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



 
THE CLEAN FUTURE ACT AND ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION: DELIVERING CLEAN POWER 
                             TO THE PEOPLE

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

                             HYBRID HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JUNE 29, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-40
                           
                           
    [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 
 51-213               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...........................................     3
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Michigan, opening statement....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     7
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Washington, opening statement.....................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................     9

                               Witnesses

Patricia A. Hoffman, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of 
  Electricity, Department of Energy..............................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   134
Rob Gramlich, Founder and President, Grid Strategies, LLC........    62
    Prepared statement...........................................    65
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   150
Susan F. Tierney, Ph.D., Senior Advisor, Analysis Group, Inc.....    71
    Prepared statement...........................................    73
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   154
Lee Anderson, Government Affairs Director, Utility Workers Union 
  of America.....................................................    79
    Prepared statement...........................................    81
Anthony (Tony) Clark, Senior Advisor, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, 
  LLP............................................................    86
    Prepared statement...........................................    88
    Questions submitted for the record \1\

                           Submitted Material

H.R. 1512, the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for 
  our Nation's Future Act, submitted by Mr. Rush \2\
H.R. 1514, the Prevent Outages with Energy Resiliency Options 
  Nationwide Act, submitted by Mr. Rush \2\
H.R. 2678, the Interregional Transmission Planning Improvement 
  Act of 2021, submitted by Mr. Rush \2\
H.R. 4027, the Efficient Grid Interconnection Act of 2021, 
  submitted by Mr. Rush \2\
Letter of June 28, 2021, from Paul N. Cicio, President and Chief 
  Executive Officer, Industrial Energy Consumers of America, to 
  Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Rush..................   120

----------

\1\ Mr. Clark did not answer submitted questions for the record by the 
time of publication.
\2\ The legislation has been retained in committee files and is 
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=112842.
Report of Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, ``Disconnected: The 
  Need for a New Generator Interconnection Policy,'' January 
  2021, submitted by Mr. Rush\3\
Statement of Devin Hartman, Director, Energy and Environmental 
  Policy, and Resident Senior Fellow, R Street, ``Five 
  Congressional Priorities for Electric Transmission Reform,'' 
  June 24, 2021, submitted by Mr. Rush...........................   125
Report, ``Transmission in the United States: What Makes 
  Developing Electric Transmission So Hard?,'' by Scott Madden 
  Management Consultants, June 2021, submitted by Mr. Rush\4\....
Statement of America's Power, ``More Transmission: A Major 
  Obstacle to Carbon-Free Electricity by 2035,'' June 25, 2021, 
  submitted by Mr. Rush..........................................   129
Table, ``Recent and Announced U.S. Commercial Reactor 
  Shutdowns,'' from Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional 
  Issues, Congressional Research Service, submitted by Mr. Duncan   132

----------

\3\ The Americans for a Clean Energy Grid report has been retained in 
committee files and is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
IF03/20210629/112842/HHRG-117-IF03-20210629-SD004.pdf.
\4\ The Scott Madden Management Consultants report has been retained in 
committee files and is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/
IF03/20210629/112842/HHRG-117-IF03-20210629-SD006.pdf.


THE CLEAN FUTURE ACT AND ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION: DELIVERING CLEAN POWER 
                             TO THE PEOPLE

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 2021

                  House of Representatives,
                            Subcommittee on Energy,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:37 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
and remotely 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).
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Waverly 
Gordon, General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Deputy Staff 
Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Anne Marie Hirschberger, FERC 
Detailee; Zach Kahan, Deputy Director, Outreach and Member 
Service; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director, 
Energy and Environment; Jourdan Lewis, Policy Coordinator; 
Tyler O'Connor, Energy Counsel; Lino Pena-Martinez, Policy 
Analyst; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Caroline Rinker, Press 
Assistant; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk; 
Caroline Wood, Staff Assistant; Tuley Wright, Senior Energy and 
Environment Policy Advisor; Nate Hodson, Minority Staff 
Director; Emily King, Minority Member Services Director; Mary 
Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Brandon 
Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for Energy; Peter 
Spencer, Minority Professional Staff Member, Energy; and 
Michael Taggart, Minority Policy Director.
    Mr. Rush. The hearing is now called to order once again. 
The Subcommittee on Energy will come to order now. Today, the 
subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled, ``The CLEAN Future 
Act and Electric Transmission: Delivering Clean Power to the 
People.'' Due to COVID-19 public hearing--public health 
emergency, Members can participate in today's hearing either in 
person or remotely via online videoconferencing.
    Those who are not designated and participating in person 
must wear a mask and be socially distant. Such Members may 
remove their mask when they are under recognition and speaking 
from a microphone. Staff and press who are not designated and 
present in the committee room must wear a mask at all times and 
be socially distant. While Members participating remotely, your 
microphone will be set on mute for the purpose of eliminating 
any inadvertent background noise.
    Members participating remotely will need to unmute your 
microphone each time you wish to speak. Please note that once 
you unmute your microphone, anything and everything that is 
said in Webex will be heard over the loudspeaker in the 
committee room and subject to be heard by livestream and C 
09SPAN.
    Since Members are participating from different locations in 
today's hearing, all recognition of Members such as for 
questions will be in order of subcommittee seniority. Documents 
for the record can be sent to Lino Pena-Martinez at the email 
address we have provided to staff. All documents will be 
entered into the record at the conclusion of the 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 ILLINOIS

    Once again, good morning. Today the Subcommittee on Energy 
convenes for a hearing on the CLEAN Future Act as well as other 
legislation to address electric transmission and the delivery 
of clean, reliable power. As this subcommittee has discussed in 
great detail, the energy sector is the second largest source of 
greenhouse gas emission in the U.S.
    Despite this fact, some of the greatest opportunities to 
address the threat of climate change are under the auspices of 
this sector. The generation of electricity and its delivery to 
consumers and businesses is undoubtedly essential to the U.S. 
economy.
    However, a 21st century clean energy economy necessitates 
additional planning and infrastructure investment to advance 
the large-scale delivery of clean energy in order to 
effectively cut greenhouse gas pollution and mitigate climate 
change.
    A fundamental instrument that is key to the--employment of 
reliable and affordable clean energy is electric transmission. 
Speaking frankly, we need a major expansion of the electric 
transmission system to establish our net-zero clean energy 
economy.
    According to a report from Princeton University, the U.S. 
would need to triple the size of its current electricity 
transmission system in just 15 short years. Adding to this, the 
American Society of Civil Engineers reports that nearly 70 
percent of the existing 600,000 circuit miles of transmission 
line are half past their lifespan. Given these factors and the 
ongoing discussions of our--our Nation's infrastructure, 
today's legislative hearing is tremendously important.
    This is particularly true as today's bills all take aim at 
addressing the buildout of electricity transmission 
infrastructure to achieve our climate and clean energy goals.
    As amount, the CLEAN Future Act, which I take great pride 
in leading with Chairman Pallone and Chairman Tonko would 
establish several policies to facilitate resilient and--
electricity supply all while enhancing Federal authority to 
those in--through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and 
also supports the employment of non-transmission alternative 
that have put aside the need for additional transmission 
infrastructure.
    Today's legislative hearing also includes several other 
bills authorized by my esteemed subcommittee colleague which 
would help us achieve our clean energy goal.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush

    Good morning. Today, the Subcommittee on Energy convenes 
for a hearing on the CLEAN Future Act as well as other 
legislation to address electric transmission and the delivery 
of clean, reliable power. As this Subcommittee has discussed in 
great detail, the energy sector is the second largest source of 
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Despite this 
fact, some of the greatest opportunities to address the threat 
of climate change are under the auspices of this sector.
    The generation of electricity, and its delivery to 
consumers and businesses, is undoubtedly essential to the U.S. 
economy. However, a 21st century clean energy economy 
necessitates additional planning and infrastructure investment 
to advance the large-scale delivery of clean energy in order to 
effectively cut greenhouse gas pollution and mitigate climate 
change. A fundamental instrument that is key to the broad 
deployment of reliable and affordable clean energy is electric 
transmission.
    Speaking frankly, we need a major expansion of the electric 
transmission system to establish a net zero clean energy 
economy. According to a report from Princeton University, the 
U.S. will need to triple the size of its current electricity 
transmission system in just 15 short years. Adding to this, the 
American Society Civil Engineers reports that nearly 70 percent 
of the existing 600,000 circuit miles of transmission lines are 
half past their life span.
    Given these factors and the ongoing discussions about our 
nation's infrastructure, today's legislative hearing is 
tremendously important. This is particularly true as today's 
bills all take aim at addressing the buildout of electricity 
transmission infrastructure to achieve our climate and clean 
energy goals. As a model, the CLEAN Future Act--which I take 
great pride in leading with Chairmen Pallone and Tonko--would 
establish several policies to facilitate resilient and 
decarbonized electricity supply all while enhancing Federal 
authority to those ends through the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission. It also supports the deployment of ``non-
transmission alternatives'' that can put aside the need for 
additional transmission infrastructure.
    Today's legislative hearing also includes several other 
bills authored by my esteemed Subcommittee colleagues, which 
will help us achieve our clean energy goals. With that in mind, 
I yield the balance of my time to the Gentleman from 
California, Congressman Peters.

    Mr. Rush. With that in mind, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from California, Congressman Peters.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for the time 
and for hosting this event. Electric transmission, as you said, 
is often overlooked, yet it's an essential component to 
addressing the climate crisis. Successfully siting interstate 
transmission lines is notoriously difficult, and it's in large 
part because of the burdensome and unworkable regulatory 
environment we face. I introduced the POWER ON Act to clarify 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's backstop siting 
authority for interstate transmission projects while 
establishing more inclusive engagement process with States, 
Tribes, and property owners.
    And if enacted, the bill will accelerated the build--
accelerate the buildout of clean energy, increase our power 
systems' reliability, and lower the cost of electricity for 
consumers. It's been endorsed by key groups, including the 
Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, the American Clean Power 
Association, and the American Council on Renewable Energy. I am 
grateful to the committee chairs for including language from 
the POWER ON Act and the CLEAN Future Act and for collaborating 
closely with me and my staff on transmission policy more 
broadly and inviting my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to join me in pushing for these important regulatory reforms.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
    Now the Chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Upton, for 
5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.

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

    Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, my friend, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you to our witness for appearing before us, providing the 
testimony. It is nice to see someone in person here. I would 
note that I have, too, been fully vaccinated. I look forward to 
today's hearing to examine the challenges and opportunities to 
modernize our electric grid. However, I would like to think 
that Congress could fix some of the most obvious needs.
    Instead of the majority's Green New Deal wish list, we 
ought to start with proven bipartisan issues. The committee 
ought to be focused on strengthening the reliability of the 
electric grid to prevent blackouts, lowering the cost of 
utility bills for our constituents, and preventing repeat cyber 
attacks such as the one that took down the Colonial Pipeline a 
few weeks ago.
    Instead, we see a thousand-page bill with more than half a 
trillion dollars in spending, the CLEAN Future Act, which would 
ban hydraulic fracturing, ban plastics, ban new pipelines, put 
a chilling effect on new infrastructure development in attempt 
to nationalize our electric grid.
    CLEAN Future Act would impose harsh new Federal mandates 
for electricity generation and socialize the cost, forcing 
everyone's electric bills to go up regardless of their income. 
Among the most troublesome electricity provisions, the CLEAN 
Future Act would take away States' rights by forcing utilities 
to place transmission facilities under the control of an RTO, 
regional transmission organization, or independent systems 
operator, ISO.
    Another provision, the so-called right to clean energy, is 
a huge giveaway to big companies and the rich so that they can 
install new solar panels and build wind farms at virtually 
everybody else's expense. The problem with these provisions is 
that, by allowing some to cut the line, it leaves average 
residential customers on the hook to maintain existing 
equipment and aging power plants.
    The right to clean energy is an unfair, regressive tax on 
residential customers. So, Mr. Chairman, I know that we shared 
the goal to improve the reliability of the electric grid and 
lower utility bills for our constituents, but there is a lot 
that we can accomplish in a bipartisan way.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, to our witnesses, 
for appearing before us to provide your testimony. It is nice 
to finally be back in person.
    I look forward to today's hearing to examine the challenges 
and opportunities to modernize our electric grid. However, I am 
concerned that the Majority's go it alone approach will prevent 
Congress from fixing some of the most obvious needs. Instead of 
the Majority's Green New Deal wish-list, we should be starting 
with proven bipartisan issues.
    The Committee should be focused on strengthening the 
reliability of the electric grid to prevent blackouts; lowering 
the cost of utility bills for our constituents; and preventing 
a repeat cyber-attack, such as the one that took down the 
Colonial pipeline.
    Instead, the Majority is pushing a 1,000 page bill with 
more than half a trillion dollars in spending--the ``CLEAN 
Future Act'' which would ban hydraulic fracturing, ban 
plastics, and ban new pipelines. It would put a chilling effect 
on new infrastructure development and attempt to nationalize 
our electric grid.
    The CLEAN Future Act would impose harsh new Federal 
mandates for electricity generation and to socialize the 
costs--forcing everyone's electric bills to go up, regardless 
of income level.
    Among the most troublesome electricity provisions, the 
CLEAN Future Act would take away States' rights by forcing 
utilities to place transmission facilities under the control of 
a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) or Independent 
System Operator (ISO).
    Another provision--the so-called ``Right to Clean 
Energy''--is a huge giveaway to big companies and the rich so 
they can install new solar panels and build wind farms at 
everyone else's expense.
    The problem with these provisions is that by allowing some 
to cut the line, it leaves average residential customers on the 
hook to maintain existing equipment and aging power plants. The 
``Right to Clean Energy'' is an unfair regressive tax on 
residential customers.
    Mr. Chairman, I know that we share the goal to improve the 
reliability of the electric grid and lower utility bills for 
our constituents. There is a lot that we can get accomplished 
in a bipartisan way.
    With that, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses 
today, and I yield one minute to Mr. Armstrong to introduce Mr. 
Clark who will be joining us on the second panel.

    Mr. Upton. And with that, I look forward to hearing from 
the witnesses today. I yield the balance of my time to Mr. 
Armstrong to introduce Mr. Clark, who will be joining us on the 
second panel.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Upton. So we are lucky--I am 
lucky to call Tony Clark my friend, and we are lucky to have 
him here. From 1994 to '97, he was in the North Dakota House of 
Representatives. He was the North Dakota labor commissioner 
in--for 2 years, in '99 and 2000. He was the North Dakota 
public service commissioner from 2001 to 2012, and he was a 
FERC Commissioner from 2012 to 2016. If anyone--and North 
Dakota is obviously an energy-producing State. If anybody can 
talk about the State, Federal, local, public/private 
partnerships and how we move the ball forward in these areas, 
Tony Clark is it.
    He has been fantastic for the State. He has been fantastic 
for the country, and his expertise will be much needed today. 
And with that, I'll yield back.
    Mr. Upton. Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. Now the Chair 
recognizes Mr. Pallone, the chairman of the full committee, for 
5 minutes for--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. Today we continue 
our series of legislative hearings on H.R. 1512, the CLEAN 
Future Act, which I introduced with Chairman Rush and Tonko to 
address the climate crisis and get us to a hundred percent 
clean economy no later than 2050. One of the most important 
steps to combat the climate crisis is to make our power grid 
cleaner and more reliable. Today's hearing focuses on 
provisions of the CLEAN Future Act and three other bills that 
support building a resilient electric transmission system to 
deliver clean, low-cost power from remote regions of the 
country to America's cities, towns, and industry. And simply 
put, we will not be able to meet our clean energy goals unless 
we build more transmission. I believe that the need to 
responsibly build more electric transmission is an issue that 
can unite Democrats and Republicans. After all, electric 
transmission delivers the inexpensive electricity that powers 
American industry and employs hundreds of thousands of American 
workers.
    Despite these benefits, we have not yet done enough to 
ensure our transmission system is equipped to handle the 
challenges of the 21st century as we deploy more offshore wind 
along our coast, building the necessary transmission to hook 
this new generation to the grid will be a crucial step. 
Furthermore, extreme weather events like the current 
unprecedented heatwave in the Pacific Northwest and the cold 
snap that brought down the Texas grid earlier this year 
basically remind us of the continuing need to invest in our 
transmission system.
    The CLEAN Future Act makes those investments to modernize 
the grid and ensure that all Americans have access to clean, 
reliable power at a reasonable cost. As we work to build out 
this essential infrastructure, however, we must make sure we do 
so responsibly and don't build more than what's needed. New and 
innovative technologies can allow us to use our existing 
transmission infrastructure more efficiently.
    Transmission planning processes can make--can be made more 
transparent to the public, allowing us all to better understand 
how new transmission needs are identified. And these and other 
measures will help protect ratepayers from unnecessary and 
excessive transmission infrastructure cost that we don't really 
need. So the CLEAN Future Act includes key provisions that 
recognize the critical role transmission has to play in 
powering a clean energy economy, combating the climate crisis, 
improving reliability, and creating jobs for Americans. And it 
does all of this while also making sure we do not overburden 
ratepayers with unnecessary cost.
    The legislation calls upon FERC to reform its processes to 
require interregional transmission planning to support the 
integration of renewable energy resources. It also bolsters 
Federal authority to require permitting for certain interstate 
transmission lines that will bring clean and low-cost energy to 
consumers. And it provides financial and technical assistance 
to State, local and Tribal governments to help with the 
permitting and siting of interstate transmission lines.
    In addition to the CLEAN Future Act, we'll also consider 
three bills introduced by my colleagues, Representatives 
Peters, Castor, and Casten. And I want to thank them for their 
hard work on these bills. If we put the right policies in 
place, I believe electric transmission can help us tackle the 
climate crisis and build the clean, prosperous, and affordable 
energy future.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Today we continue our series of legislative hearings on 
H.R. 1512, The CLEAN Future Act, which I introduced with 
Chairmen Rush and Tonko to address the climate crisis and get 
us to a 100 percent clean economy no later than 2050.
    One of the most important steps to combat the climate 
crisis is to make our power grid cleaner and more reliable. 
Today's hearing focuses on provisions of the CLEAN Future Act--
and three other bills--that support building a resilient 
electric transmission system to deliver clean, low-cost power 
from remote regions of the country to American cities, towns, 
and industry. Put simply, we will not be able to meet our clean 
energy goals unless we build more transmission.
    I believe that the need to responsibly build more electric 
transmission is an issue that can unite Democrats and 
Republicans. After all, electric transmission delivers the 
inexpensive electricity that powers American industry and 
employs hundreds of thousands of American workers.
    Despite these benefits, we have not yet done enough to 
ensure our transmission system is equipped to handle the 
challenges of the 21st century. As we deploy more offshore wind 
along our coasts, building the necessary transmission to hook 
this new generation into the grid will be a crucial step. 
Furthermore, extreme weather events, like the current 
unprecedented heat wave in the Pacific Northwest and the cold 
snap that brought down the Texas grid earlier this year, remind 
us of the continuing need to invest in our transmission system. 
The CLEAN Future Act makes those investments to modernize the 
grid and ensure that all Americans have access to clean, 
reliable power at a reasonable cost.
    As we work to build out this essential infrastructure, 
however, we must make sure we do so responsibly, and don't 
build more than is needed. New and innovative technologies can 
allow us to use our existing transmission infrastructure more 
efficiently.
    Transmission planning processes can be made more 
transparent to the public, allowing us all to better understand 
how new transmission needs are identified. These and other 
measures will help protect ratepayers from unnecessary and 
excessive transmission infrastructure costs that we don't 
really need.
    The CLEAN Future Act includes key provisions that recognize 
the critical role transmission has to play in powering a clean 
energy economy, combating the climate crisis, improving 
reliability, and creating jobs for Americans. And it does all 
of this while also making sure we do not overburden ratepayers 
with unnecessary costs.
    The legislation calls upon the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (FERC) to reform its processes to require 
interregional transmission planning to support the integration 
of renewable energy resources. It also bolsters federal 
authority to require permitting for certain interstate 
transmission lines that will bring clean and low-cost energy to 
consumers. And it provides financial and technical assistance 
to state, local, and tribal governments to help with the 
permitting and siting of interstate transmission lines.
    In addition to the CLEAN Future Act, we will consider three 
bills introduced by my colleagues Representatives Peters, 
Castor, and Casten. I want to thank them for their hard work on 
these bills.
    If we put the right policies in place, electric 
transmission can help us tackle the climate crisis and build a 
clean, prosperous, and affordable energy future.
    Thank you again, and I yield back.

    Mr. Pallone. And now I'd like to yield the remainder of my 
time to the gentlewoman from Florida, Representative Castor.
    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Chairman Pallone.
    Members, this is one of the most important hearings that we 
have had in this committee because America's electric grid is 
in need of major investments. And we have got to work together 
to modernize and strengthen the grid. Doing so will create a 
huge number of jobs. It will help lower our electric bills for 
our neighbors back home.
    It will cut pollution. It will improve our health, will 
help us expand clean energy so that we can avoid the 
catastrophic impacts of the climate crisis. So I want to thank 
Chairman Pallone and Chairman Rush very much for including two 
of my legislative proposals today.
    First, the Transmission Siting Assistance Program is 
Section 218 in the CLEAN Future Act. It would provide technical 
assistance to--and economic incentives to States and local 
communities as carrots to encourage them to do a better job of 
planning and approving new interstate transmission lines. And 
second, H.R. 4027, the Efficient Grid Interconnection Act, 
would speed up connecting new clean energy projects to the 
existing grid and ease transmission congestion. This bill is 
supported by a large coalition of business and environmental 
groups, and I thank them for their support. I anticipate that 
many of our colleagues will hear from them and thank you very 
much. And I yield back by time.
    Mr. Pallone. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back as well.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Ms. Rodgers, the ranking member of the full 
committee, for 5 more minutes for the purpose of an opening 
statement.

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

    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Chairman Rush. What's becoming 
increasingly clear to people across this country over the last 
year is that the role--the role of State and Federal policies 
that jeopardize affordable, reliable energy and power. Keeping 
the lights on is needed for a prosperous society and vital for 
our health and safety. It is key to our quality of life and 
lifting people out of poverty.
    Policymakers should not lose sight of that. And it's not 
just about keeping the lights on. Right now in Eastern 
Washington and across the Pacific Northwest, it's about keeping 
the fans and the air conditioning on too. We are currently 
experiencing an extreme heat wave. There are emergency cooling 
centers open in my hometown in Spokane, where temperatures are 
hovering around 110.
    Last night, one of the major utilities in the area notified 
customers of mandatory outages because it was seeing the 
second-highest level of demand over the past year. We aren't 
strangers to extreme weather in the Pacific Northwest. These 
weather events have solidified the importance of reliable 
power.
    This past winter, Washington State had harmful deep freezes 
that drove up energy demand. Fortunately, the four Lower Snake 
River dams boosted hydroelectric power to meet the need. They 
picked up the slack when one of the largest dams in the 
Columbia River system had to shut down, reducing the harmful 
impact of serious power shortages.
    Yet even in Washington State, we face calls to dismantle 
these important clean energy sources for the sake of radical 
agendas that fail to prioritize the delivery of power for 
people. When these policies undermine affordable, reliable 
delivery of energy and power, serious harms to public health 
and safety can follow. The heat has not been isolated to the 
Pacific--Pacific Northwest.
    In recent weeks, both California and Texas electric grid 
operators have urged people to conserve electricity as heat 
waves threaten supply. Last month, the North American Electric 
Reliability Corporation, NERC, issued its summer reliability 
assessment. This report said California is at risk of energy 
emergencies during normal summer demand and high risk if 
weather events cause above-normal demand across the West. We 
are seeing that happen now. Texas, the upper Midwest, and New 
England are at risk if there is a major weather event driving 
up power demand according to this report. As these examples 
indicate, we are witnessing an electricity reliability crisis 
slowly unfold across large regions of the country. And much of 
this can be traced back to State environmental and Federal 
regulatory policies, from renewable energy standards to 
electricity market regulatory structures that drive out 
traditional baseload generation assets.
    Meanwhile the left's rush-to-green agenda doubles down on 
wind and solar and building lots more transmission. To meet the 
administration's emissions targets, the push is for massive 
electrification on an unprecedented scale and pace for the next 
15 years. And it would amount to a construction program 600 
percent larger than any utility buildout that we have seen in 
the last half century.
    You cannot do this without extraordinary mandates and costs 
on workers and families. That's why it seems unrealistic, 
unattainable. Testimony before the committee has already 
outlined the growing public resistance to siting, permitting, 
and building new transmission. Today, building new transmission 
can take 15 years or more, and there are several examples of 
key projects running into opposition, which brings us to the 
CLEAN Future Act that will--that I--I am concerned is going to 
take us backwards to a time before reliable electricity and 
modern conveniences. There are certainly practical reforms to 
consider for transmission policy.
    However, the rush-to-green incentives and mandates will 
undermine reliability at a great cost. The bill seeks to 
prioritize massive electrification and renewable buildout 
without regard to the impacts on reliable and affordable power. 
It seeks to make it easier to site transmission while making it 
harder to build natural gas pipelines, which are critical for 
renewables.
    Also troubling is the rush to mandate regulatory structures 
that prioritize renewables which are weather dependent energy 
at the expense of traditional baseload and dispatchable energy. 
Ladies and gentlemen, I am concerned that we are creating an 
affordability crisis, as California-style costs are spread to 
other regions of the country. This is not the way that we move 
forward with affordable, reliable power. This is not the way to 
move to a clean energy future. We can lead the world in 
reducing carbon emissions with new American innovation without 
jeopardizing reliability and affordable energy. With that, I 
yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

    Thank you, Chairman Rush. Now, what has become clear to the 
American public over the past year has been the role of state 
and federal policies that influence affordable, reliable energy 
and power. Keeping the lights on is needed for a prosperous 
society, and vital for our health and safety. Policymakers 
should not lose sight of that.
    And it's not just about keeping the lights on. Right now in 
Eastern Washington and across the Pacific Northwest it's about 
keeping the fans and air conditioning on too. We're currently 
experiencing an extreme heatwave. There are emergency cooling 
centers open in my hometown of Spokane, where temperatures are 
hovering around 110.
    Last night one of the major utilities in the area notified 
customers of mandatory outages because it was seeing the 
second-highest level of demand over the past year. We aren't 
strangers to extreme weather in the Pacific Northwest. These 
weather events have solidified the importance of a reliable 
power supply.
    This past winter, Washington state had a harmful deep 
freeze that drove up energy demand. Fortunately, the four Lower 
Snake River dams came to the rescue and boosted hydroelectric 
output to provide the needed dispatchable power. They picked-up 
the slack when one of the largest dams in the Columbia River 
system had to shut down--reducing threats of serious power 
shortages.
    Yet even in Washington State, we face calls to dismantle 
these important, clean energy sources for the sake of agendas 
that fail to prioritize reliable delivery of power for people. 
When these policies undermine affordable, reliable delivery of 
energy and power, serious harms to public health and safety can 
follow.
    The heat has not been isolated to the Pacific Northwest. In 
recent weeks, both California and Texas electric grid operators 
have urged people to conserve electricity use as heat waves 
threatened supply disruptions. Last month, the North American 
Electric Reliability Corporation, NERC, issued its summer 
reliability assessment. The report said California is at risk 
of energy emergencies during normal summer demand, and high 
risk if weather events cause above normal demand across the 
West. We are seeing that happen now.
    Texas, the upper Midwest, and New England are all at risk 
if there is a major weather event driving up power demand, 
according to the report. As these examples indicate, we are 
witnessing an electricity reliability crisis slowly unfold 
across large regions of the country. And much of this can be 
traced to state environmental and federal regulatory policies 
from renewable energy standards to electricity market 
regulatory structures that drive out traditional baseload 
generation assets.
    Meanwhile, the left's ``rush to green'' agenda doubles down 
on wind and solar and building lots more transmission. To meet 
the Administration's emissions targets, the push is for massive 
electrification on an unprecedented scale and pace. For the 
next 15 years, it would amount to a construction program 600 
percent larger than any utility build-out we've seen in the 
last half-century, as one witness explained this year.
    You cannot do this without extraordinary mandates and costs 
on workers and families. Testimony before the Committee has 
already outlined the growing public resistance to siting, 
permitting, and building new transmission. Today, building new 
transmission can take 15 years or more. And there are several 
examples of key projects running into substantial opposition.
    Which brings us to the CLEAN Future Act provisions that 
will take us back to the Dark Ages. There are certainly 
practical reforms to consider for transmission policy, to 
maximize the reliability benefits of a robust transmission 
system. However, the rush to green incentives and mandates in 
this legislation may only undermine reliability-and at a great 
cost.
    The bill seeks to prioritize massive electrification and 
renewable build-out, without regard to impacts on affordable, 
reliable power. It seeks to make it easier to site transmission 
while making it harder to build natural gas pipelines, which 
are critical for renewables. Also troubling is the rush to 
mandate regulatory structures that prioritize weather-dependent 
energy at the expense of traditional baseload and dispatchable 
energy.
    Adding more top-down mandates to ``decarbonize'' our grid 
means creating an affordability crisis--as California-style 
costs are spread to other regions of America. We should reject 
these mandates and lead on what matters for American families--
ensuring affordable, reliable power.

    Mr. Rush. The ranking member yields back. The Chair would 
like to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all 
Members' written opening statements shall be made part of the 
record.
    I would now, at this time, like to welcome our first 
witness for today's hearing, Ms. Patricia Hoffman, Acting 
Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy. Ms. 
Hoffman, welcome to today's subcommittee hearing, and you are 
now recognized for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening 
statement.

 STATEMENT OF PATRICIA A. HOFFMAN, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 
          OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                STATEMENT OF PATRICIA A. HOFFMAN

    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Member Upton, 
distinguished members of the subcommittee. I appreciate being 
here in person as well. I do appreciate the opportunity to 
testify on behalf of the Department of Energy on the role of 
transmission and achieving the Biden-Harris administration's 
clean energy goals, the Department's authorities related to 
transmission infrastructure, including new authorities that 
have been proposed in the committee's CLEAN Future Act, and 
other legislation.
    Modernizing and expanding the electric transmission grid 
could unlock access to cleaner, lower-cost energy for consumers 
and businesses while improving the reliability and resilience 
of the electricity delivery in the face of extreme weather and 
supply disruptions. President Biden has established the 
ambitious climate goals of carbon-pollution-free power sector 
by 2035 and a net-zero greenhouse gas emission economy by 2050.
    Building up the Nation's electric transmission system will 
play a key part in achieving these goals. An independent 
analysis by the Americans for a Clean Energy Grid confirms the 
importance of investing in our electricity grid. It identifies 
more than 20 major transmission projects that may be poised to 
move forward, potentially creating more than 600,000 new 
transmission-related jobs and an additional 640,000 jobs from 
new clean energy generation projects.
    The most economically attractive and potential renewable 
resources are typically located in geographical areas that are 
remote from demand centers. Therefore, promoting the shift 
towards clean power sector does require investment in critical 
enabling infrastructure such as transmission to increase the 
access to renewable resources.
    Such investments in transmission infrastructure include 
increasing the capacity of existing lines, minimizing 
transmission losses through the use of new technologies, 
building long-distance, high-voltage transmission lines. Recent 
research shows that over 755 gigawatts of generation capacity 
is seeking transmission interconnection. But failure rates and 
wait times suggests growing interconnection and transmission 
challenges. There have been calls for interconnection reform 
and changes to the broader transmission planning process.
    In addition to supporting new clean energy--in addition to 
supporting the clean energy transition, a robust transmission 
system further enhances grid reliability and resilience. 
Investment in replacing, upgrading, and expanding transmission 
infrastructure will help minimize power outages, protect the 
grid against climate-induced extreme weather, restore 
electricity more quickly when outages occur, but most 
importantly, expanding transmission capacity improves the 
resilience and flexibility of the energy system by creating 
more numerous energy delivery pathways.
    The Office of Electricity is specifically looking at how to 
support operational efficiencies and flexibility within the 
delivery system in support of the administration goals through 
the development and demonstration of improved sensors, flow 
control, and flexible technologies such as energy storage.
    The Department has several critical tools that have already 
been authorized by Congress to aid in the development of 
transmission. Moving to accelerate transmission development 
through the use of existing authorities and available funding 
is key. Transmission projects particularly, with appropriate 
stakeholder engagements, can take years of development time. 
And the appropriate process to engage the authorities will take 
time as well.
    Additionally, the Department has authorities to help 
finance transmission projects. The Department of Energy's Loan 
Program Office and WAPA Transmission Infrastructure Protection 
Program are efforts that can expand and improve the Nation's 
transmission grid.
    While tools are available from Congress and have been 
provided by the Department to overcome barriers, additional 
actions outlined in the President's budget and the American 
Jobs Plan can make a difference. The Department also recognizes 
this committee has put forth a number of additional policy 
proposals to address barriers to transmission development.
    As the committee considers this policy, the Department 
recommends several areas for consideration, increasing the 
capacity, accelerating interconnection, and planning for 
interregional transmission. In conclusion, a secure and 
resilient power grid is important to preserving our economy. 
And I thank you for your time, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Hoffman follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.001
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.002
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.003
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.004
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.005
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.006
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.007
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.008
    
    Mr. Rush. Thank you, Secretary Hoffman. We will now move to 
Members' question. Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask 
questions of our witness. And now it's time I--recognizing 
myself for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hoffman, as you stated in your testimony, President 
Biden has established a mission in climate and clean energy 
goals. These goals, which closely align with the committee's 
climate plan, the CLEAN Future Act, involve a--power center and 
emission-free economy by 2050. In your learned opinion, how 
will the development and employment of transmission 
infrastructure support the achievement of these goals?
    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. The 
benefits of transmission is very broad in nature. It will 
support the clean energy deployment, but it will also support 
the reliability and resilience of our Nation's infrastructure. 
With respect to clean energy deployment, transmission will 
allow us to access remote renewable resources, bringing those 
resources from remote areas to cities and the demand centers. 
With respect to clean energy, it will allow us to access all 
forms of clean energy, including nuclear energy, and best be 
developed where they are most promising.
    Mr. Rush. Ms. Hoffman, as you know, the Biden-Harris 
administration's Justice40 Initiative is a plan to invest 40 
percent of climate-related funding into undisturbed and 
disadvantaged communities. What is the Department of Energy's 
plan to incorporate the Justice40 initiative in its work to 
deploy electric transmission?
    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Congressman. Justice40 is a very 
important activity that really takes a look at communities and 
ensuring that communities are not affected by transmission or 
projects that will disadvantage communities. And 40 percent of 
the benefits must flow to those disadvantaged communities. The 
Secretary has made this a priority as part of the 
administration and part as the Department. She created an 
Office of Energy Justice. And I do look forward, as we 
implement transmission projects in the United States, that we 
concentrate on providing services to disadvantaged communities 
but also participate in economic development.
    Mr. Rush. In terms of your economic development, does 
this--and can you elaborate on the business opportunities that 
might emanate from Justice40 and also job creation 
opportunities. But I am particularly interested in creating 
or--and/or expanding minority businesses using this----
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you, Congressman. As we look at 
building transmission in the United States, it will be a job 
creator and such that we hope to engage construction jobs, jobs 
in the utility workforce, and jobs in the service industries. 
And this provides an opportunity to really access all forms of 
workers, local community engagement, and transmission projects. 
And so this effort will really hopefully continue to build that 
economic development in States and regions, allowing for 
continued economic growth and jobs.
    Mr. Rush. Ms. Hoffman, how does it--when the Department of 
Energy view its role in advancing the deployment of electric 
transmission and, to be more specific, how will it work with 
other agencies toward these ultimate goals?
    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you very much for the question. The 
Department actually has several programs and authorities for 
implementing transmission. Some of the programs really start 
out from a financing perspective. We have authority through the 
Loan Program Office as well as through the WAPA transmission 
infrastructure investment program to finance and to put 
borrowing authority for transmission projects.
    In addition, the Department also provides technical 
assistance to the States as well as coordination of permitting 
across the Federal agencies. One example of how the Department 
is collaborating and coordinating with other Federal agencies 
is the President's goal for offshore wind. The President has a 
goal of 30 percent--30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030. And 
this is a partnership between the Department of Energy, 
Department of Commerce, and Department of Interior looking at 
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, BOEM, to really look at 
transmission development offshore in the United States.
    In addition, the Department of Energy, in partnership with 
the Department of Transportation, is looking at the 
opportunities for transmission right-of-ways, and that has been 
identified as a significant opportunity to minimize some of the 
permitting challenges moving forward as we look at siting 
transmission lines.
    Mr. Rush. Well, thank you, Ms. Hoffman. And that concludes 
my time. And I now yield to my good friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Upton. Well, thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Ms. 
Hoffman, again, thank you for being with us today. You know, I 
think we are all concerned about the process for building new 
electric transmission. I think many of us would say that it is 
painfully slow, can take a decade or more to get through all 
the regulatory hurdles, environmental permitting.
    So as you think about some estimates that we got to triple 
the size of transmission system by 2050 in order to--to get to 
where--where people want--might want to be. As we look to 
modernize the electric grid and expand the transmission system, 
I want to make sure that the planning decisions are driven from 
the bottom up by State and locals rather than Federal mandates. 
So as you look at this, the CLEAN Future Act, I don't know if 
you have examined Section 220, which would mandate States and 
utilities to place their transmission under the control of RTOs 
and ISOs. Is that something the administration supports?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you. Thank you, Congressman Upton, 
for the question. I think participation in ISOs and RTOs is 
really a decision that comes under the jurisdiction of FERC as 
well as decisions by the State for their participation.
    States will have to evaluate the cost-effective benefits 
with respect to their participation. To the extent possible, 
the RTOs and markets provide cost-effective and competition. In 
the electric sector, this is an important consideration. And so 
the Department of Energy is more than willing to provide 
assistance to the States as they evaluate and consider their 
role and their interest in participation of--in RTOs.
    Mr. Upton. Well, I know that you just mentioned that have a 
dramatic increase in offshore wind. It's probably going to 
require--what--thousands of turbines, wind turbines?
    Ms. Hoffman. Potentially. I----
    Mr. Upton. Yes.
    Ms. Hoffman. I will have to----
    Mr. Upton. I----
    Ms. Hoffman. It's 30 gigawatts.
    Mr. Upton. You got the number.
    Ms. Hoffman. So it's a lot.
    Mr. Upton. So I--I just--I mean, what's the expectation 
on--you know, it's--you see regionally. You look at California 
in terms of, you know, what's going on with the--with the 
fires. You look at some of the opposition by different groups 
that are out there in terms of new lines to be built. You know, 
how in the world are we going to get to that number, increasing 
the--triple the size of the transmission size and look at, you 
know, these new technologies when, in fact, the current siting, 
you know, it's--it--it's hardly a hard knife through butter as 
we try to cut through these regs to try and get them done. How 
can you help us?
    Ms. Hoffman. So interregional transmission is difficult. 
And it is going to work----
    Mr. Upton. Been impossible.
    Ms. Hoffman. Near impossible. It is going to require close 
coordination with the States. It's going to require a 
multipronged strategy from my perspective in order to achieve 
some of the goals that have been presented by the President. We 
really need to upgrade the existing infrastructure in the 
United States to increase capacity and efficiency on the 
transmission system. We have to look at utilizing existing 
rights of ways, and we have to think about a national plan for 
interregional transmission projects and really look at the 
States and what they have done for their 10-year plans. But 
also, how can we integrate that so that we actually can address 
transmission across the United States? So it will require our 
collaborative approach and a collaborative process with the 
States to think about the transmission needs where we'd like to 
develop the next generation clean generation resources and how 
to get all that built in a holistic fashion.
    Mr. Upton. Well, I'd like to think that, you know, the 
infrastructure bill that's a lot of different proposals that 
are out there, but I would like to think that the one that 
ultimately gets signed, it will have bipartisan support, would 
include resources to--to help the resilience of a grid, not 
only electric but also with--with gas in terms of pipelines to 
make sure that we see that happen.
    Does it--Department support Section 213 of the CLEAN Future 
Act, which creates a Federal siting program for electric 
transmission, and would you support the same for gas 
transmission?
    Ms. Hoffman. So a Federal siting program is really under 
the jurisdiction of FERC from their capabilities and their 
experience with respect to siting pipelines and transmission 
lines. From the Department of Energy's perspective, what we 
really want to do is actually collaborate with the States to 
think about where transmission should be built. And in that 
dialog, we are hoping that we'll be able to facilitate 
constructive conversations on how to best site transmission 
lines. What are some of the alternatives for siting 
transmission lines such as nontransmission alternatives? And so 
that technical assistance that we could provide as part of the 
conversation would be very important in leading to some of 
FERC's conversations from a siting perspective.
    Mr. Upton. Well, I know my time has expired, but I just 
hope that the Department could work with us as we try to get 
through this nightmare of regulatory burdens that will really 
prevent us from expanding transmission and nowhere get close to 
the--tripling the size of the transmission system by 2050 
without those reforms. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now 
recognizes the chairman of the full committee for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
    Ms. Hoffman, in your testimony, you not only address 
transmission's role in achieving a hundred percent clean 
economy, but you also state that transmission can protect the 
grid against climate induced extreme weather. So can you 
elaborate on the role that transmission plays in protecting the 
grid against extreme weather and in maintaining the reliable 
delivery of power to U.S. homeowners and businesses?
    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Congressman. It's really important 
as we build transmission to recognize that modernizing our 
electric grid is important to reliability and resilience. In 
the electric sector, transmission but also other grid 
modernization technologies has been helpful, very helpful in 
the past as we looked at our response to emergencies when you 
look at sensors on the transmission system, outage management 
systems.
    But specifically you asked about transmission. Transmission 
really--what that does is it allows power flow when power is 
available in one region of the country but may not be available 
to either weather issues or extreme weather issues that have 
occurred in the United States. So what transmission does is it 
allows us to utilize that diversity of generation across the 
United States to support outages.
    Mr. Pallone. And then--well, thank you. As my home State of 
New Jersey learned during Superstorm Sandy and--and other 
States such as Texas have learned more recently, it's critical 
that we have a reliable transmission system that can withstand 
climate change-induced extreme weather events. You also 
provided recommendations for the committee on barriers to 
transmission development. And one of those recommendations is 
to increase the use of our existing system in the near-term 
using advanced transmission technologies, among other things.
    And in the CLEAN Future Act, we include a provision that 
supports deployment of such advanced transmission technologies 
as well as nontransmission alternatives. So going forward, what 
additional policies would support the efficient use of our 
existing transmission system, and what role could the DOE play 
in supporting the deployment of these important technologies, 
if you will?
    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Congressman. Transmission 
technologies and grid-enhancing technologies, as well as 
nontransmission alternatives, are really important tools and 
policies that can be utilized in support of our Nation's 
infrastructure. So technologies such as energy storage, 
technologies as energy efficiency are all part of the holistic 
picture that one needs to consider as we invest in the future 
of the United States. So as I look at it, it's better utilizing 
the capacity on existing lines. It's deployment of energy 
storage. It's looking at energy efficiency measures, demand 
response measures. All these will play an important 
contribution. And the policies that are driven by the States in 
emphasizing the need for whether it's demand response 
technologies and energy storage will--will aid in that 
conversation.
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you. I have one more question. And in 
your written testimony, you also describe the important role 
that DOE plays in coordinating Federal authorization decisions 
on electric transmission facilities, including environmental 
reviews. And the CLEAN Future Act proposes that DOE establish a 
transmission siting assistance program to assist States, 
localities, and Tribes in their efforts to study and site new 
transmissions. So do you think DOE, through this proposed 
transmission siting assistance program, can play an effective 
role in facilitating the siting and development of additional 
transmissions?
    Ms. Hoffman. So siting is a challenging issue. And 
technical assistance to the States is an important area in 
which the Department of Energy can add value to the 
conversation. With respect to siting, technical assistance and 
incentives could be provided to look at cost-benefit analysis, 
look at where alternative routes can be done, can also look at 
evaluating nontransmission alternatives as we just discussed. 
So providing that technical assistance will allow the States to 
really evaluate the potential benefits of transmission projects 
and looking at how we invest collectively in our transmission 
moving forward.
    One of the things that the coordination and siting would 
allow would be a greater collaboration and discussion on 
interregional transmission projects. And that is really where 
some of the challenges occur, is really doing multistate 
projects and interregional projects.
    Mr. Pallone. Well, thanks again for your response to the 
questions, and we really look forward to working with you in 
DOE as we try to pursue our clean energy goals. It's so 
important. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The chairman of the full committee yields back. 
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full 
committee, Ms. McMorris Rodgers, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Hoffman, I believe very strongly in the importance of 
diverse supply to meeting our energy needs, the importance of 
an all-of-the-above approach to energy. You know, just--just 
earlier this year in February, we were without electricity for 
several days in Spokane, and I was reminded how great it was at 
the time when electricity was out that still the natural gas 
stove worked in our house, and we could--we could cook and 
having a car battery to charge some of our other devices came 
in handy. But I--I just wanted to ask about the importance of 
hydroelectric--hydroelectricity in particular in the Pacific 
Northwest and in State of Washington. It's really important 
baseload. It's affordable. We have some of the lowest 
electricity rates in the country because of hydropower. And as 
we continue to move with more wind and solar, it is--it's that 
important baseload that we so--we need.
    I noted in my testimony that the four Lower Snake River 
dams came to the rescue this winter during a deep freeze when 
we had lost access to the Chief Joe Dam on the Upper Columbia 
River and they stepped up to provide that energy that we 
needed. So I wanted to ask, would you speak to the importance 
of hydropower, especially on the Lower Snake River, and for 
electric reliability and emergency use?
    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Congresswoman. Hydropower is a very 
important asset as we look at providing generation that will 
provide flexibility moving forward. We have to have generation 
that can support the variability of renewable energy. And 
hydropower in the West is one of the key resources that 
provides that flexibility and variability. And so having 
hydropower assets are a very important part of our portfolio 
from a system reliability perspective, recognizing that we do 
need diversity of our generation assets. As you have pointed 
out, there's drought conditions in the West, which is putting 
great stress on our hydropower system. And so, as we move 
forward we need to think about investment in energy storage 
technologies and other technologies that will continue to 
support the system moving forward. But hydropower as a core 
element is a--is a very important----
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. Generation resource.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Part of expanding access to hydropower and 
updating the--the Federal licensing requirements?
    Ms. Hoffman. So I think that's an important conversation 
that the Department of Energy should have with Congress on the 
value of hydropower and hydropower expansion. Some of the 
programs within the Department of Energy is how do we maximize 
utilization of the existing hydropower fleet that we have with 
respect to whether it's more power through the turbines, more 
efficiency investments in the hydropower assets. But I do look 
forward for the Department having further conversations with 
the right folks on the hydropower relicensing.
    Mrs. Rodgers. With the buildout of the weather-dependent 
wind and solar, I think hydropower, again, is stepping up and 
is really ideal for a black start. With plans to interconnect 
with more renewables into the grid, how important are 
attributes like black start capability in the event of a major 
power outage?
    Ms. Hoffman. Black start capabilities are very important as 
well as, I would say, essential reliability services, which 
really includes ramping services and other forms of support for 
the system. So hydropower is a very important contribution to 
black start capabilities for the United States.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. I wanted to ask a general question 
about DOE's own assessments of transmission delays. In 2016, 
DOE issued a report on issues delaying transmission siting. It 
noted that NEPA processes involving multiple agencies raise a 
lot of institutional issues that can raise costs and delays for 
final approval. Would you tell us if anything has changed with 
regard to the interagency coordination since DOE issued the 
report in 2016?
    Ms. Hoffman. Since 2016, I would say that there is a 
greater appreciation of the need for coordination among the 
Federal agencies for transmission permitting in the NEPA 
processes. There has been a permitting dashboard and a Federal 
interagency permitting steering committee that really has taken 
a hard look at some of these NEPA coordination issues. Would I 
say that it's perfect? No. There's a lot of institutional and 
agency authorities that still could use better coordination. 
But it is a work in progress, and it's something that we really 
need to focus on moving forward if we are going to make a 
difference from a permitting point of view.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Well, I appreciate you highlighting that, 
because permitting is--is a key challenge to meeting these 
needs that we are going to have for transmission capabilities. 
And with that, I'll yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The ranking member yields back. The Chair now 
would like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Peters, for 5 minutes for the purpose of questioning the 
witness.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This--this is what I 
wanted to ask about too, is that in your written testimony, Ms. 
Hoffman, you recommend that Congress look for ways to 
accelerate developers' ability to site, permit, allocate costs, 
and build. Can we achieve the administration's 2035 clean 
electricity target without authorizing FERC's backstop siting 
authority, leaving it to States and the way it is now in this 
kind of patchwork way? Doesn't the Federal Government need to 
step in and help that process work?
    Ms. Hoffman. So Congressman, thank you for the question, 
and I think it's a very important question. The--Energy feels 
that we can do a lot with the existing authorities that we 
already have from the loan guarantee programs and the WAPA TIP 
programs to getting transmission built to deploy new 
technologies, to expand the capacity on the existing system. 
The Department also believes that, through an integrated 
transmission planning process, we can advance how we should 
look at and build high-voltage transmission moving forward in a 
collaborative fashion with the States.
    The Department also recognizes there is strong movement 
within the States. As we look at numerous States, I believe 19 
States have net-zero targets as well as there are other States 
out there that actually require utilities to invest in clean 
energy. So I feel there's a lot of movement with the existing 
authorities that can be utilized as coordinated and facilitated 
by the Department and other agencies to move and meet some of 
the objectives.
    Mr. Peters. Do you not think it would be helpful to have 
backstop authority? Because what we have, we have a system now 
that designates these corridors, and nothing has been built.
    Ms. Hoffman. So I think the challenge really comes down to 
when there is disagreement with the States----
    Mr. Peters. Right.
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. In interregional transmission 
projects that have more than one State engaged. So at the end 
of the day, there are a couple options that Congress can 
consider moving forward. It's really looking at the State 
compacts provide value in getting transmission built from a 
collaborative point of view, and can we be successful from a 
bottoms-up approach in building transmission? Some of the State 
technical assistance are opportunities, and really getting some 
of those multistate projects built. And then ultimately it 
would require a decision to say do we need this transmission 
line if there is disagreement among the States.
    And I think the most important thing is having some sort of 
certainty in which some of the--the bills that have been 
proposed will allow for an ultimate decision process and an 
ultimate decision to be made on a transmission project versus, 
I think, the back-and-forth that continues to go on delaying 
the building of interregional projects.
    Mr. Peters. Right. I think, as you have outlined for 
purposes of not just renewable energy but for reliability and 
for cost, there is a national interest in interstate 
transmission. Don't you agree with that?
    Ms. Hoffman. Yes, there--there is a need for interregional 
transmission just to support the seams in the United States. 
You look at the event that has occurred with the polar vortex 
in February, of strengthening those seams that are important 
but also just getting generation from remote areas of the 
country, clean generation to the demand centers. And so that's 
what we really need to think about from that perspective in a 
support--in addition to supporting a strong grid, which really 
means capacity that will allow for reliability during emergency 
events.
    Mr. Peters. Capacity, reliability, security are all things 
that we are concerned about in this committee, and I would also 
say that I am--I agree with many of my colleagues, Republican 
colleagues, that permitting sometimes gets in the way. Here is 
a place where permitting has not established this nationwide 
network that I think we all agree we need. So that is why we 
introduced the POWER ON Act to help DOE achieve those goals. 
We'd ask you to take a look at that and--and we think that, if 
it is in the national interest, we should give States and 
Tribes and localities and interest groups the chance to work 
this out on their own.
    But also, they should know that if they don't, that the 
Federal Government would have the ability to come back in and 
do it. So that's a--I think would be useful in helping you 
achieve your goals and all of us achieving our goals as well.
    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, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and first I want to 
thank the witness for being with us today. It's great to 
actually see a witness before us and not on screen. So it's 
great to have you with us today. Really appreciate that.
    In your testimony, you spoke about enhancing grid 
reliability and resiliency through a robust transmission 
system. You also touched on transmission, how it can help with 
extreme weather events, environmental justice and economic 
development.
    One area that you didn't touch on that I think is really 
important to talk about, and we know how important it is. I 
know I have worked on issues with my good friend from 
California, Mr. McNerney, on these, you know, improving the 
resiliency of the grid when we are talking about cyber attacks. 
And I think it's important that that's one of the points that 
we need to really be looking at. And so the incentives in the 
CLEAN Future Act are geared towards the integration of 
renewable resources of energy over the coming decades.
    But consumers will be immediately impacted through the 
electric grid if it's brought down by cyber criminals. Wouldn't 
you agree that the top priority should be preventing a 
household from being without power during a heat wave or cold 
front due to a cyber attack?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you, Congressman Latta, for the very 
important question. As you know, I have had plenty of 
experience, and I don't usually do a presentation without 
bringing up the cybersecurity issues. So I do believe 
cybersecurity is very important to address as part of building 
infrastructure and building in security measures as we develop 
clean energy or as we deploy new technology that the Department 
has. We recognize that we must build in cybersecurity. We must 
test our supply chain components to ensure that they are 
analyzed for vulnerabilities and mitigations are in place.
    And we know we need to build a comprehensive workforce and 
I would say a new business, you know, enterprise in the United 
States to address cybersecurity issues. So they need to go 
hand-in-hand. As we develop any technology, we must consider 
some of the cybersecurity vulnerabilities, address the 
cybersecurity issues, and have that as part of the 
conversation.
    Mr. Latta. Let me follow up what you just said because you 
said that we are--we need to, you know, build this up in the 
United States and make sure that we are doing what we have to 
do to protect ourselves. Do you have, like, a time frame, 
because I know you--it's--when I have talked at different 
universities and schools in my district, one of the things 
that, you know, they always ask me if you are going to develop 
a new program, would it be--and several years back, I said 
cyber. It's so important that we are there today and to be 
there.
    But when you are looking at--from your seat and, you know--
and building this up across the country and knowing the 
attacks--the millions of attacks that we are experiencing in 
this country, how fast can we get that built up to be able to 
be, you know, on the cyber side, that we can protect ourselves?
    Ms. Hoffman. So I think it is partly--I would say the 
relationship is dependent on how much resources is put--that is 
put towards cybersecurity issues. And I think the balance is 
companies, businesses, universities really need to think about 
how do they want to change and institutionalize a culture of 
cybersecurity as they develop their products, as they do their 
business models. And I think the ransomware attacks of recent 
have really identified the emphasis that our--that is needed 
from a business point of view to really take a hard look at 
cybersecurity, look at their cybersecurity maturity level.
    There are tools out there with respect to the NIST 
cybersecurity framework and standards that are out there in the 
electric sector for building up cybersecurity. So I think it is 
all part of a culture that we need to change in the United 
States.
    Mr. Latta. Well, let me ask this. You know, looking not 
just with--from outside, what can we do here in Congress in 
reviewing, in a bipartisan manner, ways that we can prioritize 
hardening the grid against the cyber attacks? What can we be 
doing right now?
    Ms. Hoffman. So I think some of the efforts that really 
continue to be emphasized around Congress and also just a part 
of the community and industry writ large is building in 
cybersecurity and making sure that, as technology is developed, 
cybersecurity is built in that technology, as well as the 
components and devices are tested for cybersecurity 
vulnerability, that businesses have, what I will say, a quality 
assurance practice in place that they actually test their 
components.
    They collaborate with the agencies such as the Department 
of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy for intelligence 
information. And they look at continuing to build that 
partnership. Those are some of the areas that I think are 
really important.
    The last area I would say is monitoring of systems. To 
really understand your own network, you look at the hundred-day 
plan that was announced by the administration. Really 
emphasizes monitoring of business and networks. And that is 
another important characteristic that would be useful.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back the balance of my time. My time has expired.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired. The chairman 
now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Doyle. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Assistant 
Secretary Hoffman. Welcome and thank you for being with us 
today. You know, as we continue to build a cleaner energy 
system, we need to ensure that all of the new sources of energy 
can be safely and efficiently moved around. Our transmission 
infrastructure, it's rarely mentioned when we talk about the 
future of the energy grid. But it's probably the most critical 
piece.
    That's why we have to invest in upgrading the system and 
ensuring it has the capacity to expand. The growth of 
renewables has only made building transmission infrastructure 
more important, given that they are intermittent and it is 
produced in different regions at different times. I mean, power 
needs to get where it is created to where it is used in the 
most efficient way possible in order to provide low-cost energy 
to consumers.
    So a transmission buildout will enable us to take wind from 
the Plains and geothermal heat from the Southwest and 
hydropower from all across the country to where it's needed. 
And it will not only enable us to make the most efficient use 
of our energy sources but also ensure that customers are 
getting the most low-cost form of energy.
    So I was pleased to see the administration including 
building transmission infrastructure in the American Jobs Plan. 
And I hope we can move on my colleague's bills that will allow 
us to decarbonize the grid more efficiently while providing 
good jobs.
    Now, I know Chairman Rush already touched on how new 
transmission infrastructure helps us get more renewables on the 
grid and how it can give us opportunities for jobs. But another 
significant piece to bringing more renewables onto the grid is 
energy storage. And how do you see energy storage and the 
transmission system working together to maximize the efficiency 
of the grid?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you very much, Congressman. That is 
an extremely important question as we look at the need for 
flexible generation in the United States. Energy storage is a 
key technology that allows for that flexibility. It provides 
different services of support for system operators from 
frequency regulation to ramping services. The need, I think, 
and energy storage technology development is really getting 
more towards that long duration energy storage going from 8-
hour energy storage to 10 hours plus of energy storage.
    And I think that will provide the most flexibility for the 
system moving forward. But energy storage is a key component of 
the portfolio because that allows for that firming of variable 
generation in the United States.
    Mr. Doyle. Yes. Thank you very much for that.
    Well, Mr. Chairman, since Chairman Rush addressed two of 
the other questions I had for the Assistant Secretary, I will 
yield back two minutes and 11 seconds, and we'll--this moving.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair certainly appreciates the kindness and 
generosity of the gentleman from the great State of 
Pennsylvania.
    Now the Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, 
my good friend----
    Voice. He's good.
    Mr. Rush [continuing]. McKinley for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Ms. Hoffman, 
welcome back. It's good to see you in person again. But you 
made a--you--and earlier, you made a statement about the 
environmental justice issue. And I just wanted to touch on that 
just a little bit to see just where DOE is on that, because you 
brought it up. And that was--in their report, they say that 
this council is--is in opposition to carbon capture, direct air 
capture, nuclear power, R&D. They are opposed to road 
improvements, pipeline expansion. Does DOE--do you--do you 
support this report?
    Ms. Hoffman. So Congressman, thank you for the question. I 
will be honest. I don't----
    Mr. McKinley. If you could, just----
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. Know.
    Mr. McKinley [continuing]. A yes or a no because I have got 
other questions. You raised this question----
    Ms. Hoffman. I--I----
    Mr. McKinley [continuing]. So I am just trying to get back 
to it quickly.
    Ms. Hoffman. I don't know the details of all those aspects 
that that report is sponsoring.
    Mr. McKinley. OK. I couldn't hear what your answer was. I 
am sorry. Now let me go further with it. We have already had--
so we are pivoting to a hundred percent renewables, and that's 
a good thing. I don't have a problem with that. But it is also 
going to involve, as you testified, the thousands of miles of 
more transmission line.
    I am just curious about, as we pivot away from fossil fuels 
under this scenario, we have already had people testify for the 
American Action Forum and the IER, the Institute for Energy 
Research. You have already said that electric rates for 
consumers are going to go up 2 to 4 thousand dollars a year. 
And Energy Future Initiative is already saying that it's going 
to cost thousands of jobs in Wyoming, North Dakota, Ohio, West 
Virginia, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and States all across the 
country, that it's going to cost jobs as we--as we do this, and 
switching over.
    And then we have already talked about the global 
CO2 levels, that they are not going to drop below 
where--John Kerry said 350, anything above 350 is a dangerous 
level. So we are not going to drop below that. And we have had 
testimony here that says, even if we go to this hundred percent 
renewables, we are still going to have wildfires, droughts 
and--and--and wildfire and--and flooding. I am troubled with 
this because our objective, all of our objective is to reduce 
the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But to do that, we--
can't we rely on our science, our community to do this? We did 
this back in the '60s when President Kennedy said he wanted to 
put a man on the moon, and within 10 years, we did it.
    And then 2 years ago or a year ago, when President Trump 
developed a vaccine or called for a development of vaccine, it 
happened within 10 months. So we have trusted our scientific 
community. I don't understand why we are exploring--advocating 
through the administration, advocating the abandonment of 
fossil fuels when we see all the consequences that are--job 
losses. The environment is not going to get any better. Our 
rates are going to go up. I don't understand it.
    Why aren't we--why are we dealing with using our science to 
develop carbon capture. It's pretty fundamental with it. If we 
can get to this issue, for those interested in reducing 
greenhouse--and for seeing a zero emission, I am with you on 
that goal. Shouldn't we be advocating for a hundred--hundred 
percent emissions rather than a hundred percent of abandonment 
of fossil fuels across this country, because we know the job 
impacts that's going to have and the rates is going to--the 
impact it's going to have. And it's really not going to clean 
up the global environment.
    Why don't we invest in carbon capture? Why aren't you doing 
more on that?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you, Congressman, for the question. 
As we look to go to a decarbonized society, we are going to 
have to tap all that science can offer with respect to 
development of carbon capture and storage, CCUS as part of the 
portfolio, nuclear energy as well as the deployment of clean 
energy technologies. Doing nothing is not an option as we move 
forward. We really need to think about those technologies.
    Mr. McKinley. I don't think anyone is saying do nothing. 
Why you think we--you are saying do nothing?
    Ms. Hoffman. I just think we need to be more aggressive as 
we think about the technologies moving forward and what we can 
invest in now as well--while we are doing the science and 
investing in capabilities for CCUS and to decarbonize our 
energy generation portfolio.
    Mr. McKinley. Running out of time, so thank you for your--
your testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The chairman now 
recognizes the gentleman from the great State of California, 
Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman. I thank the 
witness for your expert testimony. You have been doing this for 
a long time. The--in your testimony, you discussed existing 
authorities that the DOE currently has to facilitate the 
expansion of the transmission system, such as Section 368 of 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Can you discuss the extent to 
which this program has been utilized in the past and how we can 
help ensure that it is used to help overcome some of the siting 
and permitting challenges that we are seeing for large 
transmission projects?
    Ms. Hoffman. So, yes, thank you. So a lot of the 
coordination with respect to Federal siting does occur under 
216(h) of the Federal Power Act. And what that does is allow 
the Department of Energy and enables the Department of Energy 
to coordinate with other agencies on the permitting of 
transmission projects. In addition, Section 368 allows for the 
development of energy corridors on Federal lands, which also 
will enable some of the, I would say, advancements of 
transmission.
    So the Department of Energy has worked in the past on both 
of these authorities to allow for Federal coordination as well 
as energy corridor development in--in--with these authorities.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Well, in the CLEAN Futures Act as 
well as the American Jobs Plan, new authorities are introduced 
for the Department of Energy to expand the transmission systems 
even further. In particular, the American Jobs Plan announces 
the creation of a grid deployment authority which will help 
support the use of existing rights-of-way and other things. Can 
you discuss how the grid deployment authority could be used to 
support the goals of the CLEAN Futures Act?
    Ms. Hoffman. Yes. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. 
With respect to the grid development authority that was 
proposed under the American Jobs Plan, what it is, is a way to 
really centralize and focus the Department of Energy's 
authorities with respect to financing transmission projects to 
coordination among the Federal agencies to providing technical 
assistance. What that allows us to do is really emphasize and 
pull together all the authorities that the Department has to 
really put a strong emphasis in moving things forward and 
getting projects done.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. In your testimony, you state 
that wildfires pose an increasing threat on the country's 
electric infrastructure and that the Office of Electricity has 
been taking steps to educate utilities and offer capabilities. 
Each year, my district is forced to confront and prepare for 
increasing destructive wildfires. Drought, poor air quality, 
and power outages are now expected to be intensified by climate 
change. Can you elaborate on what capabilities and technical 
solutions are available to deal with this new normal?
    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Congressman. Wildfires is an ever-
growing and more serious issue that the States are 
experiencing, especially with extreme drought conditions that 
the West is experiencing. Utilities are very focused on 
wildfires. The Secretary has been consulting and discussing the 
wildfire concerns with utilities in the ISOs in the regions. 
The Department of Energy in April held a series of workshops 
with utilities highlighting some of the technical capabilities 
that the national labs have to offer. But with respect to 
wildfire, wildfire management, vegetation management is always 
core component.
    But in addition, DOE is looking at technologies such as 
sensors to help identify when faults occur on the system, to 
help clearly identify areas from an asset management point of 
view that can prevent wildfires. They are also--we are also 
looking at artificial intelligence and machine learning to 
better quickly identify wildfires but also conditions, ground 
conditions that would enable wildfires to grow quickly versus 
being able to tackle them and manage them as soon as possible.
    Mr. McNerney. Right. And so advanced--will help in that 
regard as well----
    Ms. Hoffman. Yes. Asset----
    Mr. McNerney [continuing]. In my----
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. Management, advanced components, 
upgrading the infrastructure all would help from that 
perspective as well as managing the loading on transmission 
lines.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, we often hear about the weather 
dependency of renewable energies. How much is this 
intermittency diminished when renewables are distributed over a 
broad geographic area?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you very much for the question. As 
renewables are deployed across a wider geographical area, that 
time variation provides the flexibility with respect to 
managing that variability. So having a diversified geographic 
set of renewables will provide a level of--a level of support 
to the system in managing that variability.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you for your testimony. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. And now the chairman 
recognizes the gentleman from the great State of Illinois, Mr. 
Kinzinger, for 5 minutes.
    The Chair, seeing Mr. Kinzinger has no light on, meaning 
the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Griffith, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
appreciate it. And thank you for being here today. Earlier 
today, apparently just in time for this hearing, Chairman 
Pallone issued the following statement: ``I am deeply disturbed 
and disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision today, which 
sets the dangerous precedent of allowing interstate pipelines 
to take State-owned land without a State's consent.'' New 
sentence: ``States like New Jersey should be able to retain 
their right to do what they wish with the lands they own, and 
no private actor, including pipeline companies, should be able 
to usurp that right. I am determined to work with my colleagues 
to do everything in our power to preserve this important State 
right.''
    Let me reiterate now using my slight modification of his to 
say that he has said that States like New Jersey should be able 
to retain their right to do whatever they wish with the lands 
they own, and no private actor should be able to usurp--usurp 
that right. Does DOE agree with Chairman Pallone on this issue?
    Ms. Hoffman. So, Congressman, thank you very much for the 
question. The siting of pipelines is not under my jurisdiction 
or the Department of Energy's jurisdiction. Siting is generally 
in the responsibility of the States as States look at 
technology--I mean, as infrastructure investments.
    Mr. Griffith. All right. How about the electric 
transmission? No private actor, it says, should be able to have 
this right. Do you agree that--that the no private actor, 
including electric transmission lines, should be able to use 
eminent domain to take the State's property?
    Ms. Hoffman. So, with respect to transmission, transmission 
is--siting is under the jurisdiction of the State and under 
FERC. And so, once again, with respect to building transmission 
in the United States, it is a collaborative process looking at 
the State's needs and the State's capability from a siting 
point of view. The Department of Energy focuses on the 
permitting aspects of transmission and planning. Part of our 
technical assistance would be to support States in evaluating 
transmission in----
    Mr. Griffith. But some of the bills that we are working on 
would change the rules on that. Am I not correct?
    Ms. Hoffman. I would say that under the CLEAN Future Act, 
there is some--there's modifications in the CLEAN Future Act 
that are focused on FERC and FERC's authorities.
    Mr. Griffith. And--and I would have to agree that FERC 
needs some reform. Earlier, if I understood you correctly--and 
correct me if I misunderstood--you indicated that one of the 
ways we might be able to build this huge amount of high-voltage 
electric transmission that we are going to need would be to use 
existing rights-of-way such as highways, existing electric 
lines, and Amtrak. Was I correct in hearing you?
    Ms. Hoffman. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Griffith. OK.
    Ms. Hoffman. That is----
    Mr. Griffith. So----
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. The opportunity.
    Mr. Griffith. So here's the question I would have on that. 
Without some significant reform at FERC, we are not going to be 
able to colocate, because I tried to suggest to them they look 
at two pipelines that were being run through Virginia. And they 
said they didn't have that authority to colocate.
    Now, let me go one step further. And I am not going to ask 
you a question on that. I am just stating. They claim they 
don't have that authority. So we may have to do--give them that 
authority. But then, if you are doing it on, let's say, Amtrak, 
Amtrak doesn't own a very wide easement in most of its lines. 
And in many cases, it runs on private rail lines. Isn't that 
true?
    Ms. Hoffman. So I am not as familiar with the----
    Mr. Griffith. The answer is yes it is.
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. Structure of Amtrak.
    Mr. Griffith. All right.
    Ms. Hoffman. OK.
    Mr. Griffith. So--but for an electric power transmission 
line, particularly a high-voltage one, you would need at least, 
what, 150 to 300 feet? So Amtrak is not going to work. How 
about our interstate highways? Are they going to be 300 feet 
wide in most places? I guess the interstates would work but not 
U.S. Highway corridors or highways because they--the corridor 
is big, but the easement is not. And I would be correct on 
that, would I not?
    Ms. Hoffman. Yes, you would be correct, Congressman.
    Mr. Griffith. So that's not going to work. If we can't take 
State property and we can't locate, so the only thing we have 
got left is locating where there's already a high-voltage 
transmission line on those items we were talking about earlier. 
How do you envision that? Would we have double-decker lines, 
ones that--much higher than the others? How are you going to 
put two high-voltage power lines in the same easement?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you, Congressman. I think this is 
really part of the planning process in discussion with States 
as well as Department of Transportation----
    Mr. Griffith. But right now, you don't know----
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. How to best----
    Mr. Griffith [continuing]. Is the answer. You know don't 
how you are going to work that.
    Ms. Hoffman. It would be a transmission planning process 
that would have to be evaluated and individually with projects.
    Mr. Griffith. So here's my concern. We are talking about 
2030 having 50 percent--or reducing emissions by 2030 by 50 
percent, and 100 percent by 2050. But by the time we get 
through the planning process, we get through all the 
litigation, we comply with all the regulations, one of our 
previous witnesses said it was likely to take more than 30 
years. Can't be done. Let's quit selling the American people a 
false promise.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair Rush and Chair Pallone, for 
your work to add meaningful transmission provisions to the 
CLEAN Future Act. And welcome back, Assistant Secretary 
Hoffman. Been here before, and thank you for always sharing 
your expertise with the committee and subcommittees.
    This is certainly a tough and complicated issue, but it is 
critical we get this right because we will need new 
transmission capacity, particularly interstate and 
interregional projects, to achieve our clean electricity 
targets.
    According to recent studies, we may need about 70 new 
gigawatts of clean electricity added to our energy mix every 
year over the next 15 years, and last year I am informed that 
we deployed less than one half of that. Nearly all of these 
projects will require extensive planning, siting, and 
permitting processes, and at the current rates transmission 
projects to enable this buildout are being developed far too 
slowly.
    The good news is that I believe this work can be 
bipartisan. Addressing barriers to transmission deployment 
played a big role in the Senate's bipartisan infrastructure 
framework and the President's American Jobs Plan.
    So, Assistant Secretary Hoffman, thank you for your 
testimony. Obviously, I come at this issue with an interest in 
deploying new clean electricity resources. But new transmission 
can provide many other benefits. Can you explain how many of 
these projects could actually result in cheaper electricity and 
a more reliable and resilient grid?
    Ms. Hoffman. Yes. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. 
As we build transmission, there is efficiency of building at 
scale and allowing for the access to high-capacity renewable 
resources across the United States. So part of the--the process 
for looking at transmission is really having that high-voltage 
capacity, but that additional capacity to tap that--remote 
renewable resources that can be developed in a cost-effective 
manner.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And when we talk about interregional 
planning, we often think about a project in the Wind Belt 
supplying PJM or California. But I think it's important that we 
don't forget offshore resources. These offshore projects are 
going to feed into New York's ISO, ISO New England, and PJM. 
How should RTOs' transmission planning account for the 
significant expected growth in offshore wind deployment?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you, Congressman. I think it is an 
important dialogue that must be had with the ISOs and the RTOs 
as we think about transmission planning moving forward. They 
generally do a 10-year transmission plan. But the ISOs and RTOs 
really need to think about scenarios moving forward so that 
they can build towards the future and the policies, whether 
it's the State policies and the Federal policies, from a 
transmission planning perspective. And that needs to be part of 
the discussion as well as they look at resilience attributes 
and making sure that we strengthen the transmission system 
moving forward. So they have an important role to play as they 
do, do transmission planning and they do, do some scenario 
analysis.
    Mr. Tonko. And what role can DOE play in helping States 
better coordinate and cooperate around this massive opportunity 
for offshore wind?
    Ms. Hoffman. So States have a very important role. The 
States along the East Coast really need to be part of the 
dialogue as we think about the transmission plan for building 
30 gigawatts of offshore wind. As we look at that, we want to 
think about a coordinated approach for radial feeders and where 
they are connected to the transmission system on the mainland. 
And so that is an important dialogue of the conversation 
because system upgrades are going to be required, and all that 
investment really needs to be collaborated with--with the 
States and the affected communities.
    Mr. Tonko. And DOE you see in the middle of all of that?
    Ms. Hoffman. DOE can provide the facilitation as well as 
technical assistance for some of the analysis and support for 
the--the transparent and open discussions on how to build the 
infrastructure.
    Mr. Tonko. And finally, can you provide any examples of 
work done by the Office of Electricity's transmission planning 
and technical assistance program? And can this work play a role 
in the proposed grid deployment authority?
    Ms. Hoffman. So absolutely, and thank you for the question 
and being able to tout some of our work. Under the Recovery 
Act, we did sponsor transmission planning activities with the 
regions to look at different scenarios, which I believe was the 
start of the dialogue as well as some of the FERC orders that 
came out to say that we need to have a transmission planning 
process in the United States, evaluate what transmission 
requirements are needed.
    But in addition, the Office of Electricity and our 
organization has really sponsored the development of several 
tools that can be used by transmission developers. We have the 
rapid toolkit, which was done as part of an interagency 
process, that's a Wiki that really allows developers to look at 
all the regulatory authorities and requirements on a State 
basis and a Federal basis for building transmission projects. 
But we also have an energy zone mapping tool that also allows 
for project developers to take a look at the mapping but really 
figure out where the sensitive lands are and the opportunities 
for transmission development and alternative routes.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you again for sharing your 
expertise. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The chairman now 
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Assistant 
Secretary Hoffman. Thanks for joining us today. Today we are 
holding, at least by my count, the seventh hearing in this 
Congress on yet another portion of the CLEAN Future Act. It's 
important to remember that just because we hold these separate 
hearings, this is all part of the same massive 900-plus-page 
radical legislation. If enacted, it'll totally transform our 
society in a negative way, hitting the American economy and our 
constituents' pocketbooks all at once. This utopian vision 
mandated by the CLEAN Future Act, a vision of a fully 
electrified economy with its thousands of miles of new high-
voltage transmission and all renewable power generation within 
15 or even 30 years at some point is inevitably going to crash 
into reality. By the best estimates, wind and solar electricity 
generation need at least 300 to 400 times the amount of land 
as, say, a natural gas or a coal-fired power plant. Adding to 
the problem is that the areas with the most wind and sunlight 
by and large are not even close to the population centers in 
our country.
    My Democratic colleagues will say today that all we have to 
do is make a few policy changes here, throw a few hundred 
billion dollars there, and this problem is fixed. Now, I know 
this sounds funny, but it reminds me of that scene in the '80s 
movie ``Back to School'' where Rodney Dangerfield's college 
professor asks his student where they should build his 
theoretical business. The professor clearly had never worked a 
day in his life and failed to take into account some very real, 
serious practical realities. Dangerfield's character, already a 
successful businessman, shouts out, ``How about Fantasyland?'' 
to the professor, bringing laughter, obviously, from the 
students.
    The supporters of this bill need to be honest with the 
American people. This rush to green, if it becomes a reality, 
will lead to increased blackouts, skyrocketing electricity 
costs, and out-of-control inflation.
    So Assistant Secretary Hoffman, would you agree that, in 
general, when someone makes an investment, they do so with the 
hope that they get a tangible return on that investment? Is 
that generally your understanding of what an investment does?
    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Congressman. Yes. Investment----
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Great. In your testimony, you mentioned 
several times the, quote, investments that you see needing to 
be made in transmission, a vast buildout of 2 to 3 times our 
current transmission capacity. Someone is obviously going to 
have to pay for this investment. So whether the American people 
are stuck picking up this tab via higher taxes or rate 
increases on their utility bills, can you honestly say that 
they'll be receiving a return on their investment?
    Ms. Hoffman. As you look at the cost-benefit for the health 
and safety of communities----
    Mr. Johnson. No. What is the----
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. Reliability----
    Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Return on investment? What is the 
return on investment? They are making a monetary investment 
with their taxes or their rate increases. What is the return on 
their investment?
    Ms. Hoffman. So the return on the investment is access to 
clean energy. It is access to----
    Mr. Johnson. No. That's not a return----
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. Available----
    Mr. Johnson [continuing]. On investment. A return on 
investment is a monetary thing. That's why you make an 
investment. Let me ask it another way. If the Biden--which you 
touted in your testimony, the carbon-free power sector by 2035 
are realized, in your opinion, will the American people's 
utility bills go down?
    Ms. Hoffman. So with respect to utilization of----
    Mr. Johnson. That's a--that's a----
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. High-voltage----
    Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Yes or a no question. If these 
goals are realized, will those utility bills go down?
    Ms. Hoffman. If we can access clean energy that is cost-
effective in the remote areas of the country, accessing the----
    Mr. Johnson. No. Will the----
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. Low-cost----
    Mr. Johnson. Will the----
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. Energy----
    Mr. Johnson. Will the utility bill--Assistant----
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. Components----
    Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Secretary, you are not answering 
the question. Will the utility bills go down if these goals are 
realized? Yes or no?
    Ms. Hoffman. It varies across----
    Mr. Johnson. You don't know. You don't know. That's what I 
thought. And can you guarantee that their electricity will 
remain reliable, not only for essential household functions but 
for businesses, job creators who need large amounts of reliable 
electricity for manufacturing and other commercial uses? So 
will reliability still be what it is today where we have coal, 
nuclear, and gas providing our baseload?
    Ms. Hoffman. Having a strong transmission system will 
increase the reliability----
    Mr. Johnson. That goes back to----
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. Of the United States.
    Mr. Johnson. [continuing]. The investment part, right, that 
we don't know if we are going to get a rate of return on.
    Thank you, Madam Secretary. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Chairman Rush. I appreciate you 
holding this hearing. And I want to thank the witness for her 
answers. We know we need to make an investment in this 
infrastructure, not only to meet our energy needs but to meet 
our climate goals and make sure that we are creating good-
paying jobs along the way, because people need to eat. People 
need to take care of their families. In Texas, we have set the 
standard for smart transmission planning to facilitate the 
deployment of clean energy.
    In 2005, I was on the State legislature, and we passed 
SB20, which established the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones 
or the CREZ. CREZ helped to create the High Plains with 
plentiful wind resources to the population centers of Dallas-
Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin. And according to 
Americans for a Clean Energy Grid, CREZ enabled an additional 
18 gigawatts of wind energy generation capacity to Texas' power 
system while overcoming technical issues such as curtailment 
and transmission congestion.
    I am glad that the CLEAN Future Act contains provisions 
designed to take these successes and apply them elsewhere. Can 
you talk about why it's important--why it's so important, 
regulators and transmission companies work together to identify 
and designate transmission corridors?
    Ms. Hoffman. Yes. It is very important for that 
collaboration and designating corridors to really think about 
where transmission is best placed in accessing the clean energy 
resources in the United States. So, as we look at transmission 
corridors, we really want to look at a partnership with the 
States. I think the approach that Texas took with the CREZ 
program is a--is a very important example of how we can merge 
infrastructure investment with policy objectives by the States 
to really collaborate in developing cost-effective solutions 
for building transmission, as well as your colleague in New 
York has done some similar processes in New York with respect 
to how do we collaborate in looking at energy corridors but 
looking at the siting and placement of transmission in the 
United States.
    Mr. Veasey. Yes, yes. No, and that's important too as we--
you know, particularly when you look at Texas, I think there 
were about 23 percent renewable energy on our grid. Obviously, 
the legislature failed to take any substantive action to fix 
some of the issues that we had with the grid that caused--that 
caused the power outage and the black--and the blackouts that 
we had during the winter storm. But, you know, being able to 
implement things like that will make it more--we can continue 
to grow that number too, as well. So I appreciate your answers, 
and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman for his kindness. 
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 
Bucshon, for 5 minutes.
    Voice. Mr. Chairman, I think it should be Mr. Palmer at the 
moment from Alabama.
    Mr. Rush. All right. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman 
from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Hoffman----
    Mr. Rush. What happened--Bucshon?
    Mr. Palmer. The national renewable energy laboratory 
estimated that if the U.S. were to attempt to derive 90 percent 
of its electricity from renewable sources, it would have to 
roughly double its high-voltage transmission capacity. That's 
what this hearing is about, isn't it?
    Ms. Hoffman. Yes.
    Mr. Palmer. We currently have 240,000 miles of high-voltage 
transmission lines. A doubling of that would mean that--that we 
would--would require adding enough high-voltage transmission to 
circle the Earth about 10 times. That--that's a lot of wire, 
right?
    Ms. Hoffman. Your numbers are a lot of wire. But I think, 
Congressman, part of it, it would be increasing the voltage on 
the transmission system to adding capacity to the transmission 
system.
    Mr. Palmer. But the point is, is that we are going to have 
to build new transmission lines and--and what I want to ask you 
about is, first of all, we--I think my Democrat colleagues and 
I have some agreement on this, that we are going to need to 
expedite permitting. We are going to have to evaluate some of 
the regulatory impediments to getting this done. This would 
necessarily require that we do things that we ordinarily 
wouldn't do, for instance, building infrastructure for high-
voltage transmission across sensitive areas that are habitat-
sensitive, that are wetlands, things like that. And we would 
have to do it in an expedited fashion if we to--to achieve the 
goals, for instance, that John Kerry and--and Alexandria Ocasio 
Cortez have said that we have got--what now, 9 years left. 
Under current permitting and regulatory regime, we couldn't 
even get the paperwork done in that time. So it would 
necessitate a much-expedited permitting process, would it not?
    Ms. Hoffman. So, Congressman, thank you for the question. 
What I really believe is really it takes--is a more coordinated 
process among the Federal agency and the State agencies with 
respect to transmission planning and State actions from a 
siting point of view.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, thank you for making that point that it 
will take a collaborative effort between the Federal Government 
and the States, because I--I have been looking at some of the 
recommendations from DOE and others that have a vested interest 
in--in a renewable power grid, that they basically are willing 
to usurp the rights of the States in regard to the States' 
ability and their--to control what gets built in their States. 
And I appreciate Mr. Griffin bringing this up, quoting Chairman 
Pallone, and they are--and his strong stand, defending the 
right of New Jersey to protect that.
    What I am concerned about at this point, and I--I want to 
ask you about this, is wouldn't it require a very aggressive 
use of eminent domain to make this possible? And what I want to 
point out to you is that there--the effort to build these 
transmission lines for renewable power generation and 
transmission, in 2017, Iowa enacted a law prohibiting the use 
of eminent domain for high-voltage transmission lines. In 2018, 
the Clean Line Energy Partners announced it was suspending its 
years-long effort to build a 720-mile, 2.5 billion transmission 
line across the State of Arkansas. And every member of the 
congressional delegation from Arkansas opposed that deal.
    In 2018, the New Hampshire regulators rejected a high-
voltage electricity transmission project called the Northern 
Pass Transmission that was to carry power from Quebec, 
hydroelectric facilities to consumers in Massachusetts. There 
was a 2.3 billion, 780-mile Grain Belt Express, has been 
delayed for years because of opposition from Missouri farmers.
    In 2019, environmental groups and local governments sued 
the Wisconsin Public Utility Commission to block construction 
of a $492 million, 100-mile high-voltage transmission project 
called Cardinal-Hickory Creek that was designed to move wind 
energy to urban areas. And we could go on.
    The only way that the Federal Government, the Biden 
administration and my Democrat colleagues will be able to 
achieve this dream of a Green New Deal is to be very aggressive 
in the use of eminent domain that will deny the States the 
right to determine what's built in their States and take 
property from private landowners.
    I thank the chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Washington State, Ms. Schrier, 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Ms. Hoffman, 
after Mr. Johnson's question about return on investment, I'd 
just like to give you an opportunity to explain why investment 
in clean energy can't be judged simply by an energy bill and 
has to be taken in the context of the cost of climate disasters 
and also that cost can decrease markedly when you have good 
transmission systems. So I just wanted to--feel free, please, 
to--to finish your thoughts on why energy bills are nuanced 
issues and can't be answered with a simple yes or no.
    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that opportunity 
to provide more details. As we look at all the costs and 
benefits, and the benefits to consumers and nations, we really 
want to think of the health of consumers in the United States 
to be able to have that clean environment and access to healthy 
communities as well as economic development from manufacturing 
and jobs that can be created as we have low-cost electricity, 
affordable electricity in communities and States. And so I 
really wanted to emphasize that it's just not simple, the price 
you pay for electricity.
    But there is a larger set of benefits for consideration as 
we build this infrastructure from a security and resilience 
side of things. And looking at the resilience of our Nation, 
there's additional benefits there from building infrastructure, 
so thank you.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you. I wanted to give you that 
opportunity. Now, as you know, the Pacific Northwest is 
currently experiencing abnormally high, record, unprecedented 
temperatures. On Monday, Seattle broke a record for the highest 
temperature ever recorded, at 107 degrees. In my neighborhood, 
it was 109. In Wenatchee, 111. And over the weekend, an 
investor-owned utility in my district had about 7 times the 
volume of outages as they normally would have in June, with 
temperatures being 30 or 40 degrees higher than normal. And the 
primary causes were things like vegetation, tree limbs, but 
also heat-related equipment failure. And traditionally, 
Washington sends power to California in the summer so they can 
run their air conditioning, and they send us power in the 
winter for heat. But now we are seeing this new need to maybe 
serve peak demand during the summertime because of these 
extreme temperatures that may become a new normal.
    So I was wondering. Your testimony identifies numerous ways 
in which the Department of Energy oversees the deployment of 
transmission, including through the Federal Power Marketing 
Administrations. Can you talk about the administration's recent 
and current efforts to use the Western Power Administration to 
build additional transmission to support the Pacific Northwest?
    Ms. Hoffman. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that 
question. And the Western Power Administration has a 
transmission infrastructure investment program, which is a 
congressionally authorized program that allows borrowing 
authority for building transmission infrastructure in the 
Western region of the United States.
    It's about a $3.25 billion program for infrastructure 
investments. They can look at transmission infrastructure as 
well as other--other infrastructure such as energy storage. 
They have built and participated in two projects under this 
program. And the Secretary announced that this program is open 
for business in addition to the Loan Programs Office borrowing 
authority for building infrastructure.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, and thanks for mentioning storage, 
because I know that our Pacific Northwest National Labs are 
doing remarkable research into storage. Now, I have another 
question, which is: Do you have any comments to make about 
mitigating new risks? For example, now we have forest fires, as 
mentioned, in the entire West. And so I am wondering about any 
research in, for example, the development of underground 
transmission distribution lines, whether that's a pipe dream or 
something that could really happen or would be useful, and what 
other Department of Energy plans there are to--to mitigate the 
risk that wildfire and extreme weather poses to our 
transmission system.
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. 
Undergrounding is a great opportunity for high-voltage dc 
transmission. As Congressman Griffin brought up about the 
rights-of-way issues, undergrounding dc lines is a really good 
way to utilize narrow rights-of-way for transmission 
investments. So--but it is generally applied to long-distance 
lines. And the high-voltage capacity lines that--and so that is 
really where the opportunity is for undergrounding. And it does 
provide great advantages in pairing with renewable technologies 
that is mostly from a dc capacity point of view.
    AC technologies are--are more, I would say--if you wanted 
the underground ac technologies, you really do that in city and 
dense areas. So there is a difference between high-voltage dc 
capacity that we want to build in the United States. So with 
respect to accessing offshore wind or remote resources, high-
voltage dc is the preferred technology.
    And it does enable that ability to do undergrounding. Now, 
that being said, I will say it's more expensive. It is more 
expensive to underground. And you also have to be very 
cognizant of the ground conditions. Rocky environments versus 
farmlands are very, very different characteristics for 
undergrounding. And so that is why I say planning and 
transmission planning is we are thinking about what 
transmission infrastructure we want to build really has that 
key component to evaluating the cost that it's going to require 
to get that transmission.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you. I am over time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady's time has expired. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Love to have you back 
in the committee room sometime soon. Assistant Secretary 
Hoffman, thank you for being here today. I understand there is 
a provision in the CLEAN Future Act, Section 220(c), which 
requires all public utilities to place transmission facilities 
under the control of an independent system operator or regional 
transmission organization within 2 years of the enactment of 
the act.
    Now, I represent South Carolina, which currently does not 
participate in an RTO or an ISO market. Last year, the State 
legislature directed the State to study electricity market 
reforms, including the possibility of joining an RTO, ISO, or 
other options. Generally, I do think this sort of issue should 
be handled at the State level through the State legislatures 
and utility commissions.
    States know their residents. They know their energy market 
priorities and the stakeholders best. South Carolina has taken 
a data-driven approach to determine what market structure is 
best for the State, and I do not believe that it should be 
short-circuited by bureaucrats here in Washington, which is 
exactly what the CLEAN Future Act will do. So why not let South 
Carolina decide for themselves whether it's in their best 
interest for its energy consumers to join an RTO or ISO?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank--thank you, Congressman, for the 
question. RTO decisions is--are--are under the jurisdiction of 
FERC and not the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy 
collaborates with the States in evaluating participation in the 
RTOs. I know that the southeastern States is looking at 
different market enhancements for the southern States as they 
look at Southeast. I think it's market exchange program, 
looking at bilateral exchanges in 15 minutes. I think it comes 
down to a discussion with FERC and the future of RTOs.
    Mr. Duncan. I just can't help but notice that nuclear 
reactors going off-line within RTOs, and we have heard some of 
my colleagues today represent these areas. Our priority should 
be pursuing market structures that keep these energy sources 
affordable and reliable for consumers, maintaining a market 
conducive to keeping and bringing reactors online important.
    In fact, there's a whole list of States that have reactors 
that have been taken off-line. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit 
this for the record.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Duncan. In my district, Duke Energy has filed an 
application with NRC to renew the Oconee Nuclear Station's 
operating licenses for an additional 20 years. It's the largest 
nuclear station. Three generating units produce more than 2500 
megawatts of carbon-free electricity. These would get carbon-
free electricity as well, but they are now not off-line. I will 
commend the Connecticut Governor for seeing that if you want to 
be more carbon-neutral, you keep the reactors online.
    But given what's going on in other regions, do you think 
the CLEAN Future Act's RTO and ISO requirement may undercut 
South Carolina's clean energy future with regard to nuclear 
reactors, any other things, both from a jobs or energy 
perspective?
    Ms. Hoffman. So Congressman, thank you for the question. 
Nuclear energy is an important part of the clean energy 
portfolio from a generation resource future. The administration 
is supportive of nuclear energy as part of the portfolio. I 
know the Department of Energy is working on advanced nuclear 
designs and nuclear technologies moving forward. And so 
hopefully that will continue to develop new nuclear assets in 
the United States but also continue to strengthen our--our 
nuclear fleet.
    Mr. Duncan. Yes. We can agree on that. In your testimony, 
you mention that in order to meet the goal of 100 percent clean 
energy by 2035, given a greater amount of electricity 
generation from our renewable sources will be needed. Don't 
mention any of the role of nuclear in those comments. So do 
you--I guess you agree that nuclear energy--because what you 
just said is a part of that. Do you agree it's critical for 
both the reliability and resiliency?
    Ms. Hoffman. Nuclear energy is a critical part of our 
portfolio with respect to decarbonization. And it is an asset 
that is--can be utilized moving forward. I hope with new 
technologies that asset can be a little bit more flexible in 
providing flexible generation----
    Mr. Duncan. When you mentioned new----
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. For the system.
    Mr. Duncan [continuing]. New reactor technology and 
whatnot, what are you talking about?
    Ms. Hoffman. So I am not the--the expert with the nuclear 
program. I'd be more than welcome to get our nuclear office to 
come in and have a collaborative discussion.
    Mr. Duncan. I'd love for you to do that. I'd love to see 
what this administration--I know what I think the future should 
look like. I know what other experts have told me. I'd love to 
hear what the administration thinks about what that future 
looks like.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair would like 
to say to the gentleman that this is a hybrid hearing of over 
nine--100--it's a hybrid hearing for a reason. We are not 
certain if all the Republicans have been vaccinated. The 
chairman also would like to remind the gentleman what Scripture 
says. You should not criticize or look at the splinter in your 
neighbor's eye when you have--might have a plank in your own 
eye. So the gentleman should be wary of trying to--to cast 
aspersion on the Chair.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. 
DeGette, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Ms. 
Hoffman. It's always good to have your deep knowledge of the 
subject in front of this committee. As we are--and--and I have 
some--some sort of deep questions here. As we move towards more 
renewable energy and hopefully under clean energy standard, 
accounting for energy lost during transmission is going to be 
critical in ensuring that, when we say we are getting 100 
percent clean energy, we are really getting 100 percent clean 
energy.
    And if we don't account for energy loss, that may 
inadvertently create a loophole through which technical 
compliance with a hundred percent clean energy standard could 
still allow carbon emissions because of energy lost. And so I 
am wondering if you can tell me, does DOE have a good idea of 
how much energy is lost in electrical transmission?
    Ms. Hoffman. So in general, I would say that electric 
transmission, there is about a 2 percent energy loss. 
Distribution systems are higher. Generally, the higher the 
voltage, the less loss on a transmission line.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. Does it vary between different types of 
transmission lines, different parts of the country, different 
seasons and so on?
    Ms. Hoffman. So yes, Congresswoman. Thank you for the 
question. It will vary depending on the type of material that's 
used in the transmission line, how long the transmission line 
is, and the other factors that you have brought up, not 
repeating them all. And so there is a variability in the losses 
from that.
    Ms. DeGette. Now, if DOE were asked to account for the 
energy lost along the different transmission lines given those 
variables, would the Department be able to do so?
    Ms. Hoffman. So the Department would be able to verify 
transmission losses in a controlled environment with our 
national laboratories. I would say that the utilities 
themselves could provide a very performance-based analysis with 
respect to the losses on their system. And so, as we look at 
performance-based with utilities, that they should be able to 
provide representation of that. In addition, I am wondering if 
EIA probably also has some information in this space that could 
be useful.
    Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Now, in your testimony, you 
mentioned that your office has been making efforts to reduce 
energy loss transmission. Can you talk a little bit more about 
that work?
    Ms. Hoffman. Yes. With the Department of Energy, what we 
really want to be able to do is maximize the capacity and 
utilization of our transmission system. So a lot of the 
technologies that we would look at really focus on a couple 
different areas. First is utilizing the maximum capacity of the 
line, which would be dynamic line ratings for the ability to 
really utilize those lines. Other technologies really comes 
along the lines of advanced conductors to be able to increase 
the efficiency of a transmission line. And so that's focused on 
composite conductors.
    There are various technologies out there such as carbon-
reinforced conductors that allow for additional throughput on 
transmission lines as a result of that technology.
    Ms. DeGette. OK.
    Ms. Hoffman. In addition, there's other sensors and 
capacity and materials for advancing transformers and 
efficiency of transformers. So we have a portfolio of programs, 
and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss those.
    Ms. DeGette. I appreciate it too. We have had a robust 
discussion of the siting of transmission lines today in this 
committee. And one of the things that I think is important 
which you mentioned is the siting of--of lines across public 
lands, which is an issue we have a lot of in my State of 
Colorado, and it's a really important issue. You said that the 
Federal Power Act provides DOE the authority to coordinate 
Federal authorization decisions on transmission, including 
setting deadlines for decision making. So I am wondering how 
that's worked.
    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question, 
and I guess this will date me a little bit in my experience and 
tenure in the Department of Energy. But back in 2009, DOE had 
done an MOU with our interagency partners. And that is called 
the lead agency designation as part of 216(h) in the Federal 
Power Act, and what this allowed was for us to develop and 
designate a lead agency. And being a designated lead agency, 
that agency would establish milestones for projects.
    Ms. DeGette. Right. So I only have 13 seconds left. So let 
me ask you: Those milestones and deadlines that have been set, 
have they actually been met?
    Ms. Hoffman. So I would ask you to--it's been mixed. I 
would ask you to go to the Federal Infrastructure Permitting 
Steering Committee. There is a dashboard with several project 
examples that highlight which milestones have been met. So it's 
been a mixed success and I think a----
    Ms. DeGette. So you----
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. Work in progress.
    Ms. DeGette. OK. Mixed success. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from the great State of Arizona, Ms. 
Lesko, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
Assistant Secretary Hoffman, for being here. Assistant 
Secretary Hoffman, do you--what role do you think natural gas 
plays in the future of our electricity in our Nation?
    Ms. Hoffman. So natural gas is currently playing a role of 
providing flexibility and balancing variable resources and 
looking at providing support for the system, similar to 
hydropower assets. It is providing that flexibility and support 
for the system.
    Mrs. Lesko. And I have a concern that in the CLEAN Future 
Act, it says that basically we need to eliminate natural gas by 
2035 for electricity generation. My concern is that that's 
going to--is a fast time period. Many think that it's--it's not 
achievable in that short of a time period. Do you think--my 
concern is that that will increase prices to my constituents' 
utility costs and also decrease reliability of the grid. Do you 
share my concern?
    Ms. Hoffman. So with respect to natural gas, the 
opportunity exists for decarbonization with CCUS, carbon 
storage and capture. And as the Department looks at alternative 
clean fuels, that is going to be the transition to a cleaner 
fuel infrastructure. And so I think the balance is going to be 
during that transition, the science and technology development 
that's going to have to occur for us to achieve those goals. I 
am not a natural gas expert, so I would be more than welcome to 
have the staff and the Department collaborate with you on some 
of these discussions moving forward.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. You had brought up earlier in your 
testimony about Biden's 30 by 30 plan. I think you said that it 
would require 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030. Is that 
correct? And I--I looked up, and it said the average wind 
turbine has a capacity of 2.55 megawatts. And so, if I did my 
math right, that means it would require 11,765 offshore wind 
turbines to generate this amount of electricity.
    In a previous E&C Committee hearing, we heard from former 
Secretary of Energy Moniz. And, if my memory serves me 
correctly, he said that each offshore wind turbine takes 1 ton 
of critical materials, minerals, to build. And that, you know, 
would be--require tons of excavating, processing, that type of 
thing.
    Considering that America now relies on foreign countries, 
sometimes adversary foreign countries like China, for our 
critical minerals, I think a hundred percent of 17 critical 
minerals, where do you propose that we get all of these 
critical minerals to build 11,765 offshore wind turbines?
    Ms. Hoffman. So I understand that the Department of Energy 
and the Office of Energy Efficiency, renewable energy, there is 
an emphasis in looking at advanced materials and critical 
materials as well as alternatives for replacing critical 
materials or looking for material alternatives. So I think it's 
important as we move forward to address these challenges, 
recognizing they are challenges and--but still continue to move 
forward on what technology can do and what we can do in this 
space. So I recognize and I thank you for the question. These 
are very important issues that must be part of the dialogue and 
the conversation.
    Mrs. Lesko. And thank you. And the reason that I bring 
these up is I think there's--I have a general concern, and many 
of us do, that the timeline for switching to purely solar and 
wind is just totally unreasonable and will increase the cost to 
my constituents' utility--I have a lot of senior citizens on 
fixed incomes in my congressional district, and they complain 
if their utility bill goes up by $5, let alone, you know, this 
14 years. We are going to get rid of a reliable baseload energy 
and somehow think that we are going to replace it so soon in 
such a fast timeline.
    And the technology isn't there right now to do that. In 
fact, last night, I talked to another former Secretary of 
Energy, and he thinks it's going to take 20, 25 years to have 
the right energy storage batteries that are needed to do this. 
And so that's--that's my concern. I am concerned about my 
constituents, the cost of electricity, and the reliability of 
the energy grid. I sure as heck do not want Arizona----
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady's time has----
    Mrs.  Lesko [continuing]. To have rolling blackouts----
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady's----
    Mrs. Lesko [continuing]. Like here----
    Mr. Rush [continuing]. Time----
    Mrs. Lesko [continuing]. California does.
    Mr. Rush [continuing]. Has expired.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. And I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes esteemed jurist from the great State of North 
Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let 
me say good afternoon to you and to all of our colleagues. And 
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership. Thank you for 
convening this very important hearing today.
    And on the subject of hybrid hearings, let me just say for 
the record that I share my colleague's desire for us to come 
back together and reunite in the committee room. But my 
friends, we are not there yet. And I--I share the chairman's 
view that when we are convinced that all Members, not just--not 
just Republicans, but when all Members and staff have been 
vaccinated, then we can return to in-person hearings, and I 
look forward for that to happen. I have great respect for the 
wellness of my colleagues. And I only ask that this attitude 
would be reciprocal.
    And thank you, Ms. Hoffman, for your testimony. Thank you 
for your many years of service. I am from the great State of 
North Carolina. We have affordable retail electric rates in our 
State below the national average, which is very beneficial for 
low-income and rural residents who reside in my district. And 
so we must ensure that electricity consumers like those not 
only in my district but--but many of your districts will 
continue to have access to affordable rates when upgrades are 
made to our transmission infrastructure. That's a great fear 
that I have.
    Although larger transmission projects are sometimes 
necessary, could we ensure--and this is my question: How could 
we ensure that transmission providers also invest in the types 
of less expensive nonwire alternatives that can keep rates low?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you, Congressman, for the question. 
And it's very important as we think about transmission planning 
that we also consider nontransmission alternatives. Energy 
storage, distributed energy resources, energy efficiency are 
all nontransmission alternatives that can provide a 
contribution as we move forward in meeting the President's 
clean energy goals.
    And so these are important aspects that every State must 
consider. Transmission planners will consider moving forward of 
the consumer engagement in this part of the conversation and 
say, ``Look at their demand management,'' and say, ``Look at 
their consumption.'' And so I think these are critical 
dialogues that the States and the utility industry can--moving 
forward, it's important to discuss nontransmission 
alternatives.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you for that. Electric utilities in 
my district--and many of them are owned by municipalities, and 
some are owned by electric co-ops--but they are all dependent 
on the lines that other transmission providers operate to 
deliver electricity to their consumers. And so my question to 
you now is whether through the bills we are discussing today 
or--or other things that we can do, how can we ensure that the 
services of existing electric utilities like those in my 
district remain robust when significant investments are made 
into our transmission infrastructure.
    Ms. Hoffman. So, Congressman, thank you for the question. 
You bring up a very important issue that we need to invest not 
only in the transmission system but have strong distribution 
utilities, whether it be investor, municipal, or cooperative 
utilities, because a lot of that interface is really at the 
distribution level to the consumers. And so reliability is more 
significant at the distribution system where a lot of the 
outages occur, is on the transmission or is on the distribution 
system.
    So technology investments, investment in the distribution 
system, is really important as we move forward. A lot of things 
the Department has been looking at are things such as 
microgrids for--or for building resilience, looking at sensing 
and tools for asset management in strengthening the 
distribution utilities. So all these are very important, and we 
have to take a holistic picture of an electricity delivery 
system that includes both the transmission and the distribution 
system.
    Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Ms. Hoffman. Mr. 
Chairman, I have 45 seconds remaining. I will compensate for 
Ms. Lesko's overrun, and we will cancel out each other and I 
will yield back. Yes. I am yielding back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair appreciates 
the gentleman's generosity. And now the Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from the great State of Indiana, Mr. Bucshon, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is no doubt 
that updating and modernizing our transmission infrastructure 
is vital to ensuring energy reliability. In fact, ensuring 
energy reliability should be the primary focus as we move to 
address these problems legislatively. Unfortunately, that's not 
the case. This is now the seventh legislative hearing the 
committee has held to review the CLEAN Future Act, and I wonder 
what progress has been made.
    We have seen no changes to the bill text or even any 
consideration that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
are open to making changes. Now, I understand that this bill, 
which is 981 pages and valued at over 500 billion in spending, 
may require additional time to review because of its length. 
But again, I question how this action is helping the 
hardworking Americans that sent us here to represent them. So I 
urge this committee to get back to--to working together.
    With respect to the legislation before us, I have heard 
specific concerns about overriding State and local energy 
policies, creating new problems by expanding FERC's 
transmission jurisdiction, passing the increase in energy 
prices off to the customers, failing to--and failing to address 
the permitting process and timelines, and not to mention any 
others.
    So who is it that usually stops infrastructure projects 
anyway when we try to do them even when funded? Well, honestly, 
it is mostly the Democrats and their supporters, trial lawyers, 
environmental activists. But my Democrat colleagues plan to now 
support the use of eminent domain, for example, to build EV 
charging stations and powerlines that supply them, ignore 
environmental standards if the line has to go across a river or 
a stream.
    My colleagues plan to force Federal agencies like FERC and 
other really Democrat-dominated Federal agencies at the career 
level to look the other way, because if you don't, the 
proposals in the CLEAN Futures Act can't happen no matter how 
much money you throw at it. It's just not a practical timeline 
for the things that are being proposed.
    So, Ms. Hoffman, infrastructure buildout takes years to 
accomplish, and that is assuming there are no delays in the 
process, which, for the reasons I just stated--trial lawyers, 
environmental activists--there will be decades of delays. We 
have seen this. I am not making this up. This happened in 
Indiana with Interstate 69 that we built from Evansville to 
Indianapolis. They started talking about it in 1969. And it is 
still not completed, and it will be completed maybe in a couple 
of years. What stopped it? Eminent domain, trial lawyers, 
environmental activists, and others.
    If these projects were cost-effective or economic, maybe it 
would be a different story, but they are not. But how do you 
expect a government works project that will be sure to displace 
real private investment keep that kind of schedule? I mean, how 
can you keep the kind of schedule you are proposing?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you, Congressman, for the question. 
The Department stands ready to try and utilize every authority 
it has available----
    Mr. Bucshon. So you are going to support use of eminent 
domain to take over private land to develop your projects?
    Ms. Hoffman. So the--the Department of Energy is going to 
look at its authorities with respect to, can it with technical 
assistance to the States with collaboration and transmission 
planning to best figure out where transmission can be 
developed.
    Mr. Bucshon. So most transmission lines now aren't in the 
air. As you probably know, they are in the ground, right?
    Ms. Hoffman. Yes. High-voltage----
    Mr. Bucshon. That's just the way it is----
    Ms. Hoffman. High-voltage----
    Mr. Bucshon [continuing]. For a variety of reasons. So you 
are going to--will you guys support the fact that, when you try 
to get transmission lines across the Ohio River in southern 
Indiana and Kentucky, will you support burying those underneath 
the Ohio River and coming across to do that? The power lines 
that are going to take to supply charging stations are not, you 
know, the electric cord you buy down at Home Depot, right? They 
are not 110 power outlets. These--unless you want to spend 40 
hours charging your car.
    Ms. Hoffman. So the high-voltage dc transmission lines are 
mostly underground. And they are part of the infrastructure.
    Mr. Bucshon. And so are oil pipelines that have been shown 
to be the safest way to transmit oil, right? But that doesn't 
stop you all and the environmentalists from stopping those from 
happening, well, at least in the United States. I mean, you can 
build a pipeline from Russia to Germany, but you can't build 
one from Canada to the U.S. So this will be the same thing. So 
what you are saying is you don't think that there will be--you 
don't think that your timeline is a problem?
    Ms. Hoffman. Congressman, I think it's important for us to 
push our timeline to push the capacity and the capability with 
respect to the resources that the Department of Energy has to 
offer with assistance, coordination with the Federal agencies. 
And so it is really trying to make a best effort to meet the 
timeline with the authorities but also the partnerships and 
collaborations that are necessary to get this done.
    Mr. Bucshon. Fair enough. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the widow of our late and great colleague 
Congressman Bob Matsui, Ms. Matsui, Ms. Doris Matsui, who is 
great in her own right. She is now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 
appreciate the hearing very much, and I appreciate also 
Assistant Secretary Hoffman for being here today as one of our 
witnesses. You know, throughout my time in Congress, I have 
spearheaded initiatives such as the Clean and Efficient Cars 
Act and enacted legislation to reauthorize the Diesel Emissions 
Reduction Act.
    Now, these efforts will help expedite the transition to 
light-, medium-, and heavy-duty electric vehicles and lower 
carbon emissions and air pollution from the transportation 
sector. Ms. Hoffman, how will transportation rectification 
affect the transmission system, and what actions should 
Congress take to ensure that a transmission system will meet 
the demands of this transition?
    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Congresswoman, for your question. I 
think it's an exciting development and opportunity in the 
vehicle industry with electrification of vehicles, heavy-duty 
vehicles. The announcement of the Ford F-150 is an exciting 
opportunity, as well as fixed-use vehicles in the continued 
electrification of those vehicles. With this, electrification 
requires or is going to end up resulting in an increase in 
demand for electricity and therefore really investments in our 
transmission but our distribution system as we look at charging 
stations and how we are going to build that infrastructure out.
    So, recognizing this increase in demand, we are going to 
have to modernize our distribution system, look at technologies 
such as smart charging environments so that we can actually 
manage the different charging cycles with respect to electric 
vehicle and charging capacity.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, thank you. In my home district, the 
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, also known as SMUD, has 
committed to decarbonization by becoming the first utility 
company in the Nation to lay out a plan to completely eliminate 
carbon emissions from the power supply by 2030. To support the 
achievement of this ambitious goal, we must bridge the gap 
between clean energy generation from remote locations to urban 
areas such as Sacramento.
    Ms. Hoffman, what are the most important investments that 
Congress can make on our transmission system to support 
decarbonization of our power sector?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you, and I recognize SMUD's 
achievement with respect to their goals and being a very 
forward-leaning utility and looking at decarbonization. With 
respect to investments on the transmission system and the 
priorities, really goes after increasing the capacity of the 
existing system with great enhancing technologies such as 
dynamic line rating, energy storage technologies, 
reconductoring of our transmission system. And then it really 
goes after what is the investments needed to build new 
transmission in the United States, including high-voltage dc 
transmission in a transmission planning process that allows for 
collaborative dialogue and interactions with the States on 
transmission planning.
    Ms. Matsui. All right. Thank you. You know, one of our 
goals is we build back better to focus on environmental justice 
and energy equity. Initiatives like the TREES Act, my bill to 
reduce energy bills through residential tree planting, can be 
used to lower home electricity costs while combating heat 
islands. Ms. Hoffman, in your testimony you mentioned that an 
enhanced grid supports environmental justice and economic 
development and allows underrepresented and underserved 
communities to access clean energy.
    Can you explain how today's bills would support 
environmental justice and energy equity and how a robust 
transmission buildout will help achieve these goals?
    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. 
Environmental justice is an important--and energy justice is an 
important objective of the Secretary. Justice40 is an effort 
looking at 40 percent of the benefits going to economic 
disadvantaged communities. As we look at transmission 
investments, one of the things that I can directly highlight is 
looking at the loan program office that does--has the ability 
to provide loans to Tribal Nations for transmission development 
and infrastructure investments. And so that is an opportunity 
to really directly take advantage of it.
    But in addition, we look at transmission as being an 
economic enabler to allowing, as you have, access to reliable 
electricity. It is an incentive for economic development and 
manufacturing in the United States. And so a lot of that really 
provides opportunities in communities.
    Ms. Matsui. Now, thank you very much, and I truly believe 
this is an important time to really consider all communities as 
we move forward and look at what we are going to be doing in 
the future. Thank you very much for your testimony, and I yield 
back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields----
    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush [continuing]. Back. The Chair now recognizes the 
gentleman from the great State of Indiana, Mr. Pence, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, 
for holding his hearing, and thank you, Assistant Secretary 
Hoffman, for being with us today. You know, as the head of the 
Office of Electricity, you play a key role in advancing grid 
modernization efforts that could benefit the Hoosiers in my 
Indiana 6th District, where we have coal, natural gas, wind, 
and solar.
    Modernizing our transmission system for the 21st century 
isn't a partisan issue. I am an all-of-the-above type of 
individual. However, the self-imposed timelines, as you have 
heard today, of the CLEAN Future Act and the administration 
commitments, in my opinion, are unworkable, unrealistic, and 
may be incredibly costly.
    Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to sit down with 
MISO, I think which you mentioned earlier, in Carmel, Indiana. 
In their estimation, by 2030, ensuring reliability and 
affordability, generation mix in the region could be 32 percent 
renewable energy and 55 percent fossil fuels. In other words, 
the lead entity ensuring reliability in my grid does not find 
it feasible to meet the administration's goal of carbon-free 
power by 2035 and the stringent timeline of the Democrats' 
clean energy standards. Our grid has taken over a century and a 
half to build, but some of my colleagues are talking about 
replicating this network in a mere 15 years. We should be 
supporting private industry stakeholders across the country 
that are already investing to bring our shared goal into 
reality.
    In fact, just in Indiana, utilities across my State have 
invested over 2 billion annually to upgrade transmission and 
smart grid capabilities. There needs to be a landing strip for 
this committee to work together on modernizing our grid. This 
can be done by leveraging private investment into transmission 
technologies and maintaining local authority, which I, like my 
fellow Hoosier, Congressman Bucshon, has pointed out, that's a 
big deal in putting windmills and solar panels. It is just 
people have fought back at that tooth and nail.
    Pressuring utilities to meet unrealistic timelines will 
only sacrifice reliability and will most likely lead to steep 
increases in electricity prices for my ratepayers and probably 
higher taxes. I wish my colleagues would support efforts to 
streamline permitting and construction costs to leverage 
private investment without superseding local authority.
    The ambitious timelines to integrate renewable energy into 
our grid rely too heavily on technology that, in my opinion, is 
not ready to provide sufficient service at a cost that is 
reasonable. You know, earlier you talked about technologies 
that would deliver to retail. I know that some of the things 
that are happening in Europe delivering charging stations, the 
locations have to spend, in some cases, millions of dollars to 
be able to put in the grid stations. I suggest that you take a 
look at that, and I'd be happy to help with that information.
    As one example, you already know modernized grids will need 
to provide dispatchable, flexible energy supply to make up for 
the variability of wind and solar. However, current battery 
storage technologies are not yet ready to provide more than a 
short-term backstop.
    Here is my question, Assistant Secretary Hoffman: Can you 
talk about some of the successful grid modernization R&D 
initiatives that the tools you mentioned earlier have helped 
the private sector to develop economic alternatives to achieve 
this administration's timeline?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you, Congressman, for the question. 
Through the Grid Modernization Initiative, we have really been 
working on developing advanced technologies and capabilities in 
support of the utility sector. And some of the things that we 
have looked at is sensors for asset management to improve the 
utilization of the electric grid. And so some of the----
    Mr. Pence. If I may, just specifically, I am running out of 
time. So have--has private industry implemented some of those 
things you have developed or recommend?
    Ms. Hoffman. Congressman, yes.
    Mr. Pence. OK. Thank you, and Mr. Chair, I yield back. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that we 
focused a lot about the cost on consumers and affordability 
during this hearing. The truth is the status quo is really 
hurting consumers. A January 2021 report from the Americans for 
a Clean Energy Grid found that the backlog in the 
interconnection queue is needlessly increasing electricity 
costs for consumers by delaying the construction of new 
projects, which are cheaper than the existing electricity 
production. It also found that the risk from the uncertainty of 
the interconnection process significantly increases the cost of 
capital for generation developers, private--a lot of folks in 
the private sector, which increases the cost of energy for 
customers. So to address this traffic jam that we have, last 
week I introduced the Efficient Grid Interconnection Act to 
help families power their homes with affordable and abundant 
clean energy, reduce the costly transmission, congestion, and 
help connect more low-cost renewable energy to the electric 
grid.
    Assistant Secretary Hoffman, thank you so much for being 
here today. There was another study last month out of the 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that found that about 680 
gigawatts of zero-carbon energy was stuck in these 
interconnection queues nationwide. That's nearly 5 times the 
Nation's existing--existing wind and solar capacity. The 
average wait time is about 3\1/2\ years.
    So that's just completely frustrating, what businesses, 
what States, communities are trying to do, what the Federal 
Government is trying to do to increase clean energy. So tell us 
how--and thank you, because DOE provided some input on the--on 
my bill. Just explain in real-world terms how everyday 
Americans would benefit by clearing out these interconnection 
queues.
    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Congresswoman Castor, for your 
question, your comments, and your bill. The cost allocation and 
interconnection queues is a huge issue. I would say on a good--
on the positive side, it shows the excitement for the 
development of clean energy generation in the United States. It 
also identifies the challenges, the 3.5 years for getting a 
technology connected to the grid. And that is the purpose of an 
interconnection queue, is to do a study on what system upgrades 
are required to allow that technology to connect to the grid. 
And so it's very important that we take a holistic approach as 
we think about the renewable energies, energy storage, and 
technologies we want to connect to the grid, what the system 
upgrades are that are required, and how to allocate cost for 
upgrading that system.
    And that is really the debate of the discussion around 
interconnection queues, is how to best do that on an individual 
project basis or what some interconnections are doing as 
cluster studies. And so--but this is a really important issue. 
It's under the jurisdiction of FERC, but the Department of 
Energy will continue to provide some technical assistance, as 
we have done through Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory to identify 
and help really analyze some of these issues.
    Ms. Castor. And this would be a huge job creator, don't you 
agree?
    Ms. Hoffman. Yes, of course. Having the additional 
generation come onboard, there's different studies identifying 
the potential opportunities for job creation not only in the 
transmission side but on the generation side, good quality 
jobs, a variety of jobs from the engineering field to 
construction jobs to the service industry. So it is a very 
important topic.
    Ms. Castor. I think we'll hear about that in the second 
panel as well. There--on the transmission siting assistance, 
the help for States and local communities to do a lot of the 
planning that can save money and lawsuits down the road, your 
office is going to be tasked with providing that technical 
assistance. And you already explained to Chairman Pallone how 
it would help. But I want to ask you a slightly different 
question. If we were to increase development of these 
interstate high-voltage transmission lines, what impact do you 
think it will have on jobs in rural communities, middle 
America?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. 
Once again, the transmission really provides access to clean 
energy resources, remote locations, and really will bring it to 
all communities in the United States. Allowing for that access 
of clean energy allows for economic development. It allows for 
job creation. And so that really becomes the stimulus for a 
strong economy moving forward.
    And so rural communities will be able to take advantage of 
it as well as the administration's effort with energy justice, 
and really concentrating on disadvantaged communities and 
allowing for those benefits to be clearly directed and 
allocated to communities is an important role.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you very much. I yield back my time.
    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 thanks for 
being here. So one of the things that's not in the CLEAN 
Futures Act is litigation reform. And I--actually, the Federal 
backstop authority, when we are talking about disagreement 
among States, is important. But, I mean, let's be--people hate 
utilitarian infrastructure projects, regardless of what they 
are. And I have been warning about this for even my--longer 
than my time in Congress. The opponents of these projects are 
going to utilize a lot of what they have learned in pipeline 
litigation.
    I mean, these tactics have been being used against those 
types of projects for the last 20 years, and you are seeing it 
right now. You have the Missouri Grain Belt Express, which is 
essentially taking wind from Kansas and trying to transfer to 
the East Coast. And common carrier, public utility, eminent 
domain, all of those issues are being brought up. There was an 
offshore wind project in Martha's Vineyard that was opposed by 
commercial fishermen. It was opposed by a lot of other people, 
but that was the avenue in which they went with.
    And I think that's important, right? If you don't like the 
project, you don't necessarily oppose it in your backyard. You 
go to bottlenecks. You go to different places. I'll bring that 
up in a second. I mean, there was a Maine project that was only 
in Maine because New Hampshire had already denied it, which was 
bringing hydropower from Canada to New England. I mean, this 
isn't oil. This isn't coal. This isn't natural gas. This isn't 
nuclear. It is hydropower. And that was opposed, I mean, by the 
Sierra Club, landowners, and the oil and gas industry. Our--the 
carbon industry.
    So as we talk about these things and we move forward and we 
are--and, I mean, when we talk about collaboration between DOE 
and the States, I think before we get there, we have to talk 
about particularly where some of these bottlenecks occur. And I 
am just going to use Highway 85 in North Dakota as an example. 
It's a--it's an interstate highway. It connects the southern 
part of North Dakota to the northern part.
    We have a tremendous amount of oil and gas production up 
there, but we also have a lot of renewables out there. So just 
by going across that, because it's a natural bottleneck, you 
hit the National Park Service, the Fort Berthold Reservation, 
Lake Sakakawea, both the Missouri River and the Little Missouri 
Scenic River. So, in order to deal with anything up there, you 
have to deal with the BIA, the EPA, FERC, DOT, Corps of 
Engineers, Interior, BLM, the Forest Service, the National Park 
Service, county zoning, county commission, North Dakota 
Petroleum Council, Department of Environmental Quality, and the 
Industrial Commission. And so when we talk about collaborating 
and doing all of these things, I think it's important to 
remember that most of the litigation around these things is 
actually--and court decisions aren't actually--it's on court 
interpretations or agency interpretation of a law or regulation 
and not the underlying law itself.
    Just my question for you from Department of Energy, who is 
in charge of, you know, safety, security, reliability of the 
grid--maybe before we go to collaborating with the States, we 
need to figure out how to shrink down the voluminous amount of 
paper we have to deal with in these bottlenecks. because every 
single one of those pieces of paper is a potential litigation, 
right?
    A plaintiff's lawyer doesn't care if you complied with BLM 
if what you put in the Park Service permit was different. All 
they care about is the difference. And they don't have to win 
any of these. And before we talk about, you know, replacing 
existing transmission with more efficient transmission, I would 
just point to the Enbridge Pipeline in Minnesota, right? They 
are not putting a new pipeline in. They are taking an old 
pipeline and replacing it in the same spot with a new pipeline. 
So these are all things that, again, I think--I think it's been 
borne out, right? If you care about a monarch butterfly or a 
prairie chicken or a sage grouse or any of those different 
things--we didn't even talk about the Environment Endangered 
Species Act--you don't particularly care what's bifurcating the 
habitat. You just care that the habitat is being bifurcated.
    So are you guys working with other Federal agencies to 
figure out--I--I just personally--I am an old trial lawyer, so 
I think the less amount of paper, the less litigation you have. 
So when we are dealing with these issues, how are we going to 
coordinate amongst Federal agencies so people only have to--
only have to reply once to one thing? Because under current 
law, you have to reply to every single one of them.
    Ms. Hoffman. So, Congressman, thank you for the comments, 
and you bring up the crux of the issue and the heart of the 
issue with respect to litigation of projects. And projects are 
litigated. And the need here is really having folks as 
collaborating agencies. So we do the process once and not more 
of a linear process that ends up going back and forth and 
creates more paperwork and more volumes of materials. And so I 
think we have to think about this. I think we have to really 
think about how agencies can be collaborating agencies so we do 
the process once. But you really highlight the crux of a huge 
challenge in building infrastructure in the United States.
    Mr. Armstrong. And I just want to be clear before I end 
with 4 seconds: We need to do it with the States too, but I 
think the Federal Government needs to get its house in order 
first. Thanks.
    Ms. Hoffman. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rush. Does the gentleman yield back? The gentleman 
yields back?
    Mr. Armstrong. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Vermont, Mr. Welch, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. Ms. Hoffman, thank you for 
your very helpful testimony. Can you outline some of the really 
practical impediments about building out the grid so that we 
actually can transport renewable energy to where it is needed? 
Also, are there some things that can be done on the permit 
process that will expedite it, obviously without compromising 
local concerns and environmental concerns?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you, Congressman, for the question. 
And the impediments for building transmission really come in 
several categories. One is financing of transmission. The 
second is permitting of--permitting and siting of transmission 
and making sure that the costs are allocated appropriate for 
transmission as well as being able to come up with a national 
transmission plan and looking at planning of transmission 
moving forward. So I would say that those were the major 
challenges that we all face in looking at how we build this 
important infrastructure moving forward. With respect----
    Mr. Welch. Well, I want--I want to stay----
    Ms. Hoffman [continuing]. To your second----
    Mr. Welch. I want to stay--go ahead. I wanted to stay on 
that a bit because we are all interested in getting the 
transmission seat--system we need for reliability and also to 
get the power from where it's generated to where it's needed. 
But is there progress that's being made on the very real-world 
challenges about how you permit that, and will the 
transmission--is it anticipated that will mainly be in high-
transmission wires?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you for the question. I do believe 
there is progress being made as we look at technology solutions 
with respect to increasing the efficiency of the transmission 
system as well as a recognition by the States, the need for 
transmission to really enable clean energy deployment. Nineteen 
States have targets for net zero as well as other States have 
enabled utilities or really directed utilities to invest in 
clean energy. So I think the movement and the recognition is 
there. Now, the procedural ways of how do we become 
collaborating entities as we look at transmission siting, and 
that is real--or permitting, that is really where we are going 
to have to go after moving forward to continue to make 
progress.
    Mr. Welch. OK. What are the benefits of the President's 
proposed grid deployment authority?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you. The grid deployment authority 
provides an opportunity for us to really bring together the 
authorities in the Department as well as the technical 
assistance that the Department would provide under one umbrella 
or under a central location so that we can be very effective as 
we look at transmission development. You can take a look at the 
example of, say, offshore wind and where we really want to do 
that technical assistance, the consultation with the States as 
well as a--a transmission planning strategy moving forward.
    Mr. Welch. Representative Clark and I are going to be 
introducing the Federal Energy Efficiency Standard. What role 
do you see that as potentially playing in achieving the goal of 
massive reduction of carbon emissions?
    Ms. Hoffman. Thank you, Congressman. Nontransmission 
alternatives such as energy efficiency, demand response, energy 
storage all play an important role with respect to consumer 
engagement and onsite resources in supporting the 
administration's goals. So those are opportunities really to 
really get ahead of the game by instilling and really deploying 
energy efficiency measures.
    Mr. Welch. OK. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back. Thank you for the excellent hearing.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire, Ms. Kuster, for 5 
minutes.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New 
Hampshire, Ms. Kuster, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I am very 
grateful for you taking the time and for the opportunity to 
hear again from Acting Assistant Secretary Hoffman.
    As you referenced in your testimony, the evolution to a 
clean grid poses significant challenges for how our Nation 
moves electricity. Our most promising sources of wind energy 
are in the interior and offshore, far away from the major urban 
areas where electricity is most needed.
    So we must reevaluate how the grid operates and where it is 
built to take advantage of these resources. This is no small 
task and an issue that the subcommittee should examine in a 
bipartisan way. New England is blessed with vast offshore wind 
resources which, if properly utilized, have the potential to 
meet the region's energy needs. ISO New England, the entity 
responsible for managing our power markets in the Northeast, 
recently conducted a study of the region's ability to 
incorporate offshore wind into the grid. It found that the 
southern part of our grid could take roughly 6 gigawatts of new 
offshore wind before serious upgrades to the region's 
transmission infrastructure are necessary.
    So Acting Assistant Secretary Hoffman, how could President 
Biden's American Jobs Plan help New England meet its carbon-
free energy production goals through transmission 
infrastructure improvements?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. 
I think you highlighted, really, the important opportunity, 
which is really to be able to access that generation that's 
available in the New England States and be able to access that 
for the benefit of the consumers in the region. Transmission 
also provides the opportunity where necessary and needed is to 
be able to transmit clean energy generation from other regions 
of the country as well as supporting the reliability/resilience 
of the region when it--resources potentially are not available. 
So from a perspective, transmission is really a key component 
and attribute to the clean energy strategy. It is a must-build 
investment as we move forward. And I--I appreciate your 
question.
    Ms. Kuster. Great. Thank you. Now, one of the barriers to 
bringing new clean energy resources online are interconnection 
queues, where projects wait as the cost of plugging them into 
the grid is evaluated.
    Once that cost is determined, clean energy producers are 
forced to pay for any upgrades necessary to move new clean 
electricity onto the grid. However, when a project in New 
England is necessary for the grid's reliability, the costs of 
the upgrade are spread throughout the market. Our country, our 
planet faces an existential threat due to climate change. In 
the same way that everyone benefits from a reliable electric 
grid, so too will all customers benefit from a clean grid.
    And a grid with more clean energy resources is also a more 
reliable grid. Acting Assistant Secretary Hoffman, what role 
could the DOE play in supporting our efforts to make 
interconnection queues more efficient and ensure that cost of 
plugging new projects into the grid are allocated fairly?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you, Congresswoman, for the question, 
and it's a really important issue that you bring up to be 
addressed as part of this hearing today in that the 
interconnection queue is a roadblock with respect to how do we 
get more clean energy deployed on the electric grid.
    The Department of Energy does not have the primary 
responsibility for cost allocation with respect to technologies 
that are in the interconnection queue, but we do have the 
resources of the national laboratories to really take a hard 
look at the generation that is in the interconnection queue, 
upgrade requirements, the benefits and approaches for thinking 
about how to be innovative with respect to cost allocation 
moving forward, going beyond a single generator being 
responsible for providing upgrades to really looking at some of 
the approaches that others are taking of--of really cost 
cluster studies or other opportunities for our cost allocation 
moving forward.
    And so I think the value that we have is really looking at 
what is the optimal sense--set of upgrades that could be done. 
How do we minimize the cost? But how do we really look at the 
strategy for allocating cost?
    Ms. Kuster. Great. Well, thank you very much. I did have 
one more question that I'll submit for the record on how we can 
most effectively incorporate clean electricity projects into 
our existing transmission infrastructure. But my time is up, 
and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragan, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Chairman Rush, for holding this 
important hearing on how investing in a national U.S. power 
grid would make electricity cleaner and cheaper while creating 
hundreds of thousands of jobs. As we see heat waves and record 
temperatures throughout the West, this puts a strain on our 
electric grid. Power outages are a constant concern and can 
endanger people who lose air conditioning and are unable to 
escape the heat. Assistant Secretary Hoffman, a recent 2021 
Government Accountability Office report on the impact of 
climate change on the electric grid recommended a Department of 
Energywide strategy to enhance the resilience of the grid to 
climate change. Is there a departmentwide strategy to improve 
the resilience of the grid to climate change or plans to create 
one?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you very much for the question. I 
will take that question back, but I do believe that the 
Department is looking at a climate strategy with respect to 
climate adaptation but look at the resilience of the electric 
grid. We have had several efforts where we have looked at how 
do we harden our infrastructure, how do we look at investments, 
whether it's local generation, distributed energy resources, 
microgrids, looking at a wide variety of technology solutions 
for investing in the resilience of our electric grid as well as 
evaluating interdependencies in different, what I will say, 
extreme weather conditions that could impact the operations of 
the electric grid. So I thank you for your question, and I look 
forward to the further dialogue that we can have on this topic.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you. My next question is, to 
connect renewable projects to the transmission grid in a timely 
and cost-effective manner, interconnection reform is essential. 
While the current process worked when we connected large power 
plants to the transmission grid, looking ahead we will have 
smaller but more numerous renewable projects seeking 
interconnection. Connecting a renewable project to the grid 
could take around 3 years. What is the most efficient way to 
promote interconnection for renewable projects to the 
transmission grid?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you, Congresswoman, for that 
question. The interconnection queue is one of the biggest 
challenges for connecting generation to the electric grid. And 
really, analysis needs to be done on how do we do this in a 
very streamlined fashion. Individual project analysis for 
interconnection studies are not the most efficient way to go in 
moving forward. So, although the interconnection queue is not--
and cost allocation under that is not the responsibility of the 
Department, I do believe the Department can provide some 
analysis on system upgrades, really looking at priorities for 
upgrades and maybe taking a larger, more systematic approach in 
analysis through the national laboratories to help streamline 
and maybe move the interconnection queue process moving 
forward.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you. My last question is, how can 
building a national energy grid help support the deployment of 
electric vehicles throughout the country?
    Ms. Hoffman. So thank you very much for the question. It's 
a huge opportunity, as we continue to invest in technologies 
that will accelerate the electrification of our vehicle fleet 
in the United States. The transmission system plays a critical 
role in enabling that continued advancement in the--in the 
transportation sector. What we really want to do is really 
upgrade the distribution system, make sure that we have smart 
charging for--as incorporated as part of the distribution 
system so that we can actually charge with providing charging 
electric vehicles while providing minimal impact to the 
distribution system. So some of those are the technology and 
operational areas that we can invest in moving forward.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you, Assistant Secretary, for 
your testimony and your work. We, the committee, and myself are 
looking forward to working with you to address this critical 
issue, along with climate, environment, energy.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. And with that, this 
concludes our first panel of witnesses. Madam Assistant 
Secretary Hoffman, I want to thank you for appearing before the 
subcommittee today. Thank you for your excellent testimony and 
for your endurance. You answered our--answered the questions of 
our Members to their greatest conclusion, and we certainly want 
to commend you for your appearance and for your answers. This 
concludes our first panel.
    And we have a vote that is occurring on the floor. So the 
Chair would ask that the committee stand in recess for--until 
10 minutes after the final vote is taken and before the last 
vote--10 minutes after the last--after the end of the last 
vote. So I would--the committee now stands in recess until 10 
minutes and--after the conclusion of the last vote.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Rush. The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to 
order. And this is our phase two. And we ask--we have before us 
four new witnesses for the second panel of witnesses for 
today's hearing. And it's my privilege now to introduce those 
witnesses.
    First is Dr. Susan Tierney. Dr. Tierney is a senior advisor 
for the Analysis Group. A second witness is Mr. Rob Gramlich, 
who is the founder and president of Grid Strategies, LLC. Next, 
we have Mr. Lee Anderson, government affairs director of the 
Utility Workers Union of America. And last but not least, the 
Honorable Tony Clark, who is the senior advisor for Wilkinson 
Barker Knauer, LLP.
    And I want to thank each and every one of our witnesses for 
joining us today. And we look forward to your testimony.
    Dr. Tierney, you are now recognized for 5 minutes, Dr. 
Tierney. You are muted, Dr. Tierney. Please unmute yourself.
    Dr. Tierney is experiencing some technical difficulties, so 
why don't we proceed until we are able to eliminate the 
technical difficulties for Dr. Tierney?
    Mr. Gramlich, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENTS OF ROB GRAMLICH, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT, GRID 
   STRATEGIES, LLC; SUSAN F. TIERNEY, Ph.D., SENIOR ADVISOR, 
    ANALYSIS GROUP, INC.; LEE ANDERSON, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS 
DIRECTOR, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA; AND ANTHONY (TONY) 
      CLARK, SENIOR ADVISOR, WILKINSON BARKER KNAUER, LLP

                   STATEMENT OF ROB GRAMLICH

    Mr. Gramlich. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member 
Upton, members of the subcommittee for holding this important 
issue focusing on transmission and inviting me to testify. My 
name is Rob Gramlich. I work with clean energy buyers and 
sellers, States, grid operators, and others interested in low-
cost decarbonization and grid resilience. A few of my reports 
were mentioned in the committee memo with Americans for a Clean 
Energy Grid, which is one group that I lead. And my background 
has been on transmission and power markets my entire career.
    My public-sector experience was with a Chairman of FERC. He 
was a Republican Member and appointed by President Bush. And I 
note that last time I was here, I was a Republican witness, and 
the hearing was actually very similar, the content of the 
hearing. A couple of the witnesses are the same, and I am going 
to say the same exact thing. So I hope I don't disappoint you. 
But I say that because transmission is a bipartisan issue. It 
is, and it should be. Back in those days, when the Bush team 
was in charge around here, transmission was more led by 
Republicans. These days, you see more Democrats out front.
    But whoever is out front, I think both sides can get on 
board. And we have just a couple of differences from that May 
2018 hearing, and that is that we have some--a few specific 
legislative provisions now to discuss that have been vetted 
over the last few years since that hearing, and I think the 
politics and the policies are now ready to go, and it is time 
for Congress to act.
    A few bipartisan messages while I am on that theme are, 
number one, everyone wants reliable and resilient power. A lot 
of the discussion this morning was about interregional 
transmission. Well, whatever you think about how much we need 
to decarbonize or how fast, that same interregional 
transmission is exactly what we need to keep the lights on. We 
saw what happened in Texas when their interregional capacity 
was limited. That is not what anybody wants to see. The other 
regions that had interregional transmission capacity did keep 
the lights on. People were safe.
    So, for whatever reason you might come to, interregional 
and large regional transmission capacity and delivering power 
over large geographic areas is critical to our safety, to our 
economy, to just about everything we do in modern society at 
home and at work. So everyone wants reliable power. 
Transmission is critical to that.
    Number two, another bipartisan message, I think, is that 
transmission should be planned for future load and generation. 
A lot of utilities, a lot of end-use customers have certain 
resource choices that they are making. Whether or not they are 
driven by Federal policy or State policy, whatever has 
motivated them, we know a lot about what the resource mix is 
that consumers are asking for and that utilities are putting 
into their plans. And so it seems just obvious that we should 
plan the transmission system for those generating resources. We 
know the generation side about as much as we know the load 
side. We can estimate both. We need to plan the transmission to 
connect the two.
    Number three bipartisan message, the barriers to building 
large-scale regional and interregional transmission fall into 
the categories of--we call them the three P's: planning, 
permitting, paying. You heard about that this morning. I think 
both sides acknowledge the barriers there and also that public 
policy changes are needed to address those barriers.
    And then finally, in the context of the news today and this 
week about infrastructure legislation, hopefully bipartisan, 
transmission is infrastructure. In fact, it is underlying core 
infrastructure when you think about how necessary it is for 
food, water, medical, and first responder services. All of 
those other infrastructure types rely on electricity, which 
relies on transmission. So transmission is really fundamental 
infrastructure for modern society.
    So those four points, I think, reflect--provide a good, 
solid bipartisan foundation for this hearing and this 
committee's work. And in my written testimony, I comment on 
some of the specific provisions that were put forth for this 
hearing. I think the CLEAN Future Act, Section 211 to 218, or 
the transmission provision--provisions, those are a great 
start. There are a couple of updates or more recent 
modifications, including Representative Casten's interregional 
planning bill, H.R. 2678; Representative Peters' POWER ON Act, 
H.R. 1514; Representative Castor's new interconnection bill. I 
also recommend a provision that is over in the Senate side, the 
Manchin--Senator Manchin's discussion draft on a transmission 
facilitation program. I know the tax credit is not in this 
committee's jurisdiction, but that would be great for 
transmission.
    And so with that, my time is up, and I will turn it back. 
Thank you very much for having me.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gramlich follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.009
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.010
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.011
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.012
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.013
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.014
    
    Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Gramlich. And now we'll return 
back to regular order. I understand that Dr. Tierney's 
microphone is working. So, Dr. Tierney, you are recognized for 
5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.

              STATEMENT OF SUSAN F. TIERNEY, Ph.D.

    Dr. Tierney. Chairman Rush, thank you for your patience. I 
am really sorry. We try to get this right every time, and 
sometimes there's blips. Ranking Member Upton and members of 
the subcommittee, it is just wonderful to be here, and I really 
appreciate it. I have two main points to share with you today.
    First, expansion of the Nation's electric grid is essential 
to our country's energy transition. And second, the bills at 
the heart of today's hearings would constructively address very 
persistent impediments to planning for, investment in, and 
siting of transmission infrastructure that is so needed for the 
U.S. electric system to be fit for purpose in the 21st century.
    I am testifying here on my own behalf, but in my written 
and oral testimony I point to various relevant findings and 
recommendations of several reports of the National Academies 
committees on which I have recently served. These committees 
recently released two reports, the Future of the Electric Power 
Study and a Decarbonization Study.
    I am extremely pleased that many of the findings and 
recommendations in our two reports aligns so strongly with the 
purposes and provisions of the bills. The four bills under 
consideration would deftly tackle many of the toughest 
challenges that frustrate responsible expansion of the Nation's 
transmission grid.
    Let me go through five challenges very briefly. The first 
is addressing difficulties in siting interstate transmission 
projects and regions' public policy objectives, such as opening 
up access to renewable energy resources, reducing local 
pollution, and reducing congestion and cost to consumers.
    The CLEAN Future Act would provide needed clarity on the 
goals that may be supported by transmission expansion and 
include not only electric system reliability and economic 
efficiency but also reducing air pollution and providing access 
to regions with abundant renewable resources.
    The National Academies' Future of Electric Power Study 
recommended that Congress establish a national transmission 
policy to rely on the transmission system to support energy 
diversity, energy security, the Nation's equitable transition 
to lower carbon energy system. And the decarbonization study 
made similar recommendations. The CLEAN Future Act nicely 
articulates such important elements of a national transmission 
policy.
    Challenge number two: facilitating development of 
economical renewable electricity projects by planning for and 
opening up transmission access to regions with abundant and 
high-quality renewable energy. The CLEAN Future Act would 
broaden the current definition of national interest 
transmission corridors to focus on those that are high priority 
for saving consumers money and for accessing and integrating 
location-specific renewable resources.
    The Interregional Transmission Planning and Improvement Act 
would direct FERC to take rulemaking steps to increase the 
effectiveness of interregional transmission planning. These 
bills would address important potential transmission 
connections across regions to help with reliability, 
resilience, access to transmission to make sure that renewable 
resources are available.
    Challenge number three: strengthening the role of national 
needs in regulatory approvals of certain interstate 
transmission construction projects. The CLEAN Future Act would 
clarify the conditions under which FERC would have authority to 
issue permits for construction of transmission projects in 
high-priority corridors and encourage the States to look at 
regional benefits when they review projects within their own 
borders.
    Challenge number four: recognizing the benefits that accrue 
to States and their citizens, when, through transmission 
enhancements, they have access to broader interstate electrical 
regions and to the economic resiliency, reliability, and public 
health outcomes that those larger and more diverse regions can 
provide. The CLEAN Future Act would direct FERC and the 
Department of Energy to undertake and implement actions to 
improve this transmission planning. And each of the four bills 
that are under consideration here today would help with that.
    Finally, there are two other elements that address the 
fifth challenge of ensuring that transmission enhancements only 
occur when they are needed. And this is done through the CLEAN 
Futures Act clarification of the importance of nonwires 
alternatives in avoiding transmission where possible.
    And secondly, the CLEAN Future Act and the POWER ON Act 
would support the essential role that Tribes, localities, and 
States must play in transmission planning and energy facility 
siting. The Academies' Future of Electric Power Study and the 
Decarbonization Study recommended the same financial incentives 
and analytic support to States, Tribes, and localities so that 
they can have a meaningful role in this process. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Tierney follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.015
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.016
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.017
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.018
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.019
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.020
    
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank you.
    Our next witness is Mr. Lee Anderson. Mr. Anderson, you 
are--have 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening statement.
    Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me OK?
    Mr. Rush. I hear you quite well. Thank you.

                   STATEMENT OF LEE ANDERSON

    Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Chairman Rush. Thank you to 
Ranking Member Upton and to the distinguished members of the 
subcommittee. My name is Lee Anderson. I am the government 
affairs director for the Utility Workers Union of America. Our 
union represents around 50,000 workers in the electric, gas, 
and water utility sectors. Our members have deep experience in 
operating, maintaining, and repairing the transmission grid. 
These are highly skilled jobs, and many of these disciplines 
require individuals to participate in an apprenticeship 
consisting of a thousand hours of on-the-job training delivered 
through labor management partnerships and include attendance at 
community colleges and other training facilities.
    Just as businesses depend on transportation systems such as 
roads, railways, and ports for delivery of goods and services, 
electricity requires its own transportation, the wires needed 
to carry the electrons that are our product. Power transmission 
is, in that respect, perhaps more fundamental to underpinning 
the entire economy than any other system.
    By some estimates, transmission investment holds the 
potential to create upwards of 240,000 direct jobs just in the 
buildout of those systems alone. In the emerging offshore wind 
industry, for example, we see an industry which will require 
thousands of new workers to be trained for integrating power 
into the grid via transmission infrastructure to move the 
electrons from the towers to the shore and on to the load 
centers.
    We see several examples as to how transmission investment 
will benefit buildout of the transmission grid for the offshore 
industry in some early areas. In Massachusetts, transmission 
terminations are planned to be at the Mystic Power Plant site 
and the former Pilgrim Nuclear Station. Also at the former 
Brayden Point Power Plant site, the planned Anbaric Renewable 
Energy Center will include an offshore wind logistics port, a 
manufacturing hub and support center, a battery storage 
facility, a converter station and solar power arrays.
    In Connecticut, transmission terminations are planned to be 
at the Bridgeport Power Plant, previously the site of one of 
the last coal-fire power plants in New England. The project 
would now share that location with a new gas-fired power plant, 
making the site itself a blend of generation technologies.
    In New York, the UWUA has partnered with community colleges 
and offshore developers to begin designing a training program 
for the necessary workers. Here again, some of the earliest 
jobs will be in transmission upgrades and buildout at sites 
around New York City.
    Another example of how a significant transmission buildout 
can transform the grid and grow the economy is with advanced 
nuclear technology. Recently, Energy Secretary Jennifer 
Granholm, Governor Mark Gordon, and Senator John Barrasso came 
together in Wyoming to announce that an advanced nuclear 
reactor built in partnership by TerraPower and Pacificorp would 
be located in that State. Training former coal-fire power plant 
workers to work in a nuclear power plant not only solves the 
challenge utility space as they work to enhance grid 
reliability and stability while meeting decarbonization and 
emissions reduction goals but also supports high-paying union 
jobs that will last decades while reestablishing a highly 
specialized nuclear talent pipeline.
    However, without the energy highways, linking our members 
in Wyoming to large population centers in surrounding States, 
the future of their energy jobs would be bleak. In this 
respect, transmission lines are truly economic lifelines for 
what would otherwise be stranded workers and communities.
    If the future of power generation is tech neutral, as we 
believe, nothing is more integral nor more tech neutral than 
the transmission systems that will carry the electrons from 
every power source in America to load centers around the 
country. These kinds of large-scale transmission investments 
are exactly how an already existing and experienced workforce 
will pave the way to an all-of-the-above energy future. The 
health of our communities, well-being of our union's members, 
and competitiveness of our economy requires this type of 
action.
    I thank you for the opportunity today to be a part of these 
proceedings. I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.021
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.022
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.023
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.024
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.025
    
    Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks Mr. Anderson.
    Mr. Clark, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for 
purposes of an opening statement.

               STATEMENT OF ANTHONY (TONY) CLARK

    Mr. Clark. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, 
and members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be with you 
here today. For your record, my name is Tony Clark, senior 
advisor at Wilkinson Barker Knauer and former FERC 
Commissioner, in which capacity I have appeared before you in 
the past.
    I will begin by emphasizing something that I think you have 
heard a lot today from all of the panelists, and indeed from 
members of the committee, which is the importance of electric 
transmission, as it is an integral part of the electricity 
delivery system in our country. Properly planted, constructed 
high-voltage transmission facilitates numerous customer 
benefits.
    When it comes to reforming transmission policy, I'd urge 
the committee to follow the following principles.
    First of all, bottoms up, not top down. Any regional effort 
or any effort at interregional and regional planning and cost 
allocation for electric transmission should reflect the plans 
that are developed first at the State and local levels. They 
should not be an imposition of a predetermined Federal solution 
that may not meet the needs of end-use customers in each of the 
States. Put another way, transmission and generation projects 
exist to support consumers. Consumers do not exist to support 
specific generation and transmission projects. As such, any 
regional or interregional coordination must build upon what is 
being done at the State and utility level, not the other way 
around.
    Second, respect regional differences. There is no one-size-
fits-all when it comes to generating and transmitting 
electricity in the United States. This is a large country with 
diverse natural resource bases, very different regional supply-
and-demand characteristics. This diversity should caution 
against the Federal Government adopting policies that assume 
all regions need to--need to meet their needs in the exact same 
way.
    Indeed, transmission might be the best way to serve 
customers in a particular State or region. But in another State 
or region, those goals might be better met by accessing, for 
example, generation that is closer to load.
    Having said that, I do fully support efforts to decrease 
roadblocks to needed transmission investment. I would say as a 
side note, I was heartened recently by an announcement by FERC 
and NARUC, the association that represents State utility 
commissioners, of a Federal task force on electric 
transmission.
    It seems to me that those sort of bottom-up efforts are 
exactly the kind of collaborative approaches that can ensure 
customers are put at the center of a grid energy--energy grid 
transition. Yet I would be remiss if I did not note my concerns 
that I had outlined in my submitted testimony that I do have 
with certain aspects of the pending legislation.
    I believe that--that the wrong outcome would be to put the 
Federal Government in the position of determining for States 
how their customers should be served. What I don't think you 
would want to have happen is someone sitting in a conference 
room in Washington, DC, drawing bubbles around certain areas of 
the map where there are windy areas and other areas of the map 
where there are load centers and then drawing a line in between 
the two and developing plans based simply off that.
    Under that scenario, you could see, then, the power of the 
Federal Government being able to overrule local siting and 
zoning protections. Once completed, those projects--it is at 
least not outside the realm of possibility that the cost for 
those could be socialized across interconnection. That sort of 
income could have unintended consequences on local sources of 
generation, potentially consumer costs, other clean energy 
investments that are already being made at the local level, and 
operations on the RTOs and ISOs themselves.
    Now, while that outcome may not be what the committee 
intends, the language of the bill, at least as written, would 
not seem to entirely preclude such a process either. If it is 
not the intention of the committee, my suggestion would be to 
simply say so in the bill itself.
    Finally, I would recommend deleting closely related 
language mandating RTOs and ISOs and establishing a so-called, 
quote/unquote, right to clean energy.
    While I believe RTOs do certain things well, they may not 
be the only way to achieve clean energy goals. In fact, RTOs 
were not really designed to promote one particular resource 
over another, and they are not a cure-all for procuring clean 
energy. This conundrum is at the heart of the present multiple 
crises existing--in existing RTOs related to price formation 
challenges and States that are unhappy with the generation 
resource mix that are being procured by the RTO.
    RTOs may not be the best solution for all areas of the 
country, so this should remain a local decision. Regarding the 
establishment of the Federal right to clean energy, the 
language would likely create a scenario where large corporate 
energy purchasers would be able to use their buying power to 
directly procure one particular source of generation of 
preferential rates while shifting other system costs like 
maintaining 24/7 reliability to other customers. This could 
become the sort of haphazard deregulation of the retail 
electricity business.
    Traditional retail regulatory rules exist at the State 
level to hold other consumers harmless when certain buyers wish 
to procure their energy directly, but this language could 
preempt such protections.
    With that, I will close my statement and look forward to 
taking any questions that you might have. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Clark follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.026
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.027
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.028
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.029
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.030
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1213.031
    
    Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Clark, and want to--and need--
thank all the witnesses on this second panel. Now we are moving 
into the Member questioning of the second panel witnesses. Each 
Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions of panel 2's 
witnesses. And I will start by recognizing myself for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Anderson, I want to express my appreciation for your 
membership's tireless work to keep the lights on across our 
Nation since the early part of the 20th century and for your 
being here today. My question to you is, how will the build 
our--buildout of transmission infrastructure benefit the hard-
working members of your organization and the Nation as a whole? 
And how can Congress support your membership in their work to 
expand transmission?
    Mr. Anderson. Thank you very much for that question, Mr. 
Chairman. The short answer is that all of those things, 
transmission buildout, operation, and maintenance and the power 
generation assets that they support are--those are the things 
that actually create the tens of thousands or hundreds of 
thousands, really, of jobs in our industry. This is what our 
members do all day every day. They work on all of these energy 
systems, generating the power, transporting the power, 
building, operating, and maintaining all of the systems. That 
is the source of work for our membership.
    And as to how it benefits the country, I think it has been 
said several times here today that there is nothing more of a 
fundamental underpinning to the entire economy than 
electricity. There is nothing in modern society that can be 
done, frankly, without electricity. So in that respect, it is 
not just beneficial. It is absolutely necessary. What Congress 
can do to support this, to support our members, is two things.
    One, by when we are analyzing how the buildout is going to 
happen, think about who is going to be doing the buildout, by 
which I mean where you really find the union workforce in this 
space is with the regulated utilities. There is a union density 
in that sector of about 22 percent, which if they were a State, 
which would make them about the second-most union-dense State 
in the United States, on par with New York. Hawaii would be a 
little bit higher. The point being that to the extent that the 
regulated utilities are building, operating, and maintaining 
these systems, you have a built-in guarantee of getting those 
kind of high-road family and community supporting jobs that we 
all are looking for.
    The second thing is that Congress can do all that it can to 
support these labor--what I referred you earlier as labor-
management partnerships or what I might call union 
apprenticeships. We have an apprenticeship program of our own 
that we developed with our utility employers that trains people 
to work on any number of systems, not just in electricity but 
also gas and water. And those are not the sort of programs 
where you have to pay tuition, or you finish it and then you 
hope you have a job. You have a job from the very first day 
that you start. And you don't pay tuition for that. You have a 
job. You are trained, and by the time you go through that 
program, you are literally one of the top technical experts in 
your field.
    So those two things: making sure that the utilities are 
integral to the buildout as much as possible, and making union 
apprenticeship programs core to building the workforce.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you.
    Mr. Gramlich, in your testimony you expressed that building 
large-scale transmission networks to meet growing electricity 
demand and clean energy roles will bring well-paying domestic 
jobs and benefit U.S. global competitiveness. Will you please 
elaborate on this point?
    Mr. Gramlich. Sure. Thank you for the question, Chairman 
Rush. There are, as you just heard from Lee Anderson, great 
domestic jobs potentials, potential with large-scale 
transmission. The jobs are high-quality jobs. They are nearly 
all union jobs. And the domestic content of transmission is 
also very high, starts--starts pretty--pretty high. So the 
manufacturing jobs upstream are good in domestic. So I think 
transmission is a great way to not only get direct employment 
in transmission, but also it gives you access to the--the 
generation jobs.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you so much. I only have 4 seconds.
    Ms. Tierney, what are the lesser-known benefits for 
buildout of the electric transmission grid to our Nation's 
communities?
    Dr. Tierney. Several things: a more resilient system; a 
system in which people in different regions can rely on each 
other and save money on their electric bills; a reliable system 
and one that really can deploy domestic energy resources. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you so much. And that concludes my 
testimony. I now recognize the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes for questioning the 
witness.
    Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
witnesses. This is a particularly timely hearing, that is for 
sure. I am hoping that we are able to get a bipartisan 
infrastructure bill to the President before the August break 
begins. And one of the important elements that has been not 
only in the House side but also in the Senate is a nice sum of 
funds for transmission, not only to protect against weather-
related, as we saw in Texas this last March, but also to 
protect against cyber attacks as we saw with the Colonial 
Pipeline. And knowing that we may need to triple the size of 
transmission as the system by 2050, we better start on the 
right path.
    So Mr. Gramlich, I really appreciated your words and not 
only your past but today in terms of needs to be bipartisan. We 
have no--there are not a lot of more important issues than 
making sure that we deliver energy at the best price to the 
consumers across the country, whether it be for their home or 
for their workplace.
    Mr. Clark, you had quite the kudos from our colleague from 
North Dakota earlier. I don't know if you were here for those 
words. But Mr. Armstrong is going to be back. But given your 
experience at the State and Federal level, what are some of the 
biggest challenges that you see to developing more 
transmission?
    And particularly, I want to go back to the EPAct '05, where 
we tried to give FERC the Federal backstop siting authority. 
But that didn't work so well. And I'd like just to--if you 
could just walk us through that, what your experience was.
    Mr. Clark. Sure. Ranking Member, you are correct. There are 
numerous hurdles to getting transmission sited. It is not easy 
to do. EPAct '05, I was, as I noted in my testimony, a little 
bit of an outlier probably among some of the State regulatory 
community in that I thought it made sense to have some sort of 
backstop siting authority when there was true reliability needs 
that might be put at harm and you just can't get a transmission 
line built. And so it was a fairly narrow compromise that I 
think came out of that. Subsequent court decisions, in many 
ways, have really neutered that--that backstop siting 
authority.
    And so there are--there is sort of a reattempt, it looks 
like, in this legislation to enact Federal siting authority. I 
would say this is much, much broader as proposed in--in this 
legislation. It broadens it out to include projects that might 
just be good for hooking up renewables. And it does so in a way 
that preempts States probably more aggressively than that 
original legislation did.
    I would say that one of the most helpful things that this 
committee and Congress can do would be to reform government, 
Federal Government permitting processes themselves, which is 
something you don't need to do without getting into backstop 
siting authority. Ask any State regulator in the western half 
of the U.S. for sure that has to do with Federal lands issues. 
And they will tell you one of the biggest hurdles is simply 
trying to get permitted through Federal land-type issues.
    So I think there's significant things Congress can do 
itself reforming the Federal Government's process with regard 
to permitting that would be incrementally helpful.
    Mr. Upton. Mr. Gramlich, what is your reaction to that?
    Mr. Gramlich. Well, I largely agree with Mr. Clark on that. 
The legislation before you fixes one of those court decisions, 
and that is the primary purpose. But I might also suggest that 
the committee consider, if you are going to go in and touch 
something that, you know, addresses difficult eminent domain 
issues, you might want to look at the whole construct of that 
EPAct '05 corridor designation at one agency and permit at 
another agency where you have NEPA, a few years of NEPA at one 
place and a few more years of NEPA at another place and just 
say maybe let's keep it surgical and targeted. Maybe just say 
something over a thousand megawatts that crosses multiple 
States is FERC jurisdictional to permit.
    Mr. Upton, you mentioned parity with gas pipelines. I mean, 
that gets closer to gas pipelines. We would love to have parity 
with gas pipeline permitting on the electric side.
    Mr. Upton. Well, I just know that, as we look at more 
renewables, a number of us had dinner last night with former 
Secretary of Energy. And he talked about, as we see renewables 
expand, I think most of us here support that. You are still 
going to need something for when the wind doesn't blow and the 
sun doesn't shine. And in large part now with the decline in 
coal, it has got to be gas. We have got a new gas plant that is 
being built in my district, over a billion-dollar new facility 
that should be online in the next number of months. We had real 
issues on siting, just with Amtrak and making sure that right-
of-ways and everything else would--delayed it for some time. So 
I think we need to figure that out as we look to the future.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, we'll yield back. And again, 
thanks for doing this hearing.
    Thank you, witnesses.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney. You are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman. And I thank the 
witnesses. Mr. Clark, thank you for your years of service.
    Mr. Gramlich, during times of peak demand, California 
imports power from neighboring States that have large amounts 
of solar and wind energy. However, many of the merchant 
transmission lines that have been planned for the purpose of 
delivering renewable to California have been stalled while in 
development. And that's kind of a problem that we are talking 
about here today. Can you describe what measures can we take to 
encourage more merchant transmission projects that won't be 
stalled out?
    Mr. Gramlich. Yes. Thank you for the question, Congressman 
McNerney, and for your leadership on renewables and 
transmission over the years. I think the main problem with 
these large interstate lines, whether they are merchant or 
utility lines, is we don't have a way to recover costs of the 
interstate highway-type lines in our system. All of you in your 
own districts have utilities that are able to recover in rates 
that are investments for their local transmission and 
distribution systems. And that is how the electric industry 
grew up.
    But we don't have a way to recover costs of the large 
interstate highway-type of lines. And those are the lines we 
need for resilience and for clean energy. So you have these 
merchant developers who are out there trying to provide this 
service, but there's no customers, really.
    So I think my suggestion would be to look at, first of all, 
the tax credit, which is in the Ways and Means Committee, for 
large regionally significant lines and, secondly, I would urge 
you to consider a bill that was in Senator Manchin's discussion 
draft called a Transmission Facilitation Program where the 
government could essentially finance part of the line. And then 
over time, as transmission customers come on, they pay their 
taxpayers back.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Good suggestions.
    Dr. Tierney, as a Californian, I am very concerned about 
wildfires and the effects of extreme weather on the grid. In 
particular, overgrown vegetation near transmission lines can 
cause fires to proliferate. Can nonwires alternatives like 
those identified in Section 214 of the CLEAN Futures Act reduce 
the need to deploy transmission lines in the areas that are 
prone to fires?
    Dr. Tierney. Thank you, Congressman. This is a great 
question. I do think that there are many circumstances under 
which nonwires alternatives could provide a solution, at least 
to avoid or delay a new transmission line. Looking at the 
wildfire region that is in your neighborhood, things like 
microgrids could be a way in which one could provide an 
alternative to reinforcing a transmission line, provide local 
support for community needs and so forth. And those microgrids 
could provide power in the event that lines had to be taken out 
of service for wildfires. So that is just an example. There are 
lots of other examples as well.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Mr. Gramlich, again, one of the main challenges we face in 
bringing renewable energy from generation to load centers is 
clearly constructing those large backbone transmission centers. 
You discuss the importance of having proactive transmission 
planning that would reduce the cost and expedite the 
interconnection. How would you explain the transmission 
planning process that fails to connect new generation, and what 
policies should we be looking at to be more proactive?
    Mr. Gramlich. Sure. Thank you for the question. We need to 
simply plan transmission. We are really not doing it in most 
regions right now. Transmission quote/unquote planners are 
essentially waiting for each generator to come into the queue 
and responding to generator by generator when, in fact, they 
know based on the utility goals, consumer--stated consumer 
preferences, State laws, that there is going to be X amount of 
generation of this type and at these locations. So all we need 
to do is proactively plan the transmission system to those 
areas.
    I know FERC is trying to do that. But the planning and 
interregional planning provisions in the CLEAN Future Act and 
Congressman Casten's interregional planning bill would help a 
great deal with that and urge FERC to undertake a rulemaking to 
fix that and do the proactive planning that we need.
    Mr. McNerney. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back? Does the gentleman--
the gentleman's time is concluded. The Chair now recognizes the 
ranking member of the full committee, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the 
witnesses being here today. In the Pacific Northwest, we have 
abundant clean, reliable, affordable hydroelectric power. We 
enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates in the country. We 
even export our energy to California when it needs its power, 
and it seems like that is increasingly the case. I get 
concerned about policies that would drive up rates on our 
manufacturers and on our families. And I don't know what the 
southeastern United States would do if policies were imposed on 
that region, which has high energy poverty rates.
    So, Mr. Clark, I wanted to ask if you would talk about the 
need to respect regional differences when it comes to 
electricity generation. How does this help ratepayers? And 
please explain to us why provisions in this legislation may 
harm people because of the regional differences.
    Mr. Clark. Sure. Ranking Member, thank you for the 
question. I think when we talk about regional differences, the 
Pacific Northwest might be one of the best examples that we 
have in the country. As you indicate, the Pacific Northwest is 
unlike just about any other region that I can think of, really 
anchored around that Federal hydrosystem that exists up there 
and especially around the Bonneville transmission lines that 
hook up so much of the Pacific Northwest. There are a lot of 
regional efforts that are going on in the Northwest, for 
example, where there are discussions amongst the States in the 
region about how to account for and make sure that resource 
adequacy is maintained. Resource adequacy is the idea that not 
only do you need to plan the transmission grid, but you need to 
ensure that there are available resources 24/7 under a variety 
of weather conditions and system operating conditions.
    So the Pacific Northwest has been neck-deep in--as a region 
in looking at those sort of efforts in a way that makes sense 
for that particular region. My concern would be if the Federal 
Government were to just come in and say ``mandate,'' you have 
to have one particular type of market model like an RTO or an 
ISO which has traditionally not worked in the Pacific Northwest 
due to a lot of its--the specific things about that region, 
that it could cause some of the really good efforts that are 
going on within the region to fall apart.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Right now, Bonneville Power Administration is 
considering joining the Western Energy and Balance Market. And 
part of that is the benefit that then we would have the ability 
to sell our excess power to California. I wanted to just ask 
your thoughts on that and if you would think it would be 
different if we were forced to join the California ISO.
    Mr. Clark. Sure. Ranking Member, the EIM is a little bit 
different concept than the full RTO. EIMs have been becoming 
more and more popular across especially parts of the West. 
Basically, they allow utility system--systems to run their 
generators to meet their own system needs, but to the degree 
they have excess energy, which is often the case with 
renewables, during certain hours of the day or maybe short a 
little bit during other hours of the day, they can trade energy 
across a platform that enhances the market.
    Some of my colleagues and I have been referring to that as 
an emergent market as opposed to a more prescribed one. An RTO, 
as I indicated, has, for a lot of reasons, had a very difficult 
time taking root in the Northwest. Some of the concerns from 
local officials is a lot of that--that locally generated, very 
affordable hydropower might then be exported to other parts of 
the country, and their rates might go up if that happens. So 
imposing an RTO from a top down, I think, becomes particularly 
problematic, especially in certain regions.
    Mrs. Rodgers. Well, I really appreciate you being with us 
today. I am going to yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The Member yields back. The Chair now recognizes 
the chairman of the Environmental Subcommittee, Mr. Tonko, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Dr. Tierney, regarding proposals to address backstop 
authority, would you please expand on your views as to why FERC 
may be better suited than DOE to designate corridors for high-
priority lines?
    Dr. Tierney. Representative Tonko, thank you for that 
question. I really appreciate it. And I know I can answer this 
from the perspective of the two National Academies studies that 
I was part of, because in both studies the committees 
recommended that FERC would have backstop siting authority as 
well as the authority to designate needed corridors.
    Now, the reason for that is FERC is a regulatory agency. It 
makes its decisions based on evidentiary records. It has a 
longstanding culture, a set of authorities, requirements and 
provisions that are used to making very tough calls on robust 
records. And, in our view, the committee members' view, the--
putting--enabling somebody like the Department of Energy to 
provide evidence about transmission plans, a variety of 
national needs and so forth, having FERC actually make 
decisions about the corridors and then step in to certify 
projects would address many of the siting hurdles that we know 
today. Let me leave it at that, but I am happy to follow up 
with more if it is helpful.
    Mr. Tonko. It certainly would. So we welcome any additional 
info you wanted to exchange with the subcommittee.
    Mr. Gramlich, what is your perspective on DOE or FERC 
leading to designation of corridors for high-priority lines?
    Mr. Gramlich. Well, I certainly agree. Thank you for the 
question. I agree with Dr. Tierney about FERC's capabilities in 
that area. And I mentioned before the awkward two-step double-
agency, double-NEPA approach that we currently have, which is 
suboptimal from any perspective.
    FERC is equipped to do that. But, you know, I would also 
just think about whether you even want to have the whole 
corridor designation process at all if you are going to go in 
and try to improve this provision, maybe just establish a 
bright line and say what is--what is for FERC and what is not.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And interregional projects could play 
an important role in achieving a low-cost clean-energy 
transition. But today, RTOs do not have good processes in place 
to evaluate these types of projects. So, Mr. Gramlich, given 
today's processes for consideration of interregional projects, 
do RTOs' planning tilt too far toward considering and selecting 
regional over interregional projects?
    Mr. Gramlich. Well, there is an unfortunate and probably 
unintended consequence of recent FERC orders, or FERC orders 
going back the last decade, encouraging--they sort of make it 
easy for the local investments. And that is probably OK given a 
lot of the assets are 70 years old and do need to be replaced.
    But we are really not building any of the large regional or 
interregional transmission. It is just not coming out of the 
plans. So we need to plan for the future, as I said before, 
which seems--seems simple, but I think Congress should 
encourage FERC to undertake a rulemaking to make sure that 
happens.
    Mr. Tonko. And could a FERC rulemaking provide the 
direction necessary to get RTOs to use similar methodologies?
    Mr. Gramlich. Yes. I think it could. FERC's authority is 
quite strong in----
    Mr. Tonko. And should----
    Mr. Gramlich [continuing]. Transmission planning.
    Mr. Tonko. And I would ask also, should they analyze these 
projects, evaluate them to see what their merit is?
    Mr. Gramlich. Yes. They should look at these regional and 
interregional opportunities, include the resilience value 
because remember a lot of these lines, Mr. Clark and I both 
commend the MISO Multi-Value Projects in the Midwest. Those 
lines were justified based on west-east flow for renewables out 
of the region, but they kept the lights on during Winter Storm 
Uri in February by flowing the power the other direction. And 
that is what transmission does. It gives you options, and it 
provides resilience once you get it built.
    Mr. Tonko. And Dr. Tierney, what else could FERC clarify to 
promote improved interregional planning?
    Dr. Tierney. Well, one of the reasons that I like the CLEAN 
Future Act as well as the POWER ON Act--actually, all four of 
the acts--is that they do talk about resilience, environmental 
improvements, diversity of supply, in addition to just the 
dollars and cents associated with transmission investments and 
the reliability benefits. And having the direction from 
Congress that it is in the national interest to be looking at 
transmission to support this array of goals would help FERC 
make decisions with regard to planning, cost allocation, and 
other things.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair, 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, thanks, Mr. Chairman, and again, thanks to 
our witnesses for being with us this afternoon. Really 
appreciate it.
    Commissioner Clark, if I could start my questions with you, 
you know, considering the cyber threats that are directed at 
our grid on a daily basis, what is your opinion on prioritizing 
the efforts to harden the grid against other cyber attacks over 
the long term? And how long is it going to take us to make sure 
that we get the grid hardened?
    Mr. Clark. Mr. Chairman and Congressman, cyber concerns are 
one of my top concerns. They were during the 4\1/2\ years that 
I was on the Commission. And I think most FERC Commissioners 
and State commissioners that you talk to will probably tell you 
the same thing. And I don't know that we are ever going to feel 
like we are in a spot where cybersecurity is taken care of and 
we don't need to worry about it anymore. I just think it is 
going to be part of an evolving process that we have to be--
that we have to stay on top of.
    I think the Commission has done a lot to make the grid 
better, to make it more cybersecure. But as we have seen from 
recent attacks, there is still a lot of work to go. From a FERC 
standpoint, which is the area that I am most familiar with, 
really what it is about is creating an ecosystem that makes it 
as difficult as possible so that, from an operation standpoint, 
operators are doing the baseline of things, sort of the floor, 
in terms of trying to protect their networks.
    But there is a lot that has to happen on top of that. And 
it is a lot of work for the operators themselves because, 
ultimately, it is not government who runs those networks, it is 
those individual operators. They have to have the ones that 
have the access to the information, the ability to block cyber 
attacks.
    Mr. Latta. Let me just kind of go into that because, again, 
I know back--back in Ohio and going through different of our--
different companies and also with our co-ops, I tell you, when 
you look at what they are doing out there today, I mean, cyber 
is at the top of the list. So when you are thinking about what 
the Federal Government needs to be doing too, I know you just 
said that you have to look at the--what the companies are doing 
or the providers are doing.
    You know, it is that interaction between the Federal 
Government and those companies out there that have to be doing 
this. Is there enough information being provided on, you know, 
on an instant basis to make sure between the providers 
themselves and then also with the Federal Government to make 
sure that they can, you know, withstand the attacks after the 
cyber attacks happen to one?
    Mr. Clark. It can always be improved. And one of the more 
promising type of efforts that I saw during my time at FERC was 
things like the fusion centers, local fusion centers where 
government was tracking and seeing what was happening on some 
of the networks in a broader context, but then they could 
provide a feedback loop to get that information quickly to the 
local utilities themselves so they can implement the sort of 
processes and patches that they need to, to protect the 
network. So that really is a big part of the key, is that 
feedback loop between what Federal officials see as well as 
what the operators themselves are seeing so that--that they can 
protect those networks.
    Mr. Latta. You know, also--you know, in reading your 
testimony, maybe you could just delve in a couple of these 
things. I think it is interesting, and you brought up in your 
opening statement about the respecting regional differences and 
the bottom-up, not top-down. Would you want to get into, 
especially with our regional differences, when you talk about 
that, you know, one size doesn't fit all. And do we have a 
situation out there were the Federal Government is creating 
situations where we do have a situation where they want to have 
a, you know, one-size-fits-all for everybody to try to fit into 
that box?
    Mr. Clark. Congressman Latta, I would say the--if you look 
at the most successful programs that have gotten, say, 
transmission built--for example, Mr. Gramlich talked about the 
MISO MVP suite of lines--the reason that happened was because 
it was built from the bottom up, and you had local, State, and 
utility buy-in into a plan that seemed to work for the entire 
region.
    I think what I would seek to avoid or would urge you to 
avoid in congressional legislation is you don't want the 
Federal Government to be picking out the lines where it thinks 
they should go and then maybe connecting into regions and 
really undercutting some of the investments that may happen in 
local regions.
    For example, I mentioned the Pacific Northwest has a very 
unique profile in their grid. There are certain parts of the 
country that rely very heavily on nuclear plants. If you build 
a lot of lines with zero fuel cost resources and flood the 
market with zero fuel cost resources, uplift the cost of 
transmission in a region that has very large nuclear plants, 
that is very likely going to cause economic distress for those 
nuclear plants, and we can't afford to lose those resources in 
terms of trying to reduce carbon emissions. So it is a 
complicated network, and that is why it is so important that 
whatever is done nationally has to be leveraged and based on 
the decisions that are being made at the State and local level.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time 
has expired, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes--
now recognizes Ms. Schrier for 5 minutes.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Matsui for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 
witnesses for appearing before us today. 2020 was a record-
setting year, wildfires in California. Wildfires burned through 
nearly 4.5 million acres, making this the largest wildfire 
season in California's modern history. These fires ravaged 
through more than 4 percent of the State's land, and the threat 
of wildfires combined with historic heat waves cause rolling 
blackouts.
    For this reason, I introduced the Preventing Outages with 
Enhanced Resilience and Operations Nationwide Act of 2021, or 
as it is called, POWER ON Act of 2021, which is not to be 
confused with Mr. Peters' great legislation with the same 
acronym. This POWER ON Act that I had is a bipartisan and 
bicameral bill to establish a new electric grid resilience 
grant program at DOE focused on grid hardening for extreme 
weather events.
    Mr. Gramlich, can the deployment of grid-enhancing 
technologies such as dynamic line ratings and advanced 
conductors reduce the risk of wildfires posed by certain 
transmission lines?
    Mr. Gramlich. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 
Yes. Grid-enhancing technologies, I am so glad you asked about 
that. We have not covered it much here. But we--while we 
endeavor to expand transmission capacity, we really need to 
make sure that consumers and people care--who care about the 
land that could be impacted are assured that we use grid-
enhancing technologies to deliver as much as we can over the 
existing network first.
    And then in addition to that, as you just indicated in your 
question, they can often help a great deal with reliability and 
resilience situations. In emergency conditions, often we rerate 
transmission lines. That is one example of the type of thing we 
can do. We can actually push and pull power over different 
routes now with modern technology. So grid-enhancing 
technologies are a great opportunity to do that.
    Ms. Matsui. Well, how about the use of advanced conductors 
usually selected for high-capacity and efficiency? Can they 
provide wildfire mitigation and resilience?
    Mr. Gramlich. Yes. Advanced conductors can reduce the sag, 
for example. They are--they can be much more resilient than the 
standard transmission line. And sag is a problem because the 
lines can dip into vegetation and spark a wild--spark a fire. 
And so if you can reduce the sag with advanced transmission 
conductors, then you can reduce that risk.
    Ms. Matsui. OK. Climate change poses a variety of threats 
to our communities. According to report from the U.S. Global 
Change Research Program, climate change will cause a wide range 
of negative impacts on public health, including increased 
premature deaths and respiratory illnesses due to decreasing 
air quality and increased heat-related death due to rising 
temperatures, among other disruptions.
    For this reason, I introduced the TREES Act, my bill to 
reduce energy bills through residential tree planting while 
combating heat islands, and coled the Climate Change Health 
Protection and Promotion Act with Representative Matt 
Cartwright.
    Dr. Tierney, in your testimony you mentioned that 
transmission infrastructure enhancements and increased access 
to broader interstate electrical regions can help resiliency, 
reliability, and public health outcomes. Can you expand on the 
social benefits that transmission system investments will have 
and how Congress can help maximize these outcomes?
    Dr. Tierney. Congresswoman, I love that question, and I 
love your bill. I am very aware of this heat island problem, 
and tree planting is very, very important. But more broadly, 
transmission can help on local public--public health issues 
where there are today highly polluting fossil generation where 
there are front-line communities that are living very close to 
those very aged facilities. In some cases, they cannot be 
retired unless there is either a replacement there potentially 
for local reliability issues or transmission is built to widen 
the availability of access for that community to power, say, 
from renewables that are distant. So transmission can help 
enable avoidance of local pollution in very important ways. And 
I think that this is a really important issue that I hope 
people will consider.
    Ms. Matsui. Oh. Thank you very much.
    And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman, my friend from West Virginia, Mr. 
McKinley, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McKinley. Mr. Chairman, that is West by God Virginia. 
Let me just continue on with this. I have really enjoyed this 
kind of political, tainted conversation we have had about 
transmission lines and--but I don't want to go down that rabbit 
hole. I think there is an alternative that we don't have to 
face all the problems because they are telling me we may have 
hundreds of thousands of miles of transmission lines we have to 
put in as we make this transition.
    So I'd like to talk a little bit about how we might be able 
to use carbon capture as a way to keep our coal-fired fossil 
fuel fleet still available. And I want to use the illustration 
of land use when we make this conversion, this transition over 
to wind or solar.
    So this would take one power plant in West Virginia. It's 
a--the Amos Power Plant is about 3,000 megawatts, a pretty 
good-sized facility but not the biggest in the country by any 
stretch. The 3,000 megawatt--our consultants that we have been 
talking to for the last month and a half have indicated that we 
were going to have to--if we have 2-megawatt wind turbines 
apiece, we will have to have a total of 4,250 wind turbines to 
be able to service that 3,000-megawatt power plant now, because 
we have to also charge the batteries for the backup.
    So I understand. I am not going to argue over that 4,250. 
Now, if you use that, now the math comes in. If the--if what we 
are hearing from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in 
their report has surveyed, they went back through and they 
looked at 172 large-scale power wind farms, and they came to 
conclusion that you need to have about two-tenths of a square 
mile per windmill.
    So now do the math back again to what I just said: 4,250 at 
two-tenths. That means I am going to have to have 8--I am going 
to have 850 square miles, 850 square miles of land committed to 
putting windmills on. Eight hundred and fifty square miles.
    Now, what does that look like? That is 1\1/2\ times larger 
than the entire city of Houston. It is for Chairman Pallone's 
district up in--up in the 6th District of New Jersey, it is 4 
times larger than his entire congressional district just to put 
in windmills, wind turbines, for one power plant in West 
Virginia. So I am astounded with that, and I am wondering is 
this the best use, because I think we heard earlier today to 
get 850 square miles, I am going to have to have eminent 
domain. I am going to have to have a series of litigation that 
I am going to have to go through. So for us to get to 2030 or 
2035 with renewables, I don't know how in the world we are 
going to get to that.
    If one power plant requires 850 square miles just to put in 
a wind farm--so I am--I ask, Mr. Clark, if I could just focus 
on you for a moment. Is that the best use of our land, or would 
it be better if we were to convert--use carbon capture and keep 
our power plants still as--we are going to eventually go to 
renewables. I understand that. But just we--maybe we don't need 
to do it so quickly that we can come up with another system. 
Can you react to that?
    Mr. Clark. Congressman McKinley, the way I would put it is 
utility companies and generating companies build different 
resources for different reasons. And every resource has its 
place. So the future will have some mix of a number of 
different resources. And as you indicate, renewables, I 
believe, will be a--a big part of it. The question that you ask 
which I think is exactly right, which is we still have to focus 
on ensuring that there's dispatchable resources on the system 
available to accommodate the amount of renewables that are 
being--will be coming on.
    In a carbon-constrained world, which is generally where the 
arc of the generation fleet is moving, it means we--be serious 
about figuring out ways to have carbon-free dispatchable 
resources. That includes things potentially like carbon capture 
and sequestration with existing plants, nuclear generation, so 
on and so forth.
    Mr. McKinley. Mr. Clark, if I could, do you think they are 
wrong, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, two-tenths of 
a square mile. You have heard----
    Mr. Clark. Congressman----
    Mr. McKinley [continuing]. The wind turbine?
    Mr. Clark [continuing]. I don't know that I have seen that 
particular one, but the issue of energy density and the fact 
that it takes a lot more land use with renewables as compared 
to, say, a smaller footprint----
    Mr. McKinley. I am just running short of time, obviously. I 
just want--it is a reality check to realize what we are about 
to do here in pursuing, because if we can keep our coal-fired, 
fossil-fuel-fired power plants, we are not going to need this 
transmission problem, as it goes--it at least is mitigated. We 
are not going to need as much as we would have otherwise. We 
could go to a hundred percent by 2030 or 2035. So with that, 
Mr. Chairman, I know I have yield--gone over, but thank you. 
Yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Schrier for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 
you to our witnesses. I am very interested in how we can 
identify ways to better use our power marketing administrations 
to support the deployment of transmission, which I believe we 
need regardless of what energy portfolio we need because we 
need redundancy and resiliency.
    Mr. Gramlich, in your testimony, you state regarding the 
facilitation of interregional transmission that another option 
is for greater use of the power marketing administrations, 
which have expertise in transmission planning, valuable local 
relationships, and authorities to permit transmission and 
partner with private investors. It seems that, if they could 
lead here, it could be a real win-win, facilitating the 
deployment of more renewables and hydroelectric energy while 
also continuing to improve grid reliability and redundancy in 
the Pacific Northwest. And I was wondering if you could just 
expand a bit on your statement.
    Mr. Gramlich. Sure. Thank you for the question. Yes. Power 
marketing administrations are--play a key role in transmission. 
They can--with their loan authority, they can go ahead and 
develop and build some transmission. They can expand the seams 
capacity between the Eastern and Western interconnections. That 
would be WAPA. And they also, as you mentioned, can use the 
authority in Section 1221 of EPAct 2005, which allows the PMAs 
to partner with private investors and private capital to build 
transmission. And the PMAs in that case bring a lot of 
expertise, local relationships and permitting authority to get 
transmission built. And that can be utilized in the parts of 
the country where the PMAs exists, which is a little over half 
the country.
    Ms. Schrier. And that is what we have in Washington State. 
So that is really interesting to hear about the partnership 
between the two. I know that in your testimony you talked about 
kind of a transmission facilitation program in which the 
Department of Energy reserves up to half the capacity of a new 
transmission line and then sells that capacity to other users. 
Is that the kind of relationship with private industry that you 
are referring to?
    Mr. Gramlich. That is another example. It is sort of a loan 
program. And it appeared in public, I think, in the first time 
about a week ago in Senator Manchin's discussion draft. And I 
commend that provision.
    Ms. Schrier. And would that benefit a State like Washington 
where a Federal power marketing administration is responsible 
for a significant part of the transmission system?
    Mr. Gramlich. Yes. I think it would be--apply in the 
northwest. You might check with Senator Cantwell's office. I 
think she is very interested in that type of provision.
    Ms. Schrier. Fantastic. I will follow up, and I thank you 
for your comments and yield back the remainder of my time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her 
time. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Johnson from Ohio for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have covered 
a lot of ground today with several sections on transmission. 
But I am going to focus on a couple of them that are 
particularly concerning. First is Section 220, establishing 
something called a Federal, quote, right to clean energy. Now, 
that is interesting. Mr. Chairman, I don't know about anyone 
else's district, but I can assure you that, in eastern and 
southeastern Ohio where I live and represent, the people are 
not pounding down my door demanding their right to clean 
energy.
    What they really want for their families is affordable, 
reliable energy. That is my main concern, and it should be the 
main concern of this committee. Anything else is an intentional 
failure to grasp the reality of what the American people face 
every day. Ironically, even individuals or businesses who would 
actually like to pay higher prices for their so-called clean 
energy still need a backup for intermittent renewables for when 
the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
    What is that backup? You guessed it: cheap, reliable, and 
affordable natural gas and coal paid for by everyone else. So, 
Mr. Clark, in your experience as a State utility regulator, 
your first priority was delivering electricity on demand at the 
best price. Can you explain to us why this, quote, right to 
clean energy, why that section coupled with Federal preemption 
of State or regional rules would not be the right approach if 
the goal is to provide the best, most affordable, most reliable 
electric service to the American people?
    Mr. Clark. Congressman, sure. I suspect that the provision 
is being supported, especially by large corporate energy buyers 
who might like to directly procure energy outside of existing 
regulated relationship that they might have in the areas in 
which they do business. And by establishing a quote/unquote 
Federal right to clean energy to purchase it from anywhere, it 
would allow them to do so, sometimes to meet, I suppose, their 
corporate sustainability goals, number one, but also to get 
preferential rates that they can get because they are very 
large energy buyers.
    The problem with that sort of system is it can leave other 
system costs to balance and maintain 24/7 reliability existing 
with the remaining customers on the system, and then they have 
to pick up the tab for that. State regulators that you 
mentioned typically have processes to ensure that, when a large 
buyer wishes to get direct special access to a resource, that 
they do it as part of some sort of proceeding in front of the 
State commission.
    The State commission can then balance interests and make 
sure that average customers are held harmless so that the sort 
of little guy, the residential customer, the small business 
customer, doesn't end up subsidizing those choices for the 
large customer who wishes to leave the system. I would be 
concerned that a Federal establishment of a right could 
undermine those protections that exist at the State level to 
make sure that that cost shifting does not----
    Mr. Johnson. OK.
    Mr. Clark [continuing]. Happen.
    Mr. Johnson. All right. You also outline, Mr. Clark, some 
concerns with Section 211, citing regional differences in 
choosing what investments make sense for certain areas. And you 
make the case that we should pursue cleaner energy sources as 
free-market innovation facilitates it rather than a mandated 
one-size-fits-all approach. In past hearings, I have cautioned 
about not wanting to lock into certain technologies when, down 
the road, technological breakthroughs, perhaps with hydrogen or 
advanced nuclear, might render them obsolete.
    This pertains to wind, solar, and their thousands of miles 
of new transmission lines in particular. When you consider the 
millions of tons of glass, concrete, steel, land and rare earth 
metals that we depend on communist China for, among other 
materials, it is staggering. We certainly should think twice 
about whether this is wise stewardship of taxpayer dollars, not 
to mention preserving the American landscape, which all of 
these wind and solar farms would blight. So, Mr. Clark, this 
legislation, in unprecedented fashion, mandates preferential 
treatment for current renewable technologies. Once again, it is 
Congress trying to pick winners and losers. Can you talk about 
the unintended consequences of this approach, especially when 
forced on the entire country?
    Mr. Clark. So Congressman, as I indicated before, I think 
every resource does have its place. And in my home State and 
region of the Midwest, for example, wind has been traditionally 
a fairly popular option. And there have been transmission lines 
but--built to accommodate that. That doesn't mean it is 
necessarily the right answer everywhere. I know there are large 
parts of the country, especially in the southeast, that have 
depended on nuclear power. And that may be--sort of local 
nuclear generation may be a better way for them to meet carbon 
reduction goals than importing wind, say, from, you know, 
several thousand miles away.
    So that is why I say it really has to be built from the 
bottom up based on those plans that are made at the local level 
in order for these decisions to be--have some sustainability.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 
Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today.
    Mr. Gramlich, you note in your testimony that there are 
hundreds of gigawatts of proposed power projects stuck in these 
interconnection cues. My bill, 4027, the Efficient Grid 
Interconnection Act, would direct FERC to use a beneficiary 
pays principle to cover the network upgrade cost. Talk to us 
about this and how you see it helping consumers save money 
eventually on their electric bills.
    Mr. Gramlich. Sure. Thank you for the question, and thank 
you for the bill. I think it is a great bill, and what it does 
is it makes sure that it is not just the next car on the 
highway that has to pay for the whole lane expansion that 
everybody else in the future is going to use. That is what is 
happening with our transmission system right now. We are 
essentially trying to plan a transmission system through the 
interconnection process. And it is a sequential process. So 
these generators kind of pile up in line in the queue.
    And the next one that sort of--the next straw that breaks 
the camel's back triggers that upgrade that is needed, and then 
they have to pay for it when, in fact, once it is built, it is 
by definition a shared network. It is used by everybody. And so 
what your bill does is that it makes sure that all the users of 
the system will pay their share. It doesn't prescribe--your 
bill doesn't prescribe exactly who pays how much. FERC would 
have to do that. But at least it takes this most egregious 
option off the table.
    Ms. Castor. Dr. Tierney, what do you think about this bill 
and how we want to reduce congestion, break up this traffic 
jam?
    Dr. Tierney. Well, I would agree with everything, 
Congresswoman, that Rob Gramlich just said. One of the problems 
here is this chicken-and-egg problem and the fact that the 
first party in has to pay so much of the cost, and then it is a 
staggering impediment to actually going forward with 
investment.
    So spreading these costs around amongst a broad group of 
beneficiaries as your bill would do would really help make sure 
that a suite of projects can come forward economically and 
that's----
    Ms. Castor. And you----
    Dr. Tierney [continuing]. Good for consumers.
    Ms. Castor. You see that as--yes. So is that a good--is 
that good for businesses and families alike?
    Dr. Tierney. Absolutely. I apologize for stepping on your 
toes there. Yes. That will help reduce bills for consumers very 
broadly.
    Ms. Castor. Mr. Anderson, so if we can break up these 
interconnection roadblocks, boy, that could really create a lot 
of jobs. Will we have the workforce that we need among our 
utility workers to connect up these power projects to the grid?
    Mr. Anderson. Thank you very much for that question. And 
just in case it is not immediately obvious, you have put your 
finger right on what our perspective there is. We don't have 
particularly strong opinions about the cautioning that's used 
such as the other witnesses do. We do have a strong opinion 
about--is who is going to build these projects, who is going to 
operate them and maintain them over time. And naturally, we 
want those jobs to be as good as possible.
    Do we have the workforce now? We have the start on the 
workforce. But when we are talking about the scale of buildout 
that we are discussing at this hearing today, we will need a 
much larger workforce, which is--goes back to my earlier 
response to the Chair, which was that we have to build out our 
training programs much more robustly than they exist now 
because the scale of the job requires a much--a scaled-up 
workforce.
    Ms. Castor. And Mr. Clark, do you see--I mean, these are 
projects all over the country. But from your experience, this 
would be a boon to middle America especially, but talk to me 
about where we could see these jobs.
    Mr. Clark. Sure. With regard to jobs, of course, wherever 
the projects are built, that's where the jobs will follow. And 
we have certainly seen that with certain transmission projects 
and things like that in my home region. With regard to the 
interconnection queues, this is an issue that, when I think 
back, this was probably an issue in 2005 and 6 when I was on a 
State commission, it was an issue while I was at FERC, and it 
has been an issue since then. So it is a log jam.
    I do have some concerns with regard to the suggestion that, 
if we just spread the costs around large enough, that will 
break up the interconnection queue itself. The reason for that 
concern is it may just encourage more developers to then clog 
the queue, which in one hand is sort of--I see more development 
happening out there. On the other hand, it attracts that much 
more interconnections into the queue. So it----
    Ms. Castor. We are off----
    Mr. Clark. I wish----
    Ms. Castor [continuing]. Our competition aren't----
    Mr. Clark. Yes. I wish there was a silver bullet to the 
interconnection problem, but we haven't come up with one yet at 
the--at the regulatory level. It is tough because you do have 
to do the engineering studies, of course, to make sure that 
everyone can interconnect equitably in a way that doesn't harm 
the reliability of the system.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Bucshon, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the first panel, I 
mentioned a couple of ongoing challenges to infrastructure 
development, including probably new transmission lines, 
lawsuits related to eminent domain issues, and environmental 
activists who sue over basically anything.
    So, Mr. Clark, what do you see as the biggest challenges 
when it comes to building out transmission infrastructure, 
particularly the stuff that is discussed in the bill about--in 
this bill where we would build out charging stations across the 
country. What is the biggest challenges that we face to 
actually completing a timeline that is described in this bill?
    Mr. Clark. Congressman, I think that probably permitting 
challenges are the largest challenge that we have across the 
country. And I do have concerns that simply shifting the 
responsibility for siting lines to the Federal Government 
doesn't really solve that problem. In fact, in some ways, it 
may----
    Mr. Bucshon. Probably will make it worse, right?
    Mr. Clark. In some ways, it could. If you set up a system 
where there had to be programmatic EIS's and the Federal 
Government itself was planning transmission corridors and 
lines, you will invite a significant amount of opposition to 
those projects. And, as my friend Congressman Armstrong pointed 
out earlier, all of the folks who have been watching what has 
been happening in the pipeline permitting program and finding 
out new legal ways to block those lines have been sharpening 
their pencils. And those legal strategies will be used against 
electric transmission lines as well.
    Mr. Bucshon. Yes. For example, the Supreme Court ruled 
today against the State of New Jersey blocking a pipeline based 
on eminent domain across State property, but that doesn't--it 
is a pipeline going up the East Coast, our chairman's home 
State.
    But that doesn't fix the problem there. So there's going to 
be ongoing lawsuits in addition to--no matter what we--what we 
do. I would agree that, in my experience, taking jurisdiction 
away from States and giving it to the Federal Government makes 
things dramatically worse. I think that's been proven over and 
over. So basically, do you feel like the goals of 2035 and 2050 
realistically be met when the legislation doesn't address what 
you said, the permitting process? I mean, how--I mean, that's 
the--all of us on this committee want to address carbon 
emissions.
    I think most of us support--I--at least I'll speak for 
myself--I support an all-of-the-above energy approach. But that 
said, how can we have a timeline this tight 14 years from now 
if we don't address the permitting process? I mean--and I think 
Mr. Armstrong mentioned in some infrastructure of a highway in 
his State and he mentioned maybe six or seven Federal agencies 
that had jurisdiction that had to--had to go through that 
process. And every one of them, if something is different 
between your permit over here and over here, they get sued.
    So if we don't address that process and streamline that at 
the Federal level and then we take control at the Federal 
level, how can we meet these timelines? Is there any possible 
way?
    Mr. Clark. Congressman, to your question, even under the 
best of circumstances if you--you know, it is 2021/2035 goal. 
In the utility business, 14 years is basically tomorrow.
    Mr. Bucshon. There you go.
    Mr. Clark. And to meet extraordinarily aggressive goals on 
that sort of timeline, considering that there would have to be 
a tremendous buildout of infrastructure that already is very 
difficult to get built in and of itself. And we heard testimony 
today, and we have heard it elsewhere: If you are a major 
transmission project crossing Federal land, 15 years might be 
an optimistic scenario to get one line built, let alone talking 
about an entire grid transformation.
    Mr. Bucshon. Yes. So we have seen difficulties maintaining 
our existing transmission lines in California. Obviously, you 
know, we have wildfire situations out there a lot, and some of 
that is related to--honestly, I think the environmental 
community not allowing us to clear trees and other things away 
from transmission lines, that is local and Federal but, mostly, 
I think, California issues.
    Does this legislation address that kind of thing?
    Mr. Clark. Congressman, I have to admit I haven't read the 
whole almost 1,000-page bill, and I----
    Mr. Bucshon. Yes.
    Mr. Clark [continuing]. Focused more on----
    Mr. Bucshon. Neither have I.
    Mr. Clark [continuing]. That I am testifying on. But I 
think under any scenario, the point that you are getting at is 
a good one, which is that the grid transformation, which I 
think the arc of is very clear--we are moving towards a less 
carbon-intensive grid----
    Mr. Bucshon. And I agree with that. I think everyone does.
    Mr. Clark. The--getting there is tough. There's no two ways 
about it.
    Mr. Bucshon. Yes. I yield back.
    Thank you for those answers.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragan, for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 
panel for joining us today. Mr. Gramlich, will building a 
national grid help our country retire fossil fuel plants more 
quickly?
    Mr. Gramlich. Well, I think we need a large investment in 
interregional transmission under any scenario for resilience. 
Certainly, it is the case sometimes when plants retire, as Dr. 
Tierney mentioned, that there are sometimes plants that are 
right next to disadvantaged communities that have the local 
emissions, and you need transmission to replace those and clean 
up the air. So in that respect, yes.
    Ms. Barragan. OK. So just to be clear, you do think it is 
going to help us to retire them more quickly, or you don't?
    Mr. Gramlich. Well, transmission is critical to cleaning up 
the grid, no question. Cleaning up the grid and for system 
resilience.
    Ms. Barragan. OK. Dr. Tierney, on average, will the clean 
energy sources--will the clean energy sources national grid--
hang on a quick second. Oh, my note is--I think I have, when I 
drafted this, a little typo here. I think I am just going to 
ask Mr. Anderson my next question, and I will come back to 
that.
    Mr. Anderson, how can we target grid investment so the jobs 
they create can benefit workers and communities of color?
    Mr. Anderson. That's a great question. I think it goes back 
to a couple of points that I made earlier, which is--well, it 
is tied up with all the points we have made earlier today.
    Targeting the investment in a way that allows the regulated 
utilities to be a part of this is what will really benefit the 
workforce, because that is where the unionized workforce really 
is. And that goes to the point that has been made several times 
today about projects first having local, State, and utility 
buy-in as opposed to being a top-down Federal approach. A happy 
byproduct of doing that bottom-up approach is that you are 
organically including the unionized workforce in doing that.
    To your second question about the community, it is really, 
I think, about, I'll say, revenue flow. And the reason I say 
that is because, even if you locate a brand-new generation 
asset of any type--say it's a utility-scale solar farm, another 
thing that has been said today is that nobody really likes 
utility projects no matter what they are. And the reason is 
because nobody likes to look at them, frankly, and it doesn't 
matter really what it is. So the way that you benefit the 
community is you site these assets for engineering reasons or 
where the resource is and then think about where the revenue 
from that generation asset flows and identify the community 
that needs to be--that needs benefit.
    Ms. Barragan. OK. Thank you. Mr. Anderson, I was going to 
stay and follow up with you on that. Like any other work, green 
jobs aren't guaranteed to be good jobs. As Congress looks to 
invest in the grid, what labor standards should we be requiring 
of any companies that receive investment tax credits or other 
Federal funds?
    Mr. Anderson. Thank you for that question. That is very 
important. I think the first top-line thing that Congress could 
do, frankly, is some fundamental reform of Federal labor law, 
by which I mean passing the PRO Act and having that signed into 
law. Federal labor law at this point is degraded to a point 
where it is very difficult to use. I will say that. And--but 
the second point there on labor standards, particularly when it 
comes to things like Buy America and procurement standards, it 
is also very critical to say, ``If you are going to get the bid 
on this project, then these are the labor standards that you 
have to meet now.''
    That doesn't--you can't actually mandate union labor. I 
understand that. But you do--you can build out a set of labor 
standards in such a way that that's probably where it is going 
to come from, because that is where the really good jobs are, 
is in that unionized workforce.
    Ms. Barragan. Great. Well, thank you.
    Dr. Tierney, I will have to follow up with you on my own. 
It is a question about whether, you know, this clean energy 
having a national grid is going to make it cheaper for the 
ratepayers compared to what they are currently paying. I don't 
know if you want to comment on that in my last 20 seconds at 
all. I am happy to yield you that 20 seconds or we can chat 
offline.
    Dr. Tierney. Well, just one thing I can say is that what 
transmission can provide is the ability for the grid operator 
to reach out to more economical supplies. So, yes, there could 
clearly be benefits to consumers. But I would be happy to 
answer that more fully. Thank you.
    Ms. Barragan. OK. Thank you. I apologize for the mix-up. 
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 
panel for being here to take our questions and respond today.
    Mr. Clark, in your testimony you discussed respecting 
regional differences. I appreciate that. You said there is no 
one-size-fits-all when it comes to generating and transmitting 
electricity in the United States and that different market 
structures have developed based on characteristics of each 
reason. It makes sense to me. The point hits home very clearly 
in the State of Michigan.
    Our energy system is unique in that the utilities own and 
operate generation assets and the distribution system while an 
independent company owns and operates the transmission system. 
This structure creates some challenges for us since the State 
public utility commission overseas generation, but our 
transmission lines fall under FERC. All that to say--point out 
that every State, every region, is unique and have unique 
challenges specific to them.
    As opposed to only investing in new transmission lines, 
some States might prefer nontransmission alternatives that 
achieve the same result in terms of reducing emissions. For 
instance, Michigan is one of the top three States that stand to 
benefit the most from deploying carbon capture technologies at 
existing steel and cement industrial facilities, both in terms 
of reducing emissions and adding economic benefit like creating 
thousands of new, good-paying jobs.
    And so, Mr. Clark, can you speak to the potential harm that 
a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to building out massive 
amounts of new transmission might cause to a State like 
Michigan?
    Mr. Clark. Congressman Walberg, thank you for the question. 
I think what you had mentioned in your question about some of 
the things that are going on, it sounds like at the--sort of 
the distribution side and at the retail side is a good case in 
point. And why I say that, it really has to take place from the 
bottom up and not the top down.
    So many of the nontransmission alternatives, things that 
might include demand response or energy efficiency programs, 
other things that take place on a customer precedent--premises 
are things that, by definition under Federal law, because of 
the line that is drawn in the Federal Power Act itself, are 
retail activities and therefore subject to State jurisdiction. 
So States have the most experience in that. And they tend--
they, in overseeing their utility companies, will build a 
resource base and make decisions and balance interests based on 
how to best serve those customers from the bottom up.
    If the Federal Government doesn't take that into account 
and we are empowered to, as I suggested, just simply draw lines 
that may hook up what looks like a renewable rich area here to 
a load center here, it could actually disrupt a lot of those 
investments that take place in the region, whereas if the 
planning takes place from the bottom up, then that sort of 
transmission line might be supported by a broad region because 
it is supporting the individual choices that those States are 
making.
    Mr. Walberg. You have a great deal of experience dealing 
with the thorny issues related to allocating costs for 
interstate transmission projects. You state in your testimony 
that, and I quote, ``transmission and generation projects exist 
to support customers,'' again going from the bottom up, as you 
have said.
    Customers don't exist to support transmission and 
generation projects. Do you believe we should more carefully 
examine how this proposed massive transmission buildout 
purported to be about a hundred billion dollars will affect 
consumer cost? A utility in my State has suggested that, if 
this were to take place, it would cost the ratepayer a 20 
percent increase. Would you recommend doing so State by State 
or region by region?
    Mr. Clark. So cost allocation is one of the most difficult 
challenges that FERC deals with, and it is because 
beneficiaries can change over time over the grid, and they are 
often very contested cases. And that suite of MISO lines that 
we had talked about earlier, Michigan was actually a State 
that--that I think it was Michigan and Illinois had sued in 
Federal court over those cost allocation decisions. So these 
are big-dollar values.
    I actually think FERC has a lot of tools to be able to come 
up with smart cost allocation decisions under current law. So I 
might be a little bit concerned about broadening Federal law in 
ways that upset that precedent that has been established to 
this point.
    Mr. Walberg. Well, I would as well, especially when we 
think about the cost of mandates to the consumers and the 
impact that would be unique--in each unique region of this 
country. So I appreciate your comments, and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Palmer of Alabama for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier in this panel, 
one of my colleagues said that these transmission lines and 
renewable would be competitive, that cost would come down, 
that--Mr. Clark, that would only be--that statement can only be 
made in the context of the massive amount of Federal subsidies 
that go to solar and wind. I have got a report here that came 
out in April of this year. Shows the subsidies for wind at 
almost $34 billion and the subsidies for solar at almost 27 
billion. That is almost 3 times the combined subsidies for 
expensing of expiration costs for oil and natural gas and for 
the depletion allowance for oil and natural gas.
    Would--given the--that the taxpayers are basically having 
to foot the bill for this, that is not exactly a reduction in 
cost, is it?
    Mr. Clark. So, Congressman, I mean, one of the--there have 
been a number of studies recently that would indicate that, 
even without the subsidies, a lot of renewables are becoming 
competitive, which would seem to indicate that perhaps you 
don't need the subsidies to continue to promote the renewables. 
I think originally those subsidies were intended as sort of a 
jumpstart to that industry, and there was an expectation that 
most of those would be phased out, but they have been extended 
several times.
    They can have distortive impacts on the market. It is 
something that Congress will want to be aware of. But, as I 
indicated earlier, utilities will build resources for different 
reasons. Renewables can be a very competitive option when it 
comes to things like----
    Mr. Palmer. Let me just point out, having worked for a 
couple of engineering companies, a lot of the cost of this will 
be in the form of stranded costs. And it is going to be 
enormously expensive to completely replace the power grid. I 
mean, we are talking trillions of dollars to have one uniform 
grid, and that cost is going to be borne either by the taxpayer 
or the ratepayer or both. It will be borne by the people who 
are doing manufacturing, operating businesses.
    As I point out to people, businesses don't pay regulatory 
costs. They don't pay taxes. Consumers do. So any way you look 
at it, in the long-term, this is going to be extremely 
expensive, as was the current grid, as they are still paying 
for the stranded cost.
    I also want to raise another issue that several of my 
colleagues have raised that I'm--I'm not sure that my Democrat 
colleagues have adequately addressed. And that is the issue of 
the power of eminent domain. Section 216 of the Federal Power 
Act authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 
issue a Federal permit that preempts State limits and grants 
permit holders eminent domain authority. If the--is it possible 
that the permit holder could be a private company?
    Mr. Clark. Oh. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Palmer. So we would be granting a private company 
eminent domain authority over----
    Mr. Clark. That is----
    Mr. Palmer [continuing]. Property owners.
    Mr. Clark. That is correct. It would greatly expand the--
what is now an unused Federal backstop authority and what, in 
my testimony, I called really just Federal siting authority.
    Mr. Palmer. Well, that is very disturbing to me. And I 
pointed out on the earlier panel the number of States that have 
fought these--the expansion of these transmission lines over 
State property, over private property. One of my colleagues on 
the Republican side quoted the chairman of this committee, 
Frank Pallone, and his arguments against the pipeline being 
forced--construction pipeline being forced on his home State of 
New Jersey. I respect the chairman's position on that, his--he 
is absolutely right to defend his State's property rights, both 
the State property and the private property owners.
    You know, I find it striking that the Federal Government 
has--has declared certain species endangered like the lesser 
prairie chicken that they are about to put on the endangered 
species list that will impact what is going on in the Permian 
Basin. But--and I don't want to make light of this, but it is 
almost as though they give more power, more rights to the 
lesser prairie chicken than they do a homeowner or a farm owner 
or ranch owner or a municipality. And that is disturbing to me. 
So I hope that, as we go forward, Mr. Gramlich, and others on 
this panel that you realize that you are trampling on 
constitutional rights, and there is nothing in our Constitution 
that I think people hold as dear as they do their right to 
private property. I yield back.
    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.
    Mr. Clark, I have several questions for you. The first is, 
would you say it is safe to say that, if there is a mandatory 
provision that utility companies have to be part of an RTO or 
ISO, as is stated in the Democrats' bill, that Arizona would 
probably be brought into the California ISO?
    Mr. Clark. So there are not a lot of--lot of other ISOs 
operating in the West. The only one that is near Arizona right 
now is Cal ISO. So it could be a likely candidate if it was 
mandated upon Arizona.
    Mrs. Lesko. And so what would happen, in your estimation, 
if Arizona is brought into the California ISO under that 
authority? My understanding is the Governor of California 
appoints the board members to the California ISO. So would that 
mean basically that Arizona would be governed by the Governor 
of California?
    Mr. Clark. One of the hurdles to developing an ISO in the 
West, quite candidly, has been that governance structure of the 
Cal ISO, because it is appointed by the Governor of California. 
California has such a large State in comparison to others in 
the West, and it has very aggressive energy policies. It has 
traditionally been a concern of other Western States that they 
don't wish to come into an ISO that has that level of sort of a 
political thumbprint on it. So that is a big concern for 
leaders across the West, yes.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. And Mr. Clark, would you say--will 
forcing Western utilities into RTOs result in more renewable 
energy on the grid?
    Mr. Clark. I don't believe necessarily that's case--the 
case. I think there are--and part of the reason I say that is, 
is ISOs in and of themselves were not designed to choose a 
particular resource. They were designed to operate around 
setting price as the mechanism that determines, say, when 
transmission gets built or what resources come online, what 
resources are dispatched.
    So RTOs aren't specifically designed to be transmission and 
green energy-building machines. I think there may be ways for 
the West or for other regions to achieve significant carbon 
reductions and a buildout in renewables but in a planned way. 
One of the ways that the utilities in the West have been--have 
been doing that is through membership in what we had heard 
about earlier, the EIM, energy imbalance market, where they 
maintain their fleet of generation to serve their customers, 
but then they have a platform that rests on top of that State-
regulated activity that allows them to trade more energy across 
a broader region.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. And you talked about this before, 
but in Section 220 of the Democrats' bill, it says it disallows 
State interference and a customer's right to purchase clean 
electricity in interstate commerce. And I believe your concern 
and my concern as well is that big electric buyers like data 
centers or Google, Amazon would then be able to do that. And 
the fixed cost of utilities would then be spread to the 
residential customers, thus increasing their cost. Is that--am 
I accurate on that?
    Mr. Clark. Congresswoman, that is--that would be my 
concern. And that is why the--typically States have processes 
for when, for example, a large buyer wishes to directly procure 
their energy from some other resource that there is a mechanism 
that they will go through to ensure that other customers are 
held harmless. I worry about putting a quote/unquote right to 
clean energy mandate in Federal law that may preempt a lot of 
those consumer protection standards.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Clark. And my last question is 
also in Section 220. It basically says FERC can charge carbon 
taxes on people. Is that your understanding, and would the 
utility rates rise for consumers in that case?
    Mr. Clark. So, as I read that section, yes, it would allow 
a pathway to make it clear--explicitly clear that it is legal 
for FERC to start a process by which it would price carbon 
into, if the bill is passed as it is, now mandatory RTOs which 
would establish effectively the nationwide price on carbon. 
That will have the effect of raising consumer rates almost by 
definition, because it is changing the dispatch stack from what 
would normally run to resources based on an environmental 
dispatch.
    Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Clark, for your testimony, and 
you, sir, as well, and Mr. Anderson. And I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pence, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, 
and thank you to the panel for coming here today. Mr. Gramlich, 
I just got here at the end. I kind of feel sorry for you. 
Nobody is asking any questions, and I am not going to either. 
Sorry.
    You know, the rapid rush to green envisioned by the CLEAN 
Future Act would outpace current technologies who move beyond 
the logistical reality permitting large-scale infrastructure 
projects. The Princeton report on transmission that has been 
referenced here today suggests a 31 percent increase in 
national capacity by 2025, 3\1/2\ years away from right now.
    We know that from design to completion, these types of 
infrastructure projects can take over 10 years and sometimes 
even longer. To be clear, I support efforts to modernize our 
grid and to reduce our emissions. Hoosiers in southeast Indiana 
will benefit from transmission technologies that make more 
efficient use of energy supplies.
    It is important to note that stakeholders in Indiana and 
cross-country are already investing in transmission projects to 
make this a reality. Instead of a top-down approach that many 
of us have talked about today, we should encourage the private 
investment that is already occurring by lowering barriers to 
continued innovation. Take the Indiana Municipal Power Agency, 
for example. IMPA has worked with their members to responsibly 
integrate a hundred gigawatts of renewable energy into the 
grid, all without sacrificing reliability or affordability. And 
you spooked me with the FERC carbon tax, Mr. Clark.
    Unfortunately, that is not how CLEAN Future Act views his 
transition. Starting with the timeline set out under the clean 
energy standards and tied together with the national policy on 
transmission, utilities and public power agencies will be 
forced into cost-prohibitive investments that may or may not 
fit local needs of their ratepayers. Further, this bill will 
put all ratepayers on the hook for expanded electrical vehicle 
network envisioned by my colleagues, which doesn't really fit 
my rural area.
    Who will pay for the transmission needed to obtain and 
distribute dispatchable energy for electric vehicle charging 
equipment? This bill will spread the cause amongst all 
ratepayers, not just EV drivers, to subsidize retail 
infrastructure. And I mentioned earlier in the first panel, I 
know a lot about retail infrastructure. I have dealt with some 
folks in Europe about their implementation of putting charging 
stations in. And it is not just a transmission to the site. It 
is very, very costly. In some cases, it costs a million dollars 
to be able to distribute it at the site.
    Commissioner Clark--and again, sorry, Mr. Gramlich--across 
the country, leading utilities and public power agencies are 
already investing in transmission upgrades to provide more 
efficient energy distribution and to integrate more renewables 
into the grid. But provisions in the CLEAN Future Act disregard 
the regional expertise of our local authorities and 
stakeholders. What do you envision happening to local utilities 
privately owned, municipally owned, in my district that would 
be forced to integrate renewables into the grid before they are 
able to sufficiently maintain supply in a cost-effective 
manner?
    Mr. Clark. Congressman, thank you for the question. I think 
it really does--not to sound a bit like a broken record here 
today, but it does emphasize the importance of the bottom-up 
planning. And if you can do that, there's certainly lots of 
situations in which the local utilities will see that there may 
need--be a need for a transmission line, maybe fairly large 
regional--interregional lines. But it has to be based from a 
bottom-up analysis of what they need and not a presumption that 
there is one particular way that their customers should be 
served. If that happens, then, yes, it does have the potential 
of undercutting investments that they may have made locally 
that might then compete with lines that are brought in and 
against resources that are brought in that have a comparative 
advantage because of the, perhaps, socialized nature of the 
cost allocation.
    Mr. Pence. I like that, socialized nature of the cost. 
But--well, thank you all for being here today, and I yield 
back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back, and that concludes the 
witness questioning, and I would like to thank our witnesses 
for their participation in today's hearing. I must add, in your 
testimony your answers to some very tough questions was nothing 
less than remarkable and very, very informative.
    And I want to remind Members that, pursuant to committee 
rules, they have 10 business days to submit additional 
questions for the record to be answered by the witnesses who 
have appeared. I ask each witness to respond promptly to any 
such question that you may receive.
    Before we adjourn, I request unanimous consent to enter the 
following letters and documents into the record: a June 18th--a 
June 28th, '21 letter from the Industrial Energy Consumers of 
America on the CLEAN Future Act and electric transmission; a 
June '21 letter--or scratch that--a June '21 report from the 
Americans for a Clean Energy Grid; a June 24, '21--2021, letter 
from the R Street Institute on the electric transmission 
reform; a June 2021 white paper from Scott Madden Management 
Consultants on the environment transmission in the United 
States; a June 25th, 2021, letter from the trade organization 
America's Power on carbon-free electricity by 2035; and lastly, 
Table 1 from a CRS report on nuclear energy about commercial 
reactor shutdowns. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the 
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Americans for a Clean Energy Grid and Scott Madden 
Management Consultants reports have been retained in committee files 
and are available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=112842.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rush. That said, at this time, again, thank you, you 
very special witnesses, and the subcommittee now stands 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:09 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
    
    
  [ GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]