and in Texas, and in the
    Southwest, it is natural gas.
         What my point to you is is that it is my hope that you
    will know that this Committee wants your leadership. We expect
    you to aim to the best, and lead to the best, but I would also
    remind you that the United States, whether we are with solar
    panels, whether we're moving--and we have those directly in the
    district--the congressional district that I represent in
    Central Texas--or whether we have the big 38 story wind
    turbines, we all want to work together, and it's my hope that
    as you do champion those things that are clean and better
    energy, please remember that there's also people like my family
    and others that have disabled children, and people who come
    home with a loved one who may have been in the military, and
    they have to have a big SUV because they have a disabled
    person, or perhaps a wheelchair, or some other things.
         And I think too many times there's a tendency from some
    people--it's hard to say, sometimes it could be me, even--but
    who finds a way to become more narrow rather than acknowledging
    that we're all in different circumstances, and we all have
    different needs, and we need each of these areas, like--I'm
    big, you know, into nuclear power, because it's a non-emitting
    source. My point is thank you, and I hope that you know that
    this Committee wants and needs you to be successful, but that I
    hope that you'll remember that that balance comes about, that
    different people have different needs. And I know a good number
    of the young people in your party are pushing you, and I get
    that. That does not bother me. They're pushing you in certain
    angles. I would encourage you to remember everybody. And I want
    to thank you very much. The gentlewoman, Eddie Bernice Johnson,
    and I have served together in a district right next to each
    other.
         Secretary Granholm. Um-hum.
         Mr. Sessions. I know her well. Her professional nature,
    her abilities, are dominant when she chooses to put them to
    play, and she does. And I will tell you that we all wish you
    well, and want this to be a spectacular opportunity for
    everyone that's involved. I know you've got about 20--35
    seconds, but Secretary, I want to thank you.
         Secretary Granholm. Well, I appreciate that. If I could
    just say, thank you. I want to see all as well, and I think
    that the great thing about this energy space is that there are
    good paying jobs for all kinds of people in all pockets of the
    country. For communities like you're talking about that have
    relied on fossil fuels, the technology that we can bring to be
    able to manage carbon emissions is really an opportunity for
    them, and so I'm excited to work with this Committee, and I
    appreciate your real uplifting of the bipartisan nature of
    that. I have been questioned, certainly, but that obviously is
    reflected--reflective of the spirit of esprit de corps of this
    Committee. So thank you for that.
         Mr. Sessions. Yes, ma'am. We'll I've got--only got 23
    years in, but if I can be of assistance to you, Ed Perlmutter
    and I are good friends, Eddie Bernice--Chairwoman Eddie Bernice
    Johnson are good friends. We wish you the best, and, quite
    honestly, we need you to succeed. And thank you very much,
    Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.
         Staff. Mr. Beyer is recognized.
         Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, welcome.
    It's been really fun learning so much from you. And I think
    it's truly weird that we had all those football analogies from
    the----
         Secretary Granholm. Amazing.
         Mr. Beyer [continuing]. Only Ph.D. physicist here. But--
    and I've been trying to rewrite my notes to do that, but I
    can't. So--and as you probably know, we've put together a--an
    informal Fusion Caucus here in the House. Democrats and
    Republicans, the Science Committee, a lot of folks on the
    Energy Subcommittee in Appropriations, and--recently sent a
    letter to you, which you and your staff--very polite response,
    we're just thrilled. We didn't get any responses the last 4
    years. And our letter specifically asked that you highlighted
    the energy programs, and Conor Lamb's Energy Act of 2020, which
    included alternative and enabling concepts, milestone base
    development program, design of future fusion systems, full
    support for the construction of the ITER Project, on time and
    on budget. And I'd just love to get your sense of your
    commitment, and DOE's commitment, to following through on all
    these fusion energy landmarks we sent out.
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah, thank you for asking. I do feel
    like, as I mentioned earlier, that fusion is kind of the holy
    grail. If we can crack that code, you know, it solves so much,
    right? So the ITER Project is going to be a key step toward the
    eventual development of fusion energy, and--so I think it's 72
    percent complete to achieving the first plasma, but I think the
    impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are still being evaluated in
    the system. But our U.S. progress on it I think is about 67
    percent complete, so we have finished two of 12 of the
    hardware-in-kind contributions, and we're seeing that funding--
    the funding below the project's approved baseline has hampered
    our ability to provide the in-kind components and systems in a
    timely manner, so I look forward to continuing to work with
    Congress to help ensure that the U.S. can effectively aid the
    completion of the project.
         And on fusion more generally, you know, the Fusion Energy
    Sciences Program within the DOE Office of Science is building
    the foundation that's necessary to develop a fusion energy
    source separate from ITER, or in parallel with. The '22 budget
    request invests in transformative R&D to accelerate progress
    toward fusion energy, and it includes investments in additive
    manufacturing, and in quantum information, science, and
    artificial intelligence, and it's also going to support the D3D
    National Fusion Facility, which is a world-leading fusion
    experimental--experiment--experimental device located in La
    Jolla. So bottom line is we are in on fusion, we think its
    progress is enormous. And, you know, it may not be in the times
    we are serving here, who knows? It may be we're looking to the
    future, to our children or grandchildren who will be able to
    benefit, but nonetheless, as I often say, leadership is
    sometimes planting trees under whose shade you will never sit.
         Mr. Beyer. OK, but I'd love to get a reset on that,
    because that's sort of what we heard all of our lives, and
    what--the--we talked to a lot of physicists in the last year
    who say stop thinking about 25 years, or our children, or our
    grandchildren.
         Secretary Granholm. All right.
         Mr. Beyer. Let's think this decade. And let's also not
    just think ITER, which is the classic Big Government approach.
    There are at least nine small fusion energy companies,
    commercial companies, in the U.S. that have a couple of billion
    dollars invested in them already, some doing accelerators, some
    doing tokamaks. We were up at the National Academies a couple
    weeks ago, and they were like, yeah, 2035 to 2040. But
    Commonwealth Fusion, TAE, some of these others--I'm really
    interested in--you know, I only have 50 seconds, but getting
    DOE and your fusion efforts combined with the small, aggressive
    people who can make it happen fast.
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah, yeah. 1,000 percent. We're doing
    this through INFUSE, you know, the Innovation Network for
    Fusion Energy, which is working at ways to support the public/
    private partnerships with these companies that are looking to
    make quicker advances. So I don't mean to suggest that we're
    only going to get it long term. I know that that is what
    everybody says, but we are proceeding with these smaller
    efforts through INFUSE.
         Mr. Beyer. I just think we got a vaccine in under a year.
         Secretary Granholm. Good point.
         Mr. Beyer. In fact, we got it under 2 months, and it
    took----
         Secretary Granholm. Good point.
         Mr. Beyer [continuing]. A year to get it out there. We
    need to think about fusion energy that way.
         Secretary Granholm. All right.
         Mr. Beyer. And the holy grail is perfect. There's a German
    phrase, ``eierlegende Wollmilchsau.''
         Secretary Granholm. I'm never going to remember that----
         Mr. Beyer [continuing]. That lays eggs gives you wool,
    gives you milk, and bacon. And that's what fusion energy is for
    the future of this planet.
         Secretary Granholm. Awesome.
         Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam----
         Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
         Staff. Mr. Meijer is recognized.
         Mr. Meijer. Thank you, and welcome, Madam Secretary. I
    think the last time we met, I was a cadet at West Point, and
    you were the Governor of the State of Michigan, so----
         Chairwoman Johnson. My gosh.
         Mr. Meijer [continuing]. It's great to--it's good to see
    you again, and congratulations on your----
         Secretary Granholm. It's great----
         Mr. Meijer [continuing]. Confirmation.
         Secretary Granholm [continuing]. To meet you--great to see
    you.
         Mr. Meijer. You know, I want to kind of route it back into
    Michigan a little bit. I know that really a priority of this
    administration's energy plan has been around supporting green
    jobs, supporting jobs in the energy sector, and being mindful
    of the implication on some of the transitions that are
    underway, what implication that will have on the labor market
    more broadly.
         You know, I'm sure this issue came up when you were
    Governor of our great State of Michigan, but recently the
    Enbridge Line 5 Pipeline that starts over there in, you know,
    in the Wisconsin/Minnesota border, crosses through the Upper
    Peninsula, crosses under the Strait of Mackinaw, and then heads
    over into Sarnia, Governor Whitmer, your successor's successor,
    has been engaged in a pretty long struggle to shut down that
    pipeline, specifically citing the concerns of the path of the
    pipeline under the Strait of Mackinaw. Enbridge agreed to build
    a tunnel, but so far that tunnelling operation has been put on
    hold because of State-level concerns, which I find personally
    frustrating because every day that the tunnel sits there is a
    risk, and that--or, sorry, every day that the pipeline sits on
    the bed of the Straits of Mackinaw it presents a greater risk,
    and we could solve that with the tunnel.
         Now, I think we're all in broad agreement on the need to
    be entering into an all of the above scenario, increasing the
    use of renewables, increasing the use of low carbon, or carbon
    zero energy production technologies, and I think we also all
    agree we're not going to arrive there overnight. This is going
    to be a transition period. We'll always need some base load on
    demand, and we have a lot of consumers right now who are
    dependent on fossil fuels, whether for transportation or for
    home heating, and Line 5 is critical for propane distribution
    throughout the State. And this is an issue that even the
    Canadian ambassador has raised out of concern that a premature
    shutdown of Line 5 will have cascading energy impacts, and that
    it's something--I'm fully supportive of a green future, but
    also know that we need to build a bridge to get there. So I
    wondered if you could speak to where the administration's
    stance is on the Line 5 Pipeline, and on kind of the Governor
    of Michigan--on Governor Whitmer's efforts to shut that down.
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah. Thanks for the question, and for
    your service. So it is a matter that's in active litigation,
    and DOE doesn't have a direct role regarding this project, but,
    because it's in active litigation, I'm not going to comment
    further on it.
         Mr. Meijer. All right. Well, I understand that position, I
    just wish that there--especially considering our strong
    partnership with Canada, and the way in which this impacts our
    bilateral relationship with out neighbor, and vital trading
    partner, that the administration will do everything they can to
    expedite that tunnelling so that, again, we can reduce the risk
    of any sort of pipeline spill, while at the same time ensuring
    we are stabilizing markets, and not putting an undue burden on
    the citizens in Michigan, on their energy needs. And especially
    given some of the initial steps toward shutting down the
    Keystone XL Pipeline, again, we're in a transition. We need to
    be managing it well, rather than kind of more signaling
    measures.
         But on a more positive note, I also wanted to say, you
    know, the DOE MSU (Michigan State University) Facility for Rare
    Isotopes is in our State as well. It's cutting edge. We're
    really excited about it on the research side. I think we went
    back to 2001, when the concept was originally considered, and
    cost estimates were initially 1.1 billion. Now we're looking
    at, through a cooperative agreement, a total cost of around 730
    million, so significant cost savings. In these tight fiscal
    times, how are you considering innovative measures at DOE to
    support world class research, but doing so in as cost-effective
    a manner as possible?
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah. Thanks for that too. I mean, I'm
    very excited about FRIB (Facility for Rare Isotopes Beams),
    and, you know, it was initially a germ of an idea when I was
    Governor. It's very excited that--very exciting that Michigan
    State has got this very important facility, and, you know,
    hopefully it's a--it is a--game--we know that it's a game
    changer, and I think the research is going to start next spring
    at the Facility for Rare Isotopes Beams. So, you know, it's a
    game changer for the international research community as well.
         So, I mean, on the broader question, you know, this is why
    it is so important that--first of all, that this Committee has
    taken such a leadership role in supporting science, and
    supporting the facilities that support science. This is a big
    facility, it's an expensive facility, but it is--it's going to
    be a huge jewel in the crown of facilities that we in the
    United States have to advance--advanced research. So whether
    it's exascale computing, or the, you know, FRIB, or the efforts
    with the cyclotrons, I mean, honestly, there's so much capital
    and funding that have gone into these important facilities that
    when the--when Congress decides that it is going to fund
    research and support these facilities, it is a statement to
    both America, to our researchers, but it is a statement to the
    world that we are committed to leading. And so I am grateful,
    at the very start of this, that our Chairwoman said we've got
    to really double down and support the Office of Science. And,
    of course, under the Office of Science, all of these
    facilities, which are the great labs, and they're--and the
    expensive facilities that the American taxpayers have paid for,
    but that are producing great results, so thanks for raising
    that, and thanks to the Committee for continuing to support it.
         Mr. Meijer. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I yield back.
         Staff. Mr. Casten is next.
         Mr. Casten. Secretary Granholm, so nice to see you again.
    The--I know I've always been impressed by you, but, my
    goodness, your patience and your knowledge in this hearing is--
    it's astounding, so thank you so much. And I think, also, as a
    child of the 1980's, I think of this as a Clash song. Some of
    my older colleagues may think of it as The Crickets, but, you
    know, when you fight the law, the law wins, and it is so
    refreshing to have a secretary at the Department of Energy who
    is not trying to fight the laws of physics and win, so thank
    you.
         Secretary Granholm. Right. We do our best not to violate
    the laws of physics.
         Mr. Casten. Well, not to fight them, right? The--you can't
    violate them. I want to ask you a couple of questions, sort of
    more in the context of your position, you know, as one of the
    senior advisors to the President on our climate policy, maybe
    beyond your role at the DOE, but certainly including. I am so
    impressed by the seriousness at which the Biden White House has
    addressed climate change. The--you know, recognizing that
    what's necessary may exceed what's politically possible, and
    the laws of physics will win. The goals, as I understand it, 50
    percent reduction by 2030, net zero by 2050. And, you know, in
    here, as I know you know, last week, the IEA, which I don't
    think anybody would think of as some, you know, lefty, uber-
    progressive organization, came out and said the path to net
    zero is narrow. Staying on it requires immediate and massive
    deployment of all available clean and efficient energy
    technologies, and that a large--there is a large and growing
    gap between the stated goals of nearly every nation and their
    actual policies. And so my question, and I think I know the
    answer to this, and I don't want to put you in a difficult
    point, but I would just love to get you on the record, as
    ambitious as the Biden White House goals are, do you think they
    are more or less ambitious than what the IEA is saying we must
    do?
         Secretary Granholm. Well, I would say our goals for our,
    you know, for our commitments are extremely ambitious, but we
    also have to lead in a way that holds other countries to their
    goals, right? I mean, we have to make sure that everybody has
    equally ambitious goals. Not equally, because everybody's in a
    slightly different place, but that we hold these countries to
    the goals of getting to the over--I mean, the reason why they
    signed on--196 countries signed on to the Paris Accord is
    because everybody agrees to net zero carbon emissions by 2050,
    and that's the way we're going to hold, you know, climate
    change down.
         So, you know, I think that many components of the report
    that the International Energy Agency discussed were really
    helpful, because it did set people's hair on fire, as you
    alluded to. You know, they mirror the priorities you--that you
    see in this administration's approach. It's why--I mean, John
    Kerry has been going all over the world to hold other
    countries' feet to the fire. It's why when the President held
    the Leaders' Summit here, I mean, he did it as a way of saying,
    yes, America's back, and we're serious, and we want you to be
    serious too, and we want as many of you to articulate goals,
    and then show us how you are going to achieve those goals.
         And, you know, 100 percent zero carbon electricity as the
    basis for getting to a net zero economy is a big lift, we know.
    But we also know that the technologies exist today to be able
    to get there, and so it's an exciting time to be--for the
    United States to be at the helm of this pushing other countries
    because, in addition to the climate goals, there's also the
    economic opportunities that go with it, and the President is
    focused on both.
         Mr. Casten. Yeah. And I guess I'm--and maybe I'm
    inartfully asking the question, but I just--it strikes me that
    we are always in this line of work that, you know, all of us on
    this call have, having to grapple with political--the need for
    political compromise. And the laws of physics will win every
    time. And, you know, if your view is that we are being way more
    ambitious than we need to be in your plan, and we have room to
    compromise, you know, let us know. My sense is that we need to
    at least do what's in that plan. And, yes, then make sure our
    international partners do as well.
         Secretary Granholm. Yes, yes.
         Mr. Casten. And----
         Secretary Granholm. Yes. I'm sorry. I should've just
    said----
         Mr. Casten. Yeah.
         Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Yes to your question.
         Mr. Casten. Well, it--but, you know, I had some other
    stuff I wanted to talk about, and we're running near the end of
    the time, but I would just ask you that I hope, you know,
    continue to not fight the laws of physics. And--doesn't matter
    why we fight the laws of physics. Maybe we fight them to
    appease our donors, maybe we fight them to appease our voters,
    maybe we fight them in the name of finding room for bipartisan
    compromise. It doesn't matter why we fight them. The laws of
    physics are going to win.
         Secretary Granholm. Every time.
         Mr. Casten. And stay strong, and we've got your back, and
    let us know how we can help.
         Secretary Granholm. Appreciate it. Thank you----
         Mr. Casten. Thank you--yield back.
         Secretary Granholm. --Congressman.
         Staff. Mr. Bowman is recognized.
         Mr. Bowman. Thank you. Secretary Granholm, thank you so
    much for joining us today, and for your leadership in advancing
    a bold energy transition that weaves in equity throughout. I'm
    wondering if you could tell us more about your overall vision
    for energy justice, and what that means to you, and your
    approach to implementing the Justice 40 Initiative at DOE.
         Secretary Granholm. Thank you for asking this question. I
    mean, the--first of all, the President has made sure that
    Justice 40, EJ-40, is embedded in everything we do. And so that
    means that can't just be words. That has to be actions. So, you
    know this, everybody should know this, that too many
    communities in our country, low-income communities, communities
    of color, urban and rural, have experienced disproportionate
    downsides from issues like pollution stemming from the energy
    system, and have missed out on the benefits, so 40 percent of
    the benefits of the American Jobs Plan are going to be directed
    to communities that have been left behind. And to implement
    that Justice 40 initiative across the DOE complex, and to
    coordinate with other Federal agencies, we--he has developed a
    whole of government approach.
         And one thing that's really going to help us with this
    work is the early stages of piloting. For example, we have--
    Shalanda Baker, who heads our Office of Equity, is piloting an
    online visualization tool that displays our investments through
    an energy justice lens, so that we are transparent about where
    these funds are going, and which communities are benefit--
    benefiting. It's going to show DOE spending data, and then
    overlay the data from indicators like EPA's (Environmental
    Protection Agency's) EJ (environmental justice) screen tool,
    which shows the communities facing the worst pollution, for
    example. So, you know, we are focused on making sure we right
    historic wrongs with this, and as we do this. And that's not--
    that's in communities of color. It's also in coal and power
    plant communities who also have felt left behind. These
    communities, across the swath, who have felt left behind, are
    the communities who should benefit from the most--the most from
    these investments.
         And, to us, making sure that we have a Department that
    reflects that full spate of communities, meaning people who
    we've appointed who are helping to make these decisions and
    guide us are really and critically important so that the policy
    outcomes are the right ones. So Environmental Justice 40, to
    the Biden Administration, is a whole of government effort to
    make sure that we see all of these communities, and that we not
    just see them, but that we help make sure that they also--
    they--not they also, that they lead our desire to have a clean
    energy future. Jobs, investments, homes, rebuilding, you name
    it.
         Mr. Bowman. Um-hum. You know, one--thank you for that
    answer. One of the things I've seen is the current
    infrastructure that's in place, much of it is already
    inequitable, but those are the companies and individuals who
    have the capacity to apply for some of the new grants that are
    going to be coming from DOE. How can we assure new
    entrepreneurs of color and grassroots organizations have the
    capacity to apply for some of these grants?
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah, this is a great question, and we
    have been meeting with various grassroots organizations to
    ensure that we have developed our process in a way that allows
    access, and that doesn't create further systemic barriers to
    access. So Shalanda Baker--I don't know if you know her or have
    met her, but I would love to have her connect with you. She, as
    I say, is leading our whole DOE effort, but she's also
    connected, of course, to--the Council on Environmental Quality
    is making sure that we--they lead the whole of government
    approach, but making sure that we listen to the voices who are
    most impacted, but also who have the opportunity to help us
    overcome and tear down the barriers that historically have
    existed to accessing these programs is a key part of it. It's
    just a key part of it.
         Mr. Bowman. Awesome. Thank you so much, and I'll follow up
    with your office and Ms. Baker as well.
         Secretary Granholm. We'll follow up with you. Yeah.
         Mr. Bowman. Thank you. Thank you.
         Secretary Granholm. All right.
         Mr. Bowman. Thank you. I yield back.
         Staff. Mr. Lamb is recognized.
         Mr. Lamb. Madam Secretary, thank you for serving, again,
    and for hanging with us in this long hearing. I wanted to talk
    to you, if I could, about steelmaking in Western Pennsylvania.
    And I know that a couple other Members, including
    Representative Kildee, have asked about the Loan Program
    Office. In the Energy Act last year we made a change to the
    authorization for the LPO that would specifically allow them to
    get involved in industrial processes like steelmaking, and
    decarbonizing steelmaking. This has a new urgency in Western
    Pennsylvania today because we were all expecting U.S. Steel to
    make about a billion and a half dollars of investment in their
    historic Mon Valley Works here in Western Pennsylvania, and it
    was going to lower the carbon impact, and improve emissions,
    air quality, all that kind of thing. Unfortunately, they
    recently announced that they're not going to make that
    investment in Western Pennsylvania anymore. They seem to be
    wanting to move resources to their non-union operations in the
    South.
         There's a long history of U.S. Steel moving investment
    away from Western Pennsylvania, unfortunately, to other places,
    whether non-union operations or overseas, and so many of us
    want to fight for these workers and for these jobs----
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah.
         Mr. Lamb [continuing]. In the area that has produced some
    of the best steel that has really allowed America to be what it
    is. It's the time to start making investments in steelmaking
    processes based on natural gas and hydrogen, that are much less
    carbon intensive, and I think the LPO will have the authority
    to be a partner here. I'm just curious if you know whether you
    guys have started coming up with any sort of a plan or a
    program to get involved specifically in steel? I know that's
    kind of a new thing for the LPO, and just----
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah. I mean, it does--steel qualifies
    in the LPO, and, Congressman, I'm happy to also connect you
    with Jigar Shaw to talk through how he's thinking about this,
    because absolutely we want to use the LPO to help, and to help
    decarbonize these hard to decarbonize areas, as well as to help
    make sure that they are providing the means for the products
    that we want to be building, and this whole manufacturing
    ecosystem that we want to create in clean energy.
         I noticed--I noted that today Citi--Citibank, and Goldman
    Sachs, and Societe Generale, and Standard Charter, and
    UniCredit, these are all major lenders to steel producers,
    they're all announcing today that they're working toward a
    financing agreement to decarbonize the steel industry as well.
    And--so, you know, DOE can provide--you know, can work with and
    provide banks, you know, credit guarantees to fund the debt
    that--directly to steel companies, so I think we have to
    develop a strategy around this. Because we--I mean, they--you
    know, they should be going to an area that has steelmaking in
    its DNA, like you.
         Mr. Lamb. Right. There's nowhere in America that has the
    heritage that we do and----
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah. Yeah.
         Mr. Lamb [continuing]. Just be starting off further ahead
    here. Bill Gates has it in his recent book that the average
    American consumes 600 pounds of steel a year, so that's not
    going away. We have to figure out----
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah.
         Mr. Lamb [continuing]. A way to make it without carbon. I
    would really like to encourage you to come to Western
    Pennsylvania. Our staffs have actually already been in touch,
    and so I----
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah.
         Mr. Lamb [continuing]. Think there's some impetus, but we
    have a group together there between the United Steelworkers,
    many of the building trades unions, the universities, the
    National Energy Technology Laboratory that we have there led by
    Brian Anderson, who I should tell you is fantastic. U.S. Steel
    is involved, EQT and natural gas companies involved, other
    steel companies are involved. It remains to be seen who is
    willing to, you know, put their chips down on their Western
    Pennsylvania workers. U.S. Steel has not proven to do that
    recently, but others may, or maybe they will have a change of
    heart. But anyway, this proposal is coming together, and we
    really would like you to listen to it and see if there's ways
    that we can work together to bet on the future of steel
    manufacturing in Western Pennsylvania. So we'll be----
         Secretary Granholm. 1,000 percent. Let--let's do it.
         Mr. Lamb. But just wanted to put that on your radar----
         Secretary Granholm. OK. Great. I appreciate it.
         Mr. Lamb. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary--or Madam
    Chairwoman, I yield back.
         Staff. Mr. Perlmutter is recognized.
         Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. Last but not least, I think.
    But I just want to be--I'll be kind of parochial, but first I
    want to say Congressman Beyer should've spoken to you in
    French, not German. It would've been much easier for you to
    remember the saying. The second thing is I want to join Mr.
    Sessions in wishing you all the success at the Department. It
    is so key, this time in our country's history, in the world's
    history.
         So I'm in a building about a half a mile east of the
    National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), a building that was
    designed by some engineers in the predecessor lab called the
    Solar Energy Research Institute. And so I can look right out my
    window to the mountains, and to the lab, where it's nestled
    right in there next to a mesa just as we get to the mountains,
    and they are busy, and they are active over there, and we've
    got fantastic scientists and engineers, and I think my job is--
    they advocate for themselves, but I want to advocate for them.
         In the infrastructure package that we're all discussing,
    there is substantial support for the labs sort of writ large. I
    just want to make sure that, as part of your list of
    priorities, that NREL is part of that list.
         Secretary Granholm. Of course.
         Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. Such a fantastic laboratory.
         Secretary Granholm. Absolutely, absolutely. I mean, you
    know, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and NREL
    are the collaborating team that are at the global forefront of
    delivering our zero-carbon technology, so absolutely, and you
    are blessed to be in that State and near them.
         Mr. Perlmutter. You know--and so there is--we're actually,
    and the DOE is part of it, doing a land swap with the State and
    with the county to make sure that the top of the mesa, and it
    sits right on one of the flanks of the mesa, remains open. So
    we have--it's a big open space thing, and then they're creating
    a parcel of ground where there will be a public/private kind of
    an area where a lot of energy efficiency and renewable energy
    companies can come and locate in a specific area right next to
    the lab. And I just want to thank the Department for being part
    of that effort.
         Secretary Granholm. Awesome. Well, happy to, and look
    forward to continued collaborations on--whether they're in
    Colorado or out of Colorado, because they're--I mean, NREL's
    amazing.
         Mr. Perlmutter. Well, when you're in town, we'd love to
    visit the lab with you. And it's right in an area--and I've
    invited the Chair of our Committee, and it was postponed
    because of COVID, but there are a number of labs right here on
    the very front range of Colorado. There's the Colorado School
    of Mines, which----
         Secretary Granholm. Yeah.
         Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. Has so many professors
    working on energy efficiency and solar renewable stuff, but a
    whole bunch of labs in this area. So maybe the Chairwoman of
    the Committee will join you when you're out here, and we'll
    tour these labs together. So I'm just reminding our Chairwoman
    about our postponed visit. So, with that, I'll yield back, and
    thank you, Secretary----
         Secretary Granholm. Thank you. Thanks so much.
         Mr. Perlmutter [continuing]. This hearing.
         Chairwoman Johnson. I think that concludes all of our--
    participation of our Members, and let me hasten to thank--Madam
    Secretary for your participation, for your patience, and for
    your very well-prepared responses. And let the record--the
    record will remain open for 2 weeks for additional statements
    from Members, and for additional questions that come before the
    Committee. Our witness is excused, and we thank you again, and
    the hearing is adjourned.
         Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
         [Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                    Appendix

                                  ----------

                       Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]