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




 
                    THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 DOE BUDGET

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

                            VIRTUAL HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 19, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-33
                           
                           
                           
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]             
                           
                           


     Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                        energycommerce.house.gov
                        
                        
                        
                             ______
			 
		U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
48-295 PDF             WASHINGTON : 2023                        
                        
                        
                        
                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California           H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York           BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California            MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California                RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice       NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
    Chair                            JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida                 JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                  NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
                         Subcommittee on Energy

                        BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
                                 Chairman
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania               Ranking Member
JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice     MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    Chair                            ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
PAUL TONKO, New York                 DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
KIM SCHRIER, Washington              H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          TIM WALBERG, Michigan
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GREG PENCE, Indiana
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California    KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware           (ex officio)
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Illinois, opening statement.................................     2
    Prepared statement...........................................     2
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Michigan, opening statement....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11

                                Witness

Jennifer M. Granholm, Secretary, Department of Energy............    12
    Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Answers to submitted questions \1\

                           Submitted Material

Letter of May 17, 2021, from Center for American Progress, et 
  al., to President Biden, submitted by Mr. Dingell..............    85
Editorial of May 15, 2021, ``To protect all of us, government and 
  business had better step up cybersecurity,'' Chicago Sun-Times, 
  submitted by Mr. Rush..........................................    87
Article of May 14, 2021, ``Solar panels are key to Biden's energy 
  plan. But the global supply chain may rely on forced labor from 
  China,'' by Clare Duffy, CNN Business, submitted by Mr. Upton..    91
Letter of May 3, 2021, from Craig Piercy, Executive Director/
  Chief Executive Officer, American Nuclear Society, et al., to 
  Jennifer Granholm, Secretary, Department of Energy, submitted 
  by Mr. Duncan..................................................   104
Report of the Government Accountability Office, ``Critical 
  Infrastructure Protection: Actions Needed to Address 
  Significant Weaknesses in TSA's Pipeline Security Program 
  Management,'' December 2018, submitted by Mr. Upton \2\
Article of May 13, 2021, ``Calif. sees risk of summer 
  blackouts,'' by Anne C. Mulkern, E&E News, submitted by Mr. 
  Upton..........................................................   106
Blog post of May 18, 2021, ``Colonial Pipeline Cyberattack 
  Highlights Need for Better Federal and Private-Sector 
  Preparedness,'' Government Accountability Office, submitted by 
  Mr. Upton......................................................   108
Letter of April 26, 2021, from Senator John Barrasso to Teri L. 
  Donaldson, Inspector General, Department of Energy, submitted 
  by Mr. Upton...................................................   111

----------

\1\ Ms. Granholm's answers to submitted questions have been retained in 
committee files and are available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/
IF/IF03/20210519/112638/HHRG-117-IF03-Wstate-GranholmJ-20210519-
SD001.pdf.
\2\ The report has been retained in committee files and is available at 
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20210519/112638/HHRG-117-IF03-
20210519-SD007.pdf.


                    THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 DOE BUDGET

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
                            Subcommittee on Energy,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:32 a.m. via 
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Bobby L. Rush 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle, 
McNerney, Tonko, Veasey, Schrier, DeGette, Butterfield, Matsui, 
Castor, Welch, Schrader, Kuster, Barragan, Blunt Rochester, 
O'Halleran, Pallone (ex officio), Upton (subcommittee ranking 
member), Burgess, Latta, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, 
Johnson, Bucshon, Walberg, Duncan, Palmer, Lesko, Pence, 
Armstrong, and Rodgers (ex officio).
    Also present: Representatives Dingell, Trahan, Fletcher, 
and Joyce.
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Waverly 
Gordon, General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff 
Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Mackenzie Kuhl, Digital 
Assistant; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Lino Pena-Martinez, 
Policy Analyst; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, 
Clerk; Kylea Rogers, Staff Assistant; Sarah Burke, Minority 
Deputy Staff Director; Michael Cameron, Minority Policy 
Analyst; William Clutterbuck, Minority Staff Assistant/Policy 
Analyst; Jerry Couri, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for 
Environment; Theresa Gambo, Minority Financial and Office 
Administrator; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff Director; Sean 
Kelly, Minority Press Secretary; Peter Kielty, Minority General 
Counsel; Emily King, Minority Member Services Director; Bijan 
Koohmaraie, Minority Chief Counsel, Oversight and 
Investigations Chief Counsel; Mary Martin, Minority Chief 
Counsel, Energy and Environment; Brandon Mooney, Minority 
Deputy Chief Counsel for Energy; Clare Paoletta, Minority 
Policy Analyst, Health; Peter Spencer, Minority Senior 
Professional Staff Member, Energy; Michael Taggart, Minority 
Policy Director; Everett Winnick, Minority Director of 
Information Technology.
    Mr. Rush. The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to 
order.
    Today the subcommittee is hearing--is holding a hearing 
entitled ``The Fiscal Year 2022 DOE Budget.''
    Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's 
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and all witnesses 
will be participating via video conferencing.
    As part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for 
purposes of eliminating inadvertent background noise. And 
Members and witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphone 
each time you wish to speak.
    Documents for the record can be sent to Lino Pena-Martinez 
at the email address that we have provided to staff. All 
documents will be entered into the record at the conclusion of 
today's hearing.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
             CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Today the Subcommittee on Energy will hold a hearing on the 
President's Fiscal Year 2022 discretionary budget request and 
the Department of Energy's critical mission to transform and 
secure the Nation's energy system.
    It is my distinct honor and high privilege to recognize and 
welcome Ms. Jennifer Granholm, the 16th Secretary of the U.S. 
Department of Energy, to our subcommittee for the first time.
    Madam Secretary, we sincerely thank you for joining us for 
today's discussion.
    This hearing comes at a critical time, as much as the east 
coast continues to struggle with fuel shortages following the 
cyber attack on the Colonial Pipeline and after extreme weather 
events left millions of our Nation's citizens in Texas without 
power just a few months ago. Madam Secretary, again, I want to 
thank you and the entire DOE team for your steadfast leadership 
amid these crises.
    These events and their grim consequences demonstrate the 
importance of our energy system and how DOE's sector-specific 
expertise is indispensable to the resolution of these 
questions. That is why I, along with Ranking Member Upton and 
other esteemed colleagues of this subcommittee, have introduced 
bipartisan legislation to further strengthen DOE's ability to 
respond to physical and other cybersecurity threats. And I am 
also working on legislation to prevent future incidents.
    We must take a hard look at Federal strategies to prevent 
attacks, enforce best practices and compliance, and also to 
discourage bad actors.
    Moreover, it is critical that we--as we consider the 
budget, that we prioritize the U.S. energy security and 
resilience. That is why I am pleased by this year's funding 
request, which includes $46.1 billion for DOE, a 10.2 percent 
increase from DOE's fiscal year 2021 enacted budget. This 
sizeable investment will advance crucial energy--clean energy 
priorities, good-paying jobs, and the U.S. efforts to deploy 
technologies to tackle the climate crisis.
    I look forward to our continued partnership, and the 
subcommittee stands ready to work with you and the Biden 
administration.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush

    Today, the Subcommittee on Energy will hold a hearing on 
the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Discretionary Budget 
Request and the Department of Energy's (DOE) critical mission 
to transform and secure the Nation's energy system. It is my 
distinct honor to welcome Ms. Jennifer Granholm, the 16th 
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, to the Subcommittee 
on Energy for the first time. Madame Secretary, thank you for 
joining us for today's discussion.
    This hearing comes at a critical time, as much of the East 
Coast continues to struggle with fuel shortages following the 
cyberattack on Colonial Pipeline and after extreme weather 
events left millions in Texas without power just a few months 
ago. Madame Secretary, I would like to thank you--and the DOE 
team as a whole--for your steadfast leadership amid these 
crises. These events and their grim consequences demonstrate 
the importance of our energy systems and how DOE's sector-
specific expertise is indispensable to the resolution of these 
matters.
    That is why I, along with Ranking Member Upton and other 
esteemed colleagues, have introduced bipartisan legislation to 
further strengthen DOE's ability to respond to physical and 
cyber security threats. I am also working on legislation to 
prevent future incidents. We must take a hard look at Federal 
strategies to prevent attacks, enforce industry best practices 
and compliance, and discourage bad actors.
    Moreover, it is critical that--as we consider the budget--
we prioritize the United States' energy security and 
resiliency. That is why I am pleased by this year's funding 
request, which includes $46.1 billion for DOE--a 10.2 percent 
increase from DOE's FY 2021 enacted levels. This sizeable 
investment will advance crucial clean energy priorities, good-
paying jobs, and U.S. efforts to deploy technologies to tackle 
the climate crisis.
    This funding request, in addition to your installment as 
Secretary, and President Biden's American Jobs Plan has 
delivered this Nation a long-awaited dose of optimism. This is 
in addition to the LIFT America Act and CLEAN Future Act. I 
look forward to our continued partnership and the subcommittee 
stands ready to work with you and this administration.
    And with that, I yield the balance of my time to the vice 
chair of the subcommittee, Mr. McNerney.

    Mr. Rush. And with that, I yield the balance of my time to 
the esteemed vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. McNerney.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you, Chairman, for yielding.
    And Secretary Granholm, welcome. I want to thank--I want to 
start by thanking you and the Department of Energy for leading 
the whole-of-government approach in restoring operations of the 
Colonial Pipeline following the recent cyber attack. This 
attack is another wake-up call about the growing cyber threats 
that our Nation faces, and it comes on the heels of a major 
cyber attack that SolarWinds identified.
    The need to address growing cyber threats is something that 
I have been talking about for years, both on this committee and 
in my role as cochair of the Grid Innovation Caucus. I hope 
that we can all work together to make sure that we are doing 
everything possible to address future cyber threats our Nation 
faces, and our Nation's infrastructure, in particular.
    Secretary, your budget shows an ambitious agenda to build 
up our Nation's energy and science infrastructure to meet the 
challenges we face, from cyber threats to workforce 
development, to foreign competition, and climate change. Our 
job is to provide guidance and support.
    Secretary Granholm, I look forward to your testimony today 
about how the DOE plans to address these challenges and what 
resources are needed, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes 
Mr. Upton, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy, 
for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Rush. Mr. Upton, you are--unmute, Mr. Upton.
    Mr. Upton. How is that? Does that work?
    Mr. Rush. That is great.
    Mr. Upton. I got to do this for--I had to change--they 
updated the app last night and didn't pass it along to us.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

    Let me begin again by saying thank you, and also welcome to 
Secretary Granholm to our committee. It is always a pleasure to 
see a fellow Michigander once again at the helm of the 
Department of Energy. And certainly, I know we all look forward 
to--I look forward to continuing a close working relationship 
with her, our former Governor.
    You know, as you know, this subcommittee is responsible for 
overseeing virtually every aspect of the energy sector for--and 
all of our Members take this job very seriously. We focus on 
energy supply, including exploration, development, and 
generation of fuels and electricity, energy distribution, 
including the grid and the pipelines, energy imports and 
exports, and energy use, including energy efficiency and 
conservation standards.
    We are also responsible for overseeing the management of 
DOE. Over the last two administrations we have been examining 
steps to modernize the Department of Energy to reflect the 
national economic and energy security challenges that will 
confront the Nation over the coming decades. This committee has 
led the charge, from lifting the ban on crude oil exports, to 
the FAST Act amendments to help DOE address emerging hazards as 
well as cyber threats.
    I am particularly focused on consumers and the impacts that 
the Federal energy policy is going to have on competitiveness, 
jobs, and energy prices. I also believe that it is important to 
recognize that over the last decade the U.S. has become the 
world's leading producer of oil and gas, creating millions of 
good-paying jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenues to 
States and local governments.
    The U.S. has also reversed a decades-long trend of rising 
imports and dependence on the Middle East. So we are now self-
sufficient when it comes to natural gas, which has helped the 
U.S. reduce its greenhouse gas emissions more than any other 
country. We also have become the world's leading LNG exporter, 
pushing back on Russia, helping our trading partners reduce 
their emissions at the same time. We are more energy secure 
today than at any point in our Nation's history. However, we 
have got a lot of challenges ahead.
    First I want to focus on critical minerals. As the COVID 
pandemic has shown, we have become too dependent on the 
unstable global supply chains and imports from China. 
Amazingly, China controls 80 to 90 percent of the critical 
minerals used in solar panels, batteries, and other advanced 
technologies.
    It is also imperative that we get a handle on the supply 
chain, or we are going to end up in the same position that we 
were in before America's shale energy revolution. I introduced 
the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act to increase 
the domestic supply of critical minerals and alternatives, and 
I look forward to working with you on that legislation.
    Second, we need to talk about permitting reform. As we all 
know, it has become virtually impossible to build large-scale 
infrastructure projects in this country, especially pipeline 
and transmissions that cross the State lines. Putting--pouring 
Federal dollars onto the problem is not going to solve it. We 
need real reforms, strong lead agencies, timelines, real 
certainty to encourage project developers to take the risk. DOE 
has a very important role to play here, and we are going to 
rely on your leadership, especially, when it comes to providing 
the energy analysts to inform our decision-making.
    Finally, I have always been focused on cyber. And given 
what happened last week with the Colonial Pipeline ransom 
attack, I believe that Congress and the Department have an 
opportunity to work collaboratively to improve cyber response 
and harden our Nation's critical energy infrastructure. 
Chairman Rush and I introduced our bipartisan bill, the 
Pipeline and LNG Facility Cybersecurity Preparedness Act, to 
provide DOE with strong authorities. Chairman Pallone and 
Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers are original cosponsors of that 
bill, and we look forward to working with you on that 
legislation.
    You know, this last week's Colonial cyber attack revealed 
that a secure, reliable, and affordable supply of energy is 
absolutely critical to our economy, our way of life, and for 
the first time since the 1970s we saw widespread supply 
distributions with long lines at the pump as fueling stations 
ran out. So we need to know what happened last week with 
Colonial and certainly appreciate your willingness to provide 
us answers, including in a classified briefing at some point in 
the near future, so that we can begin to address the many 
shortcomings to prevent such happening again.
    We all support new technologies that allow us to use energy 
more efficiently. We look forward to your testimony, and I 
yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton

    Thank you, Chairman Rush. Let me begin by welcoming 
Secretary Granholm to the Energy and Commerce Committee. It's 
nice to see a fellow Michigander once again at the helm of the 
Department of Energy, and I look forward to continuing a close 
working relationship with you.
    As you know, the the Subcommittee on Energy is responsible 
for overseeing virtually every aspect of the energy sector and 
our Members take this job very seriously.
    We focus on energy supply, including exploration, 
development, and generation of fuels and electricity; energy 
distribution, including the grid and pipelines; energy imports 
and exports; and energy use, including energy efficiency and 
conservation standards.
    We are also responsible for overseeing the management of 
the Department of Energy.
    Over the past two administrations, we have been examining 
steps to modernize the Department of Energy to reflect the 
national, economic, and energy security challenges that will 
confront the Nation over the coming decades.
    This committee has led the charge--from lifting the ban on 
crude oil exports to the FAST Act amendments to help DOE 
address emerging hazards and cyber threats.
    I am particularly focused on consumers, and the impacts 
that Federal energy policy will have on competitiveness, jobs, 
and energy prices.
    I believe it is important to recognize that, over the past 
decade, the United States has become the world's leading 
producer of oil and gas creating millions of good-paying 
American jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenues to States 
and local governments. The United States has also reversed the 
decades-long trends of rising imports and dependence on the 
Middle East.
    We are now self-sufficient when it comes to natural gas--
which has helped the United States reduce its greenhouse gas 
emissions more than any other nation. We have also become a 
world leading LNG exporter, pushing back on Russia and helping 
our trading partners reduce their emissions at the same time.
    We are more energy secure today than at any point in our 
Nation's history. However, there are still many challenges that 
lay ahead.
    First, I would like to focus on critical minerals. As the 
COVID pandemic has shown, we have become too dependent on 
unstable global supply chains and imports from China. 
Amazingly, China controls 80-90% of the critical minerals used 
in solar panels, batteries, and other advanced technologies.
    It is absolutely imperative that we get a handle on the 
supply chains or we could end up in the same position we were 
in before America's shale energy revolution. I introduced the 
Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act to increase the 
domestic supply of critical minerals and develop alternatives, 
and I look forward to working with you on this legislation.
    Second, we need to talk about permitting reform. As we all 
know, it has become virtually impossible to build large-scale 
infrastructure projects in this country, especially pipeline 
and transmission that crosses State lines. Pouring Federal 
dollars on the problem will not solve it. We need real 
reforms--strong lead agencies, timelines, and real certainty to 
encourage project developers to take the risk. DOE has an 
important role to play here, and we will rely on your 
leadership, especially when it comes to providing the energy 
analysis to inform the decision making.
    Finally, I am very focused on cybersecurity, and given what 
happened last week with the Colonial Pipeline ransomware 
attack, I believe Congress and the Department have an 
opportunity to work collaboratively to improve cyber response 
and harden our Nation's critical energy infrastructure.
    Chairman Rush and I have reintroduced our bipartisan bill, 
the Pipeline and LNG Facility Cybersecurity Preparedness Act, 
to provide DOE with strong authorities. Chairman Pallone and 
Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers are original cosponsors of the 
bill--we all look forward to working with you on this 
legislation.
    The Colonial cyberattack revealed that a secure, reliable, 
and affordable supply of fossil energy is absolutely critical 
to our economy and our way of life. For the first time since 
the 1970s, we saw widespread supply disruptions and long lines 
at the pump as fueling stations ran out of gas.
    We all support new technologies that allow us to use energy 
more efficiently, but we must ground our thinking with the 
realities that we face today. I look forward to working with 
you on realistic solutions to the real problems that are 
emerging today.
    With that, I look forward to the testimony and I yield 
back.

    [Pause.]
    Mr. Pallone. I couldn't hear Chairman Rush. Did he--it 
sounds like he--reading his lips, it seems like he is asking me 
to speak. So should I just proceed?
    Mr. Upton. Bobby, you are still on mute.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Rush. Can you hear me now?
    Mr. Pallone. Yes, we can.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, the 
chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes for the purposes 
of an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush, and let me welcome 
again the Secretary.
    It is so great to see you here before our committee, Madam 
Secretary. We have so many issues that we can work on within 
the Department. You know, I am just thinking of clean energy 
deployment, cybersecurity, overseeing our Nation's nuclear 
weapons stockpile, cleaning up the legacy sites where those 
weapons were produced, so many things.
    But I wanted to begin by addressing, as many of my 
colleagues have, the recent Colonial Pipeline cyber attack that 
shut down a critical piece of our Nation's energy 
infrastructure and led to both gasoline and jet fuel shortages 
along the east coast.
    And the committee has a longstanding history of bipartisan 
work--I am sure you are aware of that--on the energy 
cybersecurity issue, including through the pipeline 
cybersecurity legislation that was already mentioned, that was 
reintroduced last week by Ranking Member Upton and Chairman 
Rush.
    So last Congress this subcommittee held a hearing on 
pipeline safety and security, and I spoke about my concern that 
the Transportation Security Administration's pipeline security 
program lacks the resources and expertise to protect our 
country from attacks like the one we saw with the Colonial 
Pipeline. And this incident shows we have to do more to protect 
our Nation's energy infrastructure.
    Fortunately, the electric sector has a rigorous framework 
for mandatory reliability standards developed by the North 
American Energy Reliability Corporation and enforced by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. But no similar rigorous 
program exists for pipelines, just a set of voluntary 
guidelines overseen by TSA. And this is a big gap, and I 
believe it is time to consider mandatory, enforceable 
reliability standards for our Nation's pipeline network.
    So we have to ensure our Nation's energy infrastructure is 
not just secure, but reliable and resilient, and that requires 
robust investments. And also, as you know, President Biden's 
American Jobs Plan does just that. It prioritizes funding for 
the clean energy infrastructure we need to tackle the climate 
crisis and creates good-paying jobs right here in the U.S.
    Along with Chairmen Rush and Tonko, I introduced the CLEAN 
Future Act earlier this Congress. We have had several hearings 
on this in the--both the Energy and the Environment and Climate 
Change subcommittees. And the CLEAN Future Act would achieve 
net-zero greenhouse gas pollution, combat the climate crisis, 
put Americans back to work, and rebuild our economy.
    And the CLEAN Future Act and the American Jobs Plan share 
similar goals and policies. Both plans make substantial 
investments in transportation electrification, including the 
deployment of electric vehicles, charging stations, and zero-
emission school buses. They both invest billions of dollars in 
clean energy deployment, upgrading the Nation's grid, and 
making homes and buildings more energy efficient.
    And the rest of the world, particularly China, is already 
making major investments in clean technology and jobs that 
could and should be created right here at home. We can't watch 
from the sidelines as other nations surpass us. We must invest 
in our workers and the growth of our clean energy economy.
    After 4 years of the Trump administration flouting the law 
by refusing to update and revise efficiency standards for 
appliances--this is another issue that we were very concerned 
about--I know you have a lot of work to do. I questioned your 
predecessor Secretaries Perry and Brouillette several times 
about the Department pushing out anti-efficiency rulemaking, 
such as the rollback of the LED light bulb standards, and 
ignoring scores of appliance efficiency upgrades mandated by 
law. That is a program that saves a lot of money and helps 
reduce consumer consumptions, and we have to get this back on 
track, and we want to help you with these appliance standards, 
as well.
    I also wanted to mention the nuclear security mission. I 
have always believed in the principle of civilian, not 
military, control over our Nation's nuclear weapons. The 
National Nuclear Security Administration is a critical part of 
DOE's mission. It is too important to be left to its own 
devices. And that is, obviously, a major issue.
    So the last thing I wanted to say is that the committee has 
conducted years of oversight on the Department's environmental 
management program, which cleans up the legacy waste sites 
where nuclear weapons were developed, and taxpayers spent 
billions of dollars every year on this program. The 
Department's--but the Department's environmental liabilities 
continue to grow. And I think that a more cohesive and 
consistent management of this program is critical to speeding 
up cleanup at these sites.
    So, again, we have a long history of bipartisan cooperation 
on both the NNSA governance, environmental management, and I 
look forward to working with the Department and my colleagues 
on this committee on critical issues.
    It is really good to see you. I listened to your--so what 
you said yesterday at the Progressive Caucus. It was very 
impressive. And, of course, we know, you know, the Michiganders 
on this committee have been speaking highly of you on both 
sides of the aisle for a long time. So it is nice to see you in 
this new position. Thank you.
    And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Secretary Granholm, welcome to the Energy and Commerce 
Committee. We have so many issues that we can work on within 
the Department of Energy, from clean energy deployment and 
energy cybersecurity, to overseeing our Nation's nuclear 
weapons stockpile and cleaning up the legacy sites where these 
weapons were produced.
    I'd like to begin by addressing the recent Colonial 
Pipeline cyberattack that shut down a critical piece of our 
Nation's energy infrastructure and led to both gasoline and jet 
fuel shortages along the East Coast. This committee has a 
longstanding history of bipartisan work on energy cybersecurity 
issues, including through the pipeline cybersecurity 
legislation that was reintroduced last week by Ranking Member 
Upton and Chairman Rush.
    Last Congress, this subcommittee held a hearing on pipeline 
safety and security, and I spoke about my concern that the 
Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) Pipeline 
Security Program lacks the resources and expertise to protect 
our country from attacks like the one we saw on the Colonial 
Pipeline. This incident shows we have to do more to protect our 
Nation's energy infrastructure.
    Fortunately, the electric sector has a rigorous framework 
for mandatory reliability standards developed by the North 
American Energy Reliability Corporation and enforced by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. But no similar rigorous 
program exists for pipelines, just a set of voluntary 
guidelines overseen by TSA. This is a big gap and I believe 
it's time we consider mandatory, enforceable reliability 
standards for our Nation's pipeline network.
    We have to ensure our Nation's energy infrastructure is not 
just secure, but reliable and resilient. That requires robust 
investments, and President Biden's American Jobs Plan does just 
that. It prioritizes funding for the clean energy 
infrastructure we need to tackle the climate crisis and creates 
good paying jobs right here in the United States.
    Along with Chairmen Rush and Tonko, I introduced the CLEAN 
Future Act earlier this Congress. We've had several hearings on 
this in both the Energy and the Environment and Climate Change 
subcommittees. The CLEAN Future Act would achieve net zero 
greenhouse gas pollution, combat the climate crisis, put 
Americans back to work, and rebuild our economy. The CLEAN 
Future Act and the American Jobs Plan share similar goals and 
policies. Both plans make substantial investments in 
transportation electrification, including the deployment of 
electric vehicles, charging stations, and zero-emissions school 
buses. They both invest billions of dollars in clean energy 
deployment, upgrading the Nation's grid and making homes and 
buildings more energy efficient.
    The rest of the world, particularly China, is already 
making major investments in clean technology and jobs that 
could and should be created right here at home. We cannot watch 
from the sidelines as other nations surpass us. We must invest 
in our workers and the growth of our clean energy economy.
    After four years of the Trump administration flouting the 
law by refusing to update and revise efficiency standards for 
appliances, DOE certainly has a lot of work ahead on this 
critical program. I questioned your predecessors, Secretaries 
Perry and Brouillette, several times about the Department 
pushing out anti-efficiency rulemakings, such as rolling back 
LED lightbulb standards, while ignoring scores of appliance 
efficiency upgrades mandated by law. This program saves 
consumers money and helps reduce energy consumption. We must 
get this important program back on track.
    I also want to mention our Nation's nuclear security 
mission. I've always believed in the principal of civilian--not 
military--control over our Nation's nuclear weapons. The 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is a critical 
part of DOE's mission and must remain so. It's too important to 
be left to its own devices.
    Lastly, the committee has conducted years of oversight on 
the Department's Environmental Management program, which cleans 
up the legacy waste sites where nuclear weapons were developed 
and built. Taxpayers spend billions of dollars every year on 
this important program, but the Department's environmental 
liabilities continue to grow. I think that more cohesive and 
consistent management of this program is critical to speeding 
cleanup at these sites.
    The committee has a long history of bipartisan cooperation 
on both NNSA governance and Environmental Management oversight, 
and I look forward to working with the Department and my 
colleagues on this committee on these critical issues.
    Thank you again, Secretary Granholm, for joining us today. 
I yield back.

    Mr. Rush. The chairman of the full committee yields back. 
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full 
committee, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A 
    REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome, Secretary Granholm. It is great to see you today. 
And it is good to have you come before our committee. You bring 
a wealth of governance experience to the job of Secretary, and 
I am hopeful that that will--it will serve the Department and 
the American people well in the coming years.
    Today we are supposed to be evaluating the proposed budget 
priorities for fiscal year 2022, and this is necessary for 
committee oversight. But we are at a disadvantage, because the 
administration has yet to release a detailed budget for the 
Department of Energy. What we have--instead, what we have 
instead are general assertions about climate policy priorities 
and spending outlined over two pages of text. That is it.
    Much of this reflects the administration's rush to green 
agenda, which our hearings this year have shown risk economic 
harm and deprive people of reliable, affordable energy. The 
harm will only increase with a massive push for electric 
vehicles and limits on fossil fuel. This creates major supply 
chain risk and increases dependence on foreign sources that 
abuse human and individual rights for energy system components.
    Needless to say, we are anxious to see additional details. 
We should focus the aggressive priorities to dismantle our 
domestic fossil energy economy and radically transform our 
electric and transportation sectors. We should ask if the rush 
will do this--will determine--undermine DOE's core work on 
national security, both energy and economic security.
    While DOE's work spans the energy sector at its core, it is 
a nuclear security agency representing some 70 percent of the 
budget when counting its Cold War cleanup responsibilities. The 
Department and its predecessor agencies designed and produced 
every nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal. And now it maintains 
the Nation's nuclear deterrent. DOE provides the technology to 
power the nuclear navy and serves central roles in nuclear 
nonproliferation, international nuclear security.
    DOE was organized and now serves as the Nation's energy 
security agency. It manages the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 
has established energy emergency programs and works to assure 
the reliable supply of energy and power.
    The gas supply crisis along the east coast from the 
shutdown of the Colonial Pipeline is a harsh reminder of how 
important reliable supplies of fuels are for Americans. As you 
have noticed, Madam Secretary, it is a reminder of how critical 
pipelines are for clean, efficient, secure delivery of the 
energy people on our economy need to thrive. This event should 
underscore the energy security role at the Department.
    DOE also helps assure American energy and energy 
technologies serve our strategic geopolitical interests, the 
neglect of which would imperil our security and the future.
    Of course, to accomplish its work DOE relies upon its 
world-class science, engineering, and technological expertise 
across a complex of National Labs, production sites, and 
facilities. There's nothing like it, really, when you consider 
DOE's science and engineering. Its capabilities are enhanced by 
a synergy among the labs across the complex. This synergy 
serves all of the Department's missions. It produces tremendous 
benefits for our security, for advancing science and 
innovation, and will ensure American innovation across the 
energy landscape.
    We should not undermine what is possible with new 
priorities that could break this synergy and undermine energy 
and economic security. A well-managed DOE enterprise produces 
amazing results. Consider, for example, the Agency's science 
and supercomputing used for science and weapons programs and 
how this was put to service at Oak Ridge to screen compounds 
for COVID-19 vaccine development.
    The National Security and Environmental Management 
Materials Programs at Pacific Northwest National Lab near my 
district are advancing cybersecurity protections in the science 
to help advanced batteries.
    The Hanford Site, the backbone of our Nation's Cold War 
nuclear work, is now providing new promise to support 
development of advanced nuclear technology.
    Last year Congress enacted the Energy Act of 2020, the most 
significant bipartisan energy law in more than a decade, to 
build on the agency's work to clean energy technologies and the 
deployment of those technologies. We should understand how DOE 
plans to implement that law and fit it in with its other 
missions in a way that maximizes benefits across the complex, 
from nuclear security to cybersecurity. This is no easy task, 
and it will be undermined if the leadership is distracted by 
pursuing policies that turn away from DOE's core mission.
    I look forward to talking more about that this morning. And 
with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

    Welcome Secretary Granholm. It is good to see you again and 
good to have you before the committee today. You bring a wealth 
of governance experience to the job of Secretary and I'm 
hopeful that will serve the Department and the American people 
well in coming years.
    Today we are supposed to be evaluating the proposed budget 
priorities for fiscal year 2022. This is necessary for 
committee oversight. But we are at a disadvantage, because the 
administration has yet to release a detailed budget for the 
Department of Energy.
    What we have instead are general assertions about climate 
policy priorities and spending, outlined over two pages of 
text--that's it. Much of this reflects the administration's 
rush to green agenda, which our hearings this year have shown 
risks economic harm and deprives people of reliable, affordable 
energy.
    The harm will only increase with a massive push for 
electric vehicles and limits on fossil energy. This creates 
major supply chain risks and increases dependence on foreign 
sources that abuse human and individual rights for energy 
system components. Needless to say, additional details would be 
helpful.
    We should question the aggressive priorities to dismantle 
our domestic fossil energy economy and radically transform our 
electric and transportation sectors. We should ask if the rush 
to do this will undermine DOE's core work on national security 
and both energy and economic security.
    While DOE's work spans the energy sector, at its core, it 
is a nuclear security agency--representing some 70% of the 
budget when counting its Cold War cleanup responsibilities. The 
department, and its predecessor agencies, designed and produced 
every nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal; and now it maintains 
the Nation's nuclear deterrent.
    DOE provides the technology to power the nuclear navy and 
serves central roles in nuclear nonproliferation, international 
nuclear security. DOE was organized and now serves as the 
Nation's energy security agency. It manages the strategic 
petroleum reserve, has established energy emergency programs, 
and works to assure the reliable supply of energy and power.
    The gas supply crisis along the East Coast from the 
shutdown of the Colonial pipeline is a harsh reminder how 
important reliable supplies of fuels are for Americans. As 
you've noted, Secretary, it is a reminder how critical 
pipelines are, for clean, efficient, secure delivery of the 
energy people and the economy need to thrive.
    This event should underscore energy security's role at the 
Department. DOE also helps assure American energy and energy 
technology serves our strategic geopolitical interests the 
neglect of which could imperil our security in the future.
    Of course, to accomplish its work, DOE relies upon its 
world-class science, engineering, and technological expertise 
across a complex of National Labs, production sites, and 
facilities. There's nothing else like DOE's science and 
engineering. Its capabilities are enhanced by a synergy among 
the labs across the complex.
    This synergy serves all the Department's missions. It 
produces tremendous benefits for our security, for advancing 
science and innovation, and will ensure American innovation 
across the energy landscape.
    We should not undermine what is possible with new 
priorities that could break this synergy and undermine energy 
and economic security. A well-managed DOE enterprise produces 
amazing benefits.
    Consider, for example, the Agency's computational science 
and supercomputing used for science and weapons programs, and 
how this was put to service at Oak Ridge to screen compounds 
for a COVID-19 vaccine development.
    The national security and environmental management 
materials programs at Pacific Northwest National Lab, near my 
district, are advancing cyber security protections and the 
science to help advanced batteries. The Hanford site, the 
backbone for our Nation's Cold War nuclear work, is now 
providing new promise to support development of advanced 
nuclear technologies.
    Last year, Congress enacted the Energy Act of 2020--the 
most significant bipartisan energy law in more than a decade--
to build on the Agency's work in clean energy technologies, and 
the deployment of those technologies.
    We should understand how DOE plans to implement that law 
and fit it in with its other missions in a way that maximizes 
benefits across the complex--from nuclear security to 
cybersecurity. This is no easy task, and it will be undermined 
if Departmental leadership is distracted by pursuing policies 
that turn away from DOE's core missions. I look forward to 
talking about that this morning. With that Chairman, I yield 
back.

    Mr. Rush. The ranking member yields back, and I would like 
to now welcome our esteemed witness for today's hearing, the 
Honorable Jennifer M. Granholm, Secretary of the U.S. 
Department of Energy.
    Madam Secretary, I, for one, am excited about your presence 
at this hearing, and we want to thank you for joining us today. 
We do look forward to hearing your testimony, and, Madam 
Secretary, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for the 
purposes of an opening statement.

  STATEMENT OF JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF 
                             ENERGY

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