[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SECURING OUR ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE:
LEGISLATION TO ENHANCE PIPELINE RELIABILITY
=======================================================================
HYBRID HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 19, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-62
[GRAPHIC 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
57-560 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
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 DEBBIE 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
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Staff Director
WAVERLY GORDON, 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........................................... 4
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Witnesses
Richard Glick, Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.... 21
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Answers to submitted questions............................... 103
David M. Turk, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department Of Energy....... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Answers to submitted questions............................... 120
Submitted Material
H.R. 6084, the Energy Product Reliability Act \1\
Letter from the American Gas Association and the American Public
Gas Association, by Stuart Saulters, Vice Presidenet of
Government Relations and Gorge H. Lowe, Vice President
Governmental Affairs and Public Policy, American Public Gas
Association, to Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by Mr. Rush..... 88
Letter of December 7, 2021, Joint Associations on Pipeline
Reliability, to Mr. Pallone et al., submitted by Mr. Upton..... 92
Letter of January 18, 2022, by Greg White, Executive Director,
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, to
Mr. Pallone et al., submitted by Mr. Upton..................... 96
Article ``The Texas Electric Grid Failure Was a Warm-up,'' Texas
Monthly, submitted by Mr. Fletcher \2\
Letter of January 19, 2022, by Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Energy and
Commerce Committee, to Ms. Granholm, submitted by Mr. Rodgers.. 98
Letter of December 15, 2021, by John Barrasso, M.D., Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to Mr. Glick, et
al., submitted by Mr. Upton.................................... 101
----------
\1\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/
20220119/114286/BILLS-117HR6084ih.pdf.
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and also
is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/
20220119/114286/HHRG-117-IF03-20220119-SD004.pdf.
SECURING OUR ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE:
LEGISLATION TO ENHANCE PIPELINE RELIABILITY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2022
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:33 a.m. in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
and remotely via Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon.
Bobby 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), Latta, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson,
Bucshon, Walberg, Duncan, Palmer, Lesko, Pence, Armstrong, and
Rodgers (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Fletcher, and Carter.
Staff Present: Waverly Gordon, Deputy Staff Director and
General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio, Staff Director; Perry
Hamilton, Clerk; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff
Director, Energy and Environment; Mackenzie Kuhl, Press
Assistant; Tyler O'Connor, Energy Counsel; Lino Pena-Martinez,
Policy Analyst; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Kris Pittard,
Policy Coordinator; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk; Andrew Souvall,
Director of Communications, Outreach, and Member Services;
Caroline Wood, Staff Assistant; Tuley Wright, Senior Energy and
Environment Policy Advisor; Michael Cameron, Minority Policy
Analyst; Emily King, Minority Member Services Director; Mary
Martin, Minority Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment; Brandon
Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel for Energy; and Peter
Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member, Energy.
Mr. Rush. The Subcommittee on Energy will now come to
order.
Today the subcommittee is holding a hearing entitled,
``Securing our Infrastructure: Legislation to Enhance Pipeline
Security.''
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, members can
participate in today's hearing either in person or remotely,
via online video conferencing.
Members, staff, and members of the press present in the
hearing room must wear a mask, in accordance with the updated
guidance issued by the attending physician's office.
For members participating remotely, your microphones will
be set on mute for the purpose of eliminating 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
that is said in Webex will be heard over the loudspeakers and
in committee room, and is subject to being heard by livestream
and CSPAN.
Since members are participating from different locations at
today's hearing, all recognitions of members, such as for
questions, will be in the order of subcommittee seniority.
Documents for the record can be sent to Lino Pena-Martinez
at an email address that we provided to staff. All documents
will be entered into the record at the conclusion of today's
hearing.
And I want to recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Again, good morning, all. I want to begin by acknowledging
what an honor, a distinct honor, it has been for me to chair
this subcommittee the past three years. And I wish to thank all
of you for reaching out to me with well wishes following my
recent announcement that I would not seek re-election. It has
been a real honor to serve with such a fine assortment of
geniuses on both sides of the aisle, and I want you to know
that we are not done yet. The best is yet to come.
I look forward to continuing to work with all of you in
this last year of the 117th Congress to continue to advance
legislation that will help all Americans, from Appalachia to
Alaska, from New Hampshire to Hawaii, and all the in between.
Turning to the topic that is before us today, I want to
thank everyone that is on this call, that is on--in this
hearing. I want to thank you this morning for joining us for
this vital hearing on enhancing the reliability of our energy
infrastructure, and my Energy Product Reliability Act.
The energy system that 330 million Americans depend upon
for heat, electricity, and transportation is only as strong as
its weakest link. And unfortunately, last year, Texas--in Texas
we saw this firsthand, when our natural gas infrastructure
failed, leaving 4.5 million Americans without power, and
costing over 100 Americans their lives.
While the electric wires that bring Americans power across
the nation are subject to reliability standards set by NERC, no
such standards exist for pipelines. All Americans deserve
reliable access to energy, and they need to know that the
pipelines that deliver that energy are dependable.
To achieve this goal, we must work together once again,
just like we did in 2005, when we wrote and passed the Energy
Power [sic] Act. The provisions of that legislation established
electricity--electric reliability standards that have worked
well. And with them we began the work of ensuring that the
electric system that Americans depend upon is reliable. My bill
continues that effort.
And I want to stress this point: my legislation
accompanying this bill is not final. It marks the beginning of
the legislative process, and certainly not the end.
I look forward to hearing what our witnesses today have to
say on the bill, and I welcome any constructive suggestions
from all members of this subcommittee.
To my Republican friends specifically, I want to emphasize
that electricity reliability is an issue that we are all
concerned about. For this reason, my staff and I are ready to
work hand-in-hand with you. We are open to your suggestions on
the best pathway forward.
With that, I look forward to today's hearing and
discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby A. Rush
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. I am delighted to recognize my distinguished
friend from the great state of Michigan, Mr. Upton, for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
Mr. Upton, you are recognized.
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 we
are glad that you have recovered from your COVID that you had
over the holidays. We are glad to see you in person.
And as it relates to your announced departure at the end of
the year, you have had a lot of fine chapters in your life, and
we know that this is not the last one. You have got a great
book, and we are all proud to be your friend, and know that you
have got future chapters ahead of you.
I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before this
subcommittee to provide their testimony today.
Welcome back, Chairman Glick. It is nice to have you here
again.
And a special welcome to Deputy Secretary Turk, to your
first Energy and Commerce hearing. I look forward to working
closely with you in your new role at DoE.
You know, I know that many of us are deeply concerned about
the direction of our country under this President's leadership.
We all saw the economic report last week. Consumer prices and
inflation rose seven percent in December, the highest rate in
40 years. We have got labor shortages in every sector, supply
chain disruptions impacting the entire economy. Energy prices
are soaring to a seven-year high, and American families,
indeed, are suffering. This Administration's anti-fuel--fossil
fuel agenda is directly contributing, I believe, to record-high
gas prices and soaring utility bills, as winter heating season
is now upon us.
The Administration's response to surging inflation and sky-
high energy bills is to shut down critical pipelines like
Keystone XL about a year ago. And, for Michigan, potentially
Line 5, a ban on drilling on Federal lands. Forcing Americans
to buy more expensive and less reliable electric cars and
appliances are not really solutions.
Two weeks ago, a brutal winter storm hit the East Coast.
Half a million folks lost their electricity. Hundreds of
drivers were stranded, maybe thousands got stranded on freezing
roads overnight. Just think what would have happened, think of
the people who could have died if all the cars were electric,
and people couldn't use natural gas to heat and cook?
If it is not already clear to everyone, we rely on fossil
fuels. Their day is not over. Simply put, the Fantasyland Green
New Deal agenda of offshore wind farms, rooftop solar, and
electric batteries are not going to cut it.
The topic of this hearing is completely off base, out of
touch with the realities facing America today. We need real
leadership from the Administration and the Democratic majority.
America is facing an economic crisis, an energy crisis, and the
majority has yet to schedule a legislative hearing on a bill to
increase energy prices further and eliminate fossil fuels by
shutting down pipelines.
The bill today that we are going to be talking about is a
sweeping power grab, preempting states and local jurisdictions
from regulating all types of energy infrastructure. From the
oil and natural gas wells, to the gas stations where Americans
fill up, to the appliances in their homes, this bill would
dramatically expand FERC, transforming a relatively tiny agency
into a behemoth with regulatory powers over America's energy
system.
We are not just talking about interstate pipelines and the
bulk power system that crosses state lines. This bill would
impose new Federal taxes, fees, regulations on all energy in
the country. Americans are not asking for that bill.
So, with unanimous consent, I would like to enter into the
record a letter from state regulators and the people who
deliver energy to homes and businesses, without objection, I
would hope. The letters lay out specific concerns with the
legislation, concerns that I believe are shared by many members
of this committee on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, respectfully, I would argue that we should
focus our efforts on a bipartisan bill, H.R. 3078, the Pipeline
and LNG Facility Cybersecurity Preparedness Act. We introduced
this bill in response to the Colonial Pipeline attack last
year. We still have important work to do to get the bill across
the finish line.
In October of last year, Republicans on this committee
wrote to Secretary Granholm to conduct oversight of DoE's
handling of the energy crisis. We also wrote to Chairman
Pallone, requesting a hearing to investigate how the
Administration's actions are contributing to energy price
increases. Everyone knows energy prices are the number-one
issue right now, the highest prices in seven years. Yet the
majority has not scheduled a hearing.
I would use today's hearing to confront the real issues
facing Americans. What is the Administration doing to slow
inflation and lower gas prices? Why is the President asking
Russia and OPEC to pump more oil, while putting American energy
workers out of a job? And why is FERC delaying permitting
decisions on critical natural gas pipelines that would improve
grid reliability and lower utility bills for every American?
Those are the questions on the minds of Americans. They deserve
the attention of the committee.
And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes for 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, for holding the
hearing today on your important legislation to address the
reliability and security of our nation's energy infrastructure.
The need for today's hearing and legislation is driven by
recent events. We all watched with concern last February, as
Winter Storm Uri devastated natural gas infrastructure in
Texas, contributing to widespread power outages and significant
loss of life. And some members of this committee even
experienced the events firsthand.
In the wake of the Texas power crisis, we held multiple
oversight hearings. We learned that the power outages were
caused, in part, by inadequate natural gas fuel supply and
delivery, as well as Texas's failure to establish meaningful,
winterization and other standards to ensure reliable natural
gas delivery.
And those findings are corroborated by a recent joint
report on Winter Storm Uri from the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation. Among other things, this joint report concluded
that--and I quote--``Generating unit outages and natural gas
fuel supply and delivery were inextricably linked during the
storm.'' The report recommended that a working group consider
whether Congress should vest a single agency with
responsibility for ensuring pipeline reliability.
So I want to commend Chairman Rush for taking those
recommendations seriously, introducing H.R. 6084, the Energy
Product Reliability Organization Act. While members here today
may have different perspectives on how to best protect our
country from emerging threats, it is clear to me that the
status quo is insufficient, and Congress must act to ensure the
reliability of our energy infrastructure.
Given our current reliance on natural gas for power
generation, it is critical we examine how we can best ensure
our natural gas fuel delivery system does not again fail to
keep the lights on.
Unfortunately, Winter Storm Uri did not cause the only
major fuel supply reliability failure last year. In May cyber
criminals attacked the Colonial Pipeline company's business
systems, ultimately halting delivery of more than 2.5 million
barrels of petroleum products daily for several days. And this
major disruption caused gasoline shortages across 17 states and
the District of Columbia. The pipeline was restarted within
five days, thanks to leadership from the Department of Energy,
but the cyber attack laid bare the vulnerability of our
pipeline infrastructure.
Chairman Rush's bill places the authority to issue
cybersecurity standards where they should be, with energy
experts who have a vested stake in the security of our power
infrastructure.
In 2005, after the California energy crisis and the 2003
blackout in the Northeast raised concerns about the continued
reliability of our electric infrastructure, and--this committee
responded in a bipartisan manner. We worked to create an
electric reliability organization to oversee the bulk power
system. By all accounts, Americans enjoy greater electric
reliability because of it.
Today, we are again confronted with events that shine a
light on the inadequacy of our current regulatory regime. I
hope we can respond in a similar bipartisan manner by
establishing a stakeholder-driven entity like NERC, or NERC, to
maintain reliable delivery of natural gas, petroleum, and other
energy products, until we fully transition away from volatile
fossil fuels to carbon-free electricity in transportation
sectors.
Now, this bill, Chairman Rush's bill, is of vital
importance, and today's hearing provides committee members an
opportunity to learn more about the scope and necessity of an
energy product reliability organization. This hearing is the
beginning of the process, and I look forward to hearing from
consumer advocates, industry stakeholders, and others on how we
can best tailor this legislation to safeguard our nation's
pipeline infrastructure.
We must find common-ground reforms to bolster the
reliability and security of our pipeline and power
infrastructure. The committee has a long history of bipartisan
cooperation on these issues, and I hope we can work together to
ensure our nation's pipelines and related facilities are
operable during extreme weather events, protected from cyber
exploitation, and able to address the evolving reliability and
security risks of a changing world.
So I want to thank our two witnesses, Deputy Energy
Secretary Turk and FERC Chairman Glick, for joining us today.
I look forward to our discussion, and I yield back the
balance of my time. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush now recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, the ranking member of
the full committee, for 5 minutes for her opening statement.
Mrs. Rodgers, you are recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Chairman Rush. And as you have
recently announced your retirement, just let me say that we
have appreciated your friendship, and the working relationship
on Energy and Commerce, and look forward to you finishing
strong here in Congress.
Tomorrow marks the one year of President Joe Biden's failed
energy policies, jeopardizing energy reliability, energy
affordability, and America's energy independence.
Today Russia is on the verge of invading Ukraine. It
underscores the importance of energy in national security.
Putin wants control of the Black Sea to block American energy
imports to Ukraine, the imports that help the Ukrainian freedom
fighters, those that are seeking self-determination. This
Administration is, instead, helping Putin. On day one, a year
ago, President Biden blocked the Keystone Pipeline, but yet
greenlighted Nord 2 for Putin.
This makes no sense. Energy is so important to our national
security, to our economy, to jobs, to competitiveness.
The Energy Information Administration reported energy
prices rose more than all commodities over the last year, 60
percent higher than at the beginning of 2021. Another
projection shows little to no prospect for relief. We have the
highest inflation in 40 years, from the grocery store to the
gas pump. Inflation is hitting low and middle-income Americans
the hardest.
What Americans pay for energy matters. It drives all
aspects of our economy, touching every supply chain and every
part of our lives. It matters to farmers who are growing our
food; the manufacturers who make the products we need; the
truck drivers who deliver them. It matters to the store owners
who are struggling to keep their shelves stocked; the
restaurant managers who need to keep food on their menus, and
the lights on. It matters to Americans who are stretching their
budgets to feed their families, fill up their gas tanks, drive
their kids to school, and get themselves to work.
The price, affordability, and reliability of energy is
foundational to our way of life, and to peace and security
around the world. We cannot afford another year of these failed
policies.
To understand the risk for Americans, look no further than
the troubling example of current European and UK energy crises,
the skyrocketing rates, upwards to three times what we have in
the U.S. It is a direct result of radical policies that drove
these nations to rely upon weather-dependent renewables and,
increasingly, Russian energy, which threatens Europe.
Thankfully for our security, we have had American LNG
exports, made possible by the shale technology revolution.
These exports supported energy and price relief to our European
allies, and helped drive cleaner energy and power. But that is
all being threatened right now.
Energy security matters. It matters for economic security.
It matters for national security. And it also supports cleaner
energy systems. After a year of President Joe Biden's energy
crisis, we should reset our energy policy oversight to focus on
priorities for maintaining energy and economic security. That
is why Republicans are leading on the securing cleaner energy
agenda.
Now, specifically regarding today's discussion on
pipelines, Russia and China will not stop their campaign to
dominate global demand for fossil fuels. Nor will the real
impacts on everyday Americans disappear if we ignore the
harmful impacts to replacing pipelines with weather-dependent
renewables. We need affordable and reliable supplies. And
anything that we do that impedes affordable, reliable energy
will be harmful to our families, our workers, and the nation.
America's abundant energy supplies and world-class system
of fuels and electricity delivery powers our prosperity,
competitiveness, and, ultimately, our security. This is what
ensures America's manufacturing and industrial competitiveness.
This is what provides us strategic resources and the
flexibility to confront our adversaries and assist our allies.
And the pipelines that deliver these strategic resources are
among the safest, environmentally friendly, and cost effective
methods.
Today's hearing questions what is necessary to assure
people have energy and power they need when they need it most.
But assuring people have energy and power when they need it
cannot be an excuse for sweeping, duplicative, and deep
intrusion by the Federal Government into every part of the
complex energy system. That is what this legislative proposal
appears to do. And given this Administration's record, I do not
support this expansive authority.
I look forward to working with the majority on this, and I
hope we can head in a different direction.
I welcome our witnesses, and I will yield back at this
time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy Rodgers
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady 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 like to welcome our witnesses now that are present
for today's hearing: the Honorable Richard Glick, the chairman
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And joining him is
the Honorable David M. Turk, who is the deputy secretary of the
U.S. Department of Energy.
It is so good to see you again. And I want to thank each of
you for joining us today, and we look forward to your
testimony.
At this time it is my honor to recognize each member for 5
minutes to provide their opening statement.
Before we begin, I would like to explain once again to the
witnesses the lighting system for testifying in person. In
front of our witnesses is a series of lights. The lights will
initially be green. The light will turn yellow when you have
one minute remaining. Please begin to wrap up your testimony at
that point. The light will turn red when your time expires.
Chairman Glick, once again, welcome to you, and you are now
recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD GLICK, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION; AND DAVID M. TURK, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
STATEMENT OF RICHARD GLICK
Mr. Glick. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Chairman Pallone,
Ranking Member Upton, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, and
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to
appear before you today to discuss H.R. 6084, the Energy
Product Reliability Act, which addresses the need to enhance
the reliability and security of our nation's energy pipelines.
I applaud the committee's leadership in working to ensure
reliable energy supplies for the American people.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission a key role in ensuring the reliability of
the bulk power system. Under EPAct, the Commission certified
the North American Electric Reliability Corporation as the
electric reliability organization. The ERO develops reliability
standards, which are subsequently renewed--reviewed by FERC,
and the relevant entities must comply with any reliability
standards that FERC approves.
EPAct also provided for the enforcement of electric
reliability standards, including penalties for violations. NERC
and its regional entities may impose penalties for non-
compliance, subject to review by the Commission. In addition,
FERC has independent authority to conduct its own
investigations and impose penalties on any entity that violates
the reliability standard.
There are currently 93 FERC-approved mandatory reliability
standards for the bulk power system, 12 of which address
cybersecurity. These mandatory reliability standards have made
great strides towards improving reliability of the bulk power
system. In contrast, there is no comparable mandatory
reliability regime for natural gas and other pipelines that
transport energy products, including gasoline and propane.
The lack of mandatory reliability standards, especially for
natural gas pipelines, poses a risk to the reliability of the
bulk power system, due to the interdependency of our nation's
gas and electric infrastructure. In 2021, natural gas-fired
electric generation facilities accounted for approximately 37
percent of U.S. electricity generation. If a pipeline failure
or cyber attack disrupts gas supplies, electric generation
capacity dependent on that pipeline could be lost, possibly
leading to blackouts on the electric grid.
This is more than a hypothetical situation. As described in
a report released on November 16th, FERC staff and NERC staff
engaged in a joint inquiry into last year's massive blackouts
across Texas, and limited power outages in surrounding states
during Winter Storm Uri. Although the joint inquiry identified
several factors that contributed to these events, one of the
primary causes was the lack of natural gas available for
electric generation. The extreme cold reduced natural gas
production and processing capability, and this impact was
exacerbated because many of those gas facilities that were not
frozen were unable to operate because they lost electric power.
It isn't clear how well natural gas pipelines actually fared,
because there was limited natural gas to transport.
To address the rest of the disruption of natural gas
production or transportation that could negatively impact the
operation of the bulk power system, the report recommends that
FERC, Congress, state legislatures, and regulatory agencies
with jurisdiction over natural gas infrastructure facilities
adopt a new requirement for reliable operation of natural gas
infrastructure. These recommendations include the designation
of a single Federal agency with authority over pipeline
reliability.
The challenges to energy pipeline reliability go beyond
extreme weather. Last year's ransomware attack against the
Colonial Pipeline illustrates the serious cybersecurity threat
facing the nearly three million miles of pipelines that
transport natural gas, oil, and other energy products across
the United States. As a result of that attack, Colonial
Pipeline shut down for several days, causing price spikes and
shortages, from Texas to New Jersey.
A similar attack against the natural gas pipeline serving
electric generators has the potential to also impair the
reliability of the electric grid. In my view, it is critical
that energy pipelines also be subject to mandatory
cybersecurity standards. In fact, former chairman Chatterjee
and I publicly called for the establishment and enforcement of
mandatory cybersecurity standards for pipelines several years
ago.
Turning to the legislation that is the subject of today's
hearing, H.R. 6084, it is similar to the legislation adopted by
EPAct--adopted in EPAct, establishing a mandatory reliability
regime for the bulk power system. I would like to highlight a
few certain features of the legislation that should help
address the risks I have described.
First, the legislation calls for the creation and
certification of an energy product reliability organization,
similar to the process that led to the designation of the ERO.
The legislation calls for the development of mandatory
standards to ensure the reliable delivery of energy products.
Although the EPRO is responsible for the development of
reliability standards in the first instance, the legislation
would provide the Commission with the authority to order the
development of reliability standards, and to require the EPRO
to issue emergency standards, if warranted.
Finally, the legislation would provide the Commission with
authority to review EPRO enforcement actions, and to
independently investigate and penalize violations of any
reliability standard.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to share my
perspectives today. Legislation to establish and enforce
reliability standards for the pipeline network will better
secure the reliability of our nation's energy infrastructure in
the face of threats such as extreme weather and cyber attacks.
I applaud the committee for taking this long-overdue issue--
taking up this long-overdue issue, and FERC remains available
to provide technical assistance during the legislative process.
I would like to close my testimony today with a note of
gratitude to Chairman Rush. As his colleagues just mentioned,
he will be--he is preparing to leave the House at the
conclusion of this session. Throughout Chairman Rush's 30-year
career in the House of Representatives, I have admired his
devotion to his constituents and his strong commitment to
addressing the most challenging and consequential energy policy
questions of our time.
Thank you, Chairman Rush, for your support of the
Commission, and for your leadership.
And with that, I look forward to today's discussion and
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glick follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Pause.]
Mr. Upton. Mr. Chairman, you are muted, but I am presuming
that you are introducing Mr. Turk.
Mr. Rush. I guess----
Mr. Upton. There you go.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Chairman Glick. Chairman----
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Rush [continue]. You are recognized for 5 minutes for
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF DAVID M. TURK
Mr. Turk. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity
to be with you today to discuss the Department of Energy's role
in making sure our energy system, specifically oil and natural
gas pipelines, which is the issue of the hearing today, are
reliable, secure, and resilient. And let me have a special
thanks to Chairman Rush for his leadership and years and years
of service.
And I know everyone wishes you all the best in your future
chapter in life.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Mr. Turk. I would also like to thank Ranking Member Upton
for your strong support of DoE for many, many years. Thank you
very much, sir.
And thank you to Chairman Pallone and Ranking Member
McMorris Rodgers for their leadership of the full committee, as
well. And thanks to all the members of this incredibly
important subcommittee for your commitment to strengthen our
nation's energy systems, and for the trust and the investment
you have placed in our Department.
The Department of Energy is the risk management agency for
the entire energy sector, and our dedicated team bring a wealth
of unique expertise to do everything from helping companies
identify cybersecurity vulnerabilities in the first place, to
addressing supply chain risks for the energy sector.
As the President stated in his national security memorandum
in July of last year, cybersecurity threats pose --control and
operations systems, they pose a threat to control and
operations systems that are among the most significant and
evolving issues that we face today. And it is why we need to
work hand in hand, public and private sector working together.
And there is certainly a lot more to do, and it is a crucial
time for this committee to take on this issue, to have this
hearing, to work on this legislation, to discuss and come up
with a plan to ensure reliability and security of our energy
systems that all of our American citizens, all of our American
people depend on.
And we certainly, at the Department of Energy, take this
responsibility incredibly seriously to make sure we have
reliable, affordable energy for all Americans. The Congress,
especially this committee and subcommittee, have provided us
and will need to continue to provide us the foundation and
framework to fulfill this responsibility. We are grateful for
your commitment to strengthening our energy security and
resilience, including on the cybersecurity side.
Shortly after the Colonial Pipeline incident, which I
personally spent a lot of time on--and I know a lot of you
focused on this issue, as well--this committee introduced four
key pieces of legislation on cybersecurity, and we very much
look forward to continued discussion, not only in this hearing,
but after the hearing on the Energy Product Reliability Act, in
particular.
Over the last decade, the Department of Energy has built
trusted relationships across electricity, oil, and natural gas
industries, and with key state and local government agencies.
We think it is absolutely critical to focus on the full oil and
gas supply chain when we talk about energy security, upstream
to midstream, and the downstream. That is why we work daily
with electricity and oil and gas--oil and natural gas owners
and operators to assess risks, to share threat information, and
to mitigate impacts.
We work with owners and operators in 26 trade associations
covering the entire oil and gas supply chain across the U.S.
and Canada, as well, and the 30 CEOs and trade associations
representing the electricity sector.
We work with the full range of our interagency partners:
CISA, and FBI, PHMSA, TSA, and, of course, under the White
House leadership of Anne Neuberger and Chris Inglis.
And let me say I am particularly glad to be here with
Chairman Glick, for his personal leadership and FERC's
leadership, providing a terrific example of how to successfully
coordinate up and down the full supply chain when it comes to
the electricity sector.
We all need to work together as an ecosystem to respond
quickly and effectively to all the threats to our energy
system, including on cybersecurity. We saw the effectiveness of
this team approach many times over the past year, one example
being the May 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack, where
our whole-of-government approach helped decipher the problem,
restore service up and down the East Coast in a matter of just
a few days. And we are ready to take action to prevent similar
events from happening in the future.
And we do need to think beyond pipelines, as well. We have
seen attacks around the world, including in Saudi Arabia, on
oil refineries from the cybersecurity side. We need to work
together to shore up our defenses against all cyber threats and
other impacts across the energy system.
We need to simultaneously maintain security and resilience
and affordability of all our energy systems, while supporting
innovation to address other major threats, including on the
climate change front. DoE and the Federal interagency are
working day in and day out to address this complex and ever-
changing threat environment, and we simply can't do this
important work without the leadership and support of Congress,
and especially this subcommittee.
So in the coming weeks and months, all of us in the
Department of Energy look forward to working with you and your
colleagues in Congress on this important topic.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering all your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turk follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. We will now conclude opening statements. We will
now move to members questioning. Each member will have 5
minutes to ask questions of these very fine witnesses, and I
will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Chairman Glick and Deputy Secretary Turk, again, thank you
for joining us today.
Chairman Glick, in your testimony you stated that the lack
of mandatory reliability standards, especially for natural gas
pipelines, posed a risk to the reliability of the bulk power
system in its entirety. You have touched on this topic before,
including at FERC's opening meetings and in the wake of the
release of the FERC-NERC joint staff report on the impact of
Winter Storm Uri. As an unfortunate note, this is the second
time in a decade that FERC and NERC have had to issue a joint
report on the impacts of winter weather and blackouts in Texas,
which we all agree was indeed a tragedy.
Chairman Glick, can you elaborate for us on the threat that
a lack of mandatory reliability standards for the natural gas
pipeline industry poses to the reliability of the bulk power
system? Or, in other words, how the current lack of standards
threaten everyday Americans' ability to keep the lights on in
their home.
Mr. Glick. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the
question.
I want to--as your question noted, I think the best example
may, again, be what happened last February in Texas, with
regard to Winter Storm Uri. And recall, we had FERC staff and
NERC staff engaged in a joint inquiry. And essentially, there
were two major conclusions as to what the causes were for the
loss of so much generating capacity--lost about 35,000
megawatts of electric generation capacity in Texas, which is a
very significant amount.
One of the causes was the fact that the electric generation
plants were not sufficiently weatherized, and a lot of the
parts froze, so it got very cold, as we know. The parts froze,
and they were--they just were inoperable, and those plants had
to shut down.
But the other major cause was the fact that over 50 percent
of the electric generation in Texas was fueled by natural gas,
or is fueled by natural gas. And in large part, because either
the gas production was reduced because some of the gas
processing and production facilities froze, and--but also
because the--those gas facilities lost electric supply, and
they had--and because of that they had to shut down, and they
weren't able to provide additional gas. And so it was,
essentially, a never-ending, you know, circle of problems, and
that was--that is what caused the problem.
I think the issue is we need to--and I think the joint
inquiry said this best--is we need to have a system where we
ensure reliable sources of fuel for electric generation, and
that, particularly, includes natural gas.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Chairman Glick. Thank you so much. I
do have another question for Secretary Turk. Thank you so much.
If you have any other statements, please share them with us in
a letter.
Deputy Secretary Turk, one of my goals as chair of this
subcommittee has been to--for greater minority employment and
representation in the energy-related industry. A study by the--
--
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Rush [continue]. Consortium found that only nine
percent of--in the cybersecurity industry were African-
American.
Given the DoD's focus on cybersecurity, and the Biden
Administration policy to cultivate a Federal workforce that
draws from the full diversity of the nation, what steps has DoE
taken to increase minority employment in the cybersecurity
world?
Mr. Turk. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, not only for the
question, but for your leadership on this incredibly important
issue.
And this is a top priority that we share at the Department
of Energy, Secretary Granholm, myself, all of us, and we spend
a lot of time trying to make sure, not just on cybersecurity,
but throughout energy, we have an energy workforce at the
Department and more broadly that represents all the talents of
everyone around our country.
The nine percent figure that you highlight is just not good
enough. We need to do more, we can do more, we should do more.
And, frankly, we are going to be more successful on
cybersecurity if we do more hiring from a full range of our
American talents. So we are doing an awful lot.
Let me give you one particular example. We ran a 2021 DoE
CyberForce competition, and inviting 21 minority-serving
institutions to be fundamentally a part of that, so we can
attract more and more top talent to be part of the
cybersecurity solutions, going forward.
So again, thank you, Chairman, Mr. Chairman, for all your
leadership on that issue.
Mr. Rush. Thank you very much. The Chair will now recognize
Mr. Upton, the subcommittee ranking member, for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Turk, when I was chair--actually, before I was chairman
of this committee, I pushed--we all did--for an all-American
energy strategy, helped lead the effort to launch the North
American Energy Independent Plan, which was in place. As part
of that we saw the expansion of LNG exports, which was mightily
important, both under the Obama as well as the Trump
Administration. It created thousands of jobs, sent the signal
that we are going to increase supply, so more production, a big
role in reducing carbon emissions, not only here but around the
world, as well.
And I was reminded by Cathy McMorris Rodgers it was six
years ago that I led a bipartisan trip of members from this
committee to the Ukraine, and we talked a lot about LNG exports
and the importance there, a signal to the free world. And, of
course, as we look at today's crisis, the alternative to LNG
exports from us is probably Russia, not something that a lot of
us are anxious to see happen. Also, knowing the impact of
dirtier gas.
This morning, when I came in, I looked at National Journal,
and I am very troubled by a story here that says on page one
there is a long-shot campaign--I hope it is long-shot--to bar
natural gas exports. And in the story it references an
anonymous DoE source that says there has been no change in our
position on LNG--who requested to be anonymous to speak freely,
told the National Journal, ``We continue to have various tools
in our toolbox, but a ban is not currently under
consideration.''
Can you confirm that, the ban is not under consideration?
Mr. Turk. Well, thank you very much, Ranking Member.
Mr. Upton. I presume that this isn't you. It is quoted, but
we would like to quote you saying that the story is accurate.
Mr. Turk. I have been around D.C. long enough to know that
it is not good to be an unnamed source for these kinds of
things. You put your head down and do the work that you are
empowered to do.
And thanks for your leadership on many of these issues,
including your leadership on methane emissions and critical
minerals, which are--we are focused on a lot, and really
appreciate on that side.
We have been blessed in our country with a wide range of
energy resources across the spectrum, and we are certainly
trying to, from the Department of Energy, make sure that, with
the support--and thanks for those members of this committee who
supported the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, which
gives us an opportunity to push out even more, whether it is
hydrogen, CCUS, or electricity resilience, supply chains more
generally.
This country's LNG has been increasing for many years, and
that certainly does have benefits. And it has energy security
benefits to European colleagues, to European countries, to
Japan, to a number of other countries----
Mr. Upton. So you would agree that a ban on exports would
be a bad idea.
Mr. Turk. So we have been looking at the full range of
tools that we have got in our tool belt for affordability. That
is why we did the SPR release----
Mr. Upton. That is what this guy says--I am presuming it is
a guy, but I don't know that. This individual says they are
looking at--one of the issues that we are hearing about is that
there is a--some effort, perhaps, to shrink the license time
that licensees or companies get, as it relates to exports. Is
that one of the tools in the toolbox? I hope not.
Mr. Turk. So the way the LNG authorizations are set up,
there is both a FERC responsibility and a DoE responsibility.
It is congressional legislation that gives us both
responsibilities in these areas. We are following the statute
and requirements of that.
The FERC makes decisions on the installation----
Mr. Upton. I would like to get an answer before my time
expires.
Mr. Turk. So we take our responsibility seriously. We are
trying to do what Congress has told us to do, and take into
account the full range of issues that should go into national
interest determinations on LNG decisions, more generally.
Mr. Upton. I just think that the certainty of a contract
and a license ought to be imperative to the companies as they
make decisions that impact----
Mr. Turk. And I have certainly----
Mr. Upton [continue]. Lots of money.
Mr. Turk. And I have certainly talked to a range of
companies, and understand the need for contractual certainty,
and the certainty that provides not only our companies, but our
partners abroad, as well.
Mr. Upton. All right. Last question, now that I am now
under the 20-second mark.
We have an issue in Michigan and the Midwest called Line 5.
You are well aware of it. A number of folks have been waiting
for a formal response from this Administration as to whether or
not this line ought to be replaced or not. Governor Snyder,
three years ago, embarked on a deal, worked with PHMSA, all the
different players to get that line replaced, which a lot of us
would like to see to impact--positive impact on the Great
Lakes.
Can we expect a formal response to the court's request as
to where the Administration stands on replacing Line 5?
Mr. Turk. So the Department of Energy does not have the
jurisdiction in that area, so I will have to defer to the
interagency and White House colleagues, who do have that
responsibility.
Mr. Upton. OK. My time is expired. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now
understands that the chairman of the full committee has been
called away. So now we will go to Mr. Peters.
Mr. Peters, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
leadership, and congratulations on your announcement.
We are seeing the effects of climate change in more
dangerous hurricanes, heat waves, and another year of
devastating wildfires across the West. This is a direct threat
to our energy system, and we saw that in February 2021, during
the Texas winter storm that, tragically, took hundreds of
lives.
In this case, one key failure was that natural gas
infrastructure was unable to function under the harsh
conditions. It is not a problem unique to Texas, or a
particular source of energy. We are having plenty of challenges
in my own home state of California with wildfires, drought, and
the addition of significant amounts of variable renewable
energy to our electric grid.
So regardless of the technology in question, or the extreme
weather threat, we have to ensure that Americans have access to
affordable energy when they need it. And we have done this
effectively in the electric power sector through the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation, or NERC.
So I want to applaud the Department of Energy also for the
recently announced Building a Better Grid Initiative, which
will implement key pieces of the bipartisan infrastructure
legislation, including my POWER ON Act. These policies will
make the electric grid more reliable, more resilient, and
cleaner.
And we can't rely on a piecemeal regulatory approach that
maintains the resilience of some parts of our energy systems,
while neglecting others. We need common-sense standards to
ensure reliability across our entire energy system, from
transmission lines to pipelines. And I commend the chairman for
proposing legislation that would work us toward that end.
Chairman Glick, I wondered if you could speak to the
reliability benefits the North American Reliability
Corporation, or NERC, has provided to the bulk power system
already, especially against extreme weather.
[Pause.]
Mr. Glick. Sorry about that. Thank you very much for the
question, Congressman.
So the standards have been in place, essentially, for
probably about 15 years or so, some of them. Some of them have
been updated more recently. But I think they have been quite
successful.
I mean, it is hard to--you know, there has been a number of
outages over time. A lot of it really related to the local
systems, you know, when there is a hurricane and distribution
lines blow down, and so on.
But if you recall, there were some significant problems
with the grid before these--this requirement went into effect.
In 2003 there was a major blackout in the eastern part of the
United States. And so far, with these standards, I believe they
have gone a long way to avoiding those types of catastrophes.
Mr. Peters. Yes, I was in New York City during that
blackout, and it was quite an experience, a lot of amateur
traffic directors trying to get people through the
intersections.
Chairman, could you also speak to the--address the status
of the proposed rulemaking focused on transmission, and maybe
elaborate on how the Building a Better Grid Initiative could
improve electric reliability?
Mr. Glick. Thank you again for the question. And as you
well know, because I know you are very active on this issue,
electric transmission plays a very important part, in terms of
reliability. It provides alternative sources of electricity
when a particular line is clogged, or a particular line goes
down. It provides--certainly adds to the resilience of the grid
to deal with extreme weather conditions, whether it be
wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, whatever that may be. And so
there is no doubt that reliability benefits is one of the major
reason that--reasons that we need to develop or build out a
stronger grid.
FERC has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
last year, addressing a series of questions of how we are going
to reform our approach to planning transmission, allocating
costs for transmission, dealing with the interconnection of
generation facilities to the electric grid, issues like that.
And we have received a number of comments.
My great hope is that we will have an actual notice of
proposed rulemaking, which is a proposal to reform our
regulations, within the next couple of months. And my goal is
to have--at least to start with a final rule, at least on some
of these issues, by the end of the year.
Mr. Peters. It is my view that we responded as country
responsibly to the outages we saw, like the one in 2003. What
is your response to the folks who say that there is no Federal
role in--with respect to a similar regime on gas
infrastructure?
Mr. Glick. Well, I think there is really two responses, one
of which is that we, as I mentioned before, we have authority
over the reliability of the bulk power system. The bulk power
system is heavily dependent on the reliability of gas
pipelines. And so there is--I think there is certainly a
Federal role there.
And secondly, the--we are talking about interstate natural
gas pipelines--often, interstate natural gas pipelines, which
are subject to Federal jurisdiction. And again, I think there
is--the states might not be capable, at least, of addressing
those particular issues in reliability with regard to
interstate pipelines.
Mr. Peters. I think that is clear, and I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss it today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mrs. Rodgers, the full committee ranking member, for
5 minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers, you are recognized.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Turk, your testimony outlines Department of Energy's
responsibilities for preparing and responding to hazards, to
risk, and to threats to the delivery of our nation's energy and
power. And this is useful.
The core mission of DoE's--of DoE is, after national
security, is energy security, and we must maintain reliability
and affordability.
I would like to ask, is Department of Energy making
recommendations to the Administration on the risk of American
disengagement from fossil fuels, and shifting geopolitical
energy power to our adversaries, Russia and China?
Mr. Turk. Well, thanks, Ranking Member, for the question.
And I think, just as you have said--and I don't think anyone
would disagree with this--we need to do three things at the
same time: we need to make sure we have affordability for all
of our American citizens, all of our American people--and we
spend an awful lot of time on that; we need to make sure there
is security, national security, energy security; and we also
need to make sure that we are promoting and pushing on the
sustainability side of things, and making sure that we have a
proactive, ambitious, aggressive plan to reduce our carbon
impact, and so we don't have the impacts of extreme weather
that we have seen all across the country this past year, over
$145 billion worth of damage caused----
Mrs. Rodgers. Excuse me.
Mr. Turk [continue]. By that.
Mrs. Rodgers. Excuse me, Mr. Turk. Are you making
recommendations to the Administration on the geopolitical
impact of shifting from fossil fuels to China and Russia?
Mr. Turk. So what we have been recommending all along is to
both make sure that we are moving as ambitiously as we can on
this clean energy transition, to have a variety--a wide
variety----
Mrs. Rodgers. OK, OK I am going to run out of time here.
Very quickly----
Mr. Turk [continue]. Some time----
Mrs. Rodgers. Excuse me, excuse me. I am going to move on.
I have a letter I would like to submit to the record to--
that I wrote to Secretary Granholm to oversee what DoE is doing
to reduce dependence upon Chinese minerals, and help develop
domestic supply chains for these minerals. And I ask that this
document be entered into the record.
And I know, Mr. Turk, you have not reviewed this letter. I
would like to ask at another time for you to come and brief the
members of this committee on the plans to develop more secure
and domestic supplies for critical minerals and technologies to
meet the goals that you just outlined, OK? It is going to be
very important that we are developing domestic supplies.
Otherwise, we are going to be dependent upon China, and they
will shut us down.
The previous Administration identified vulnerabilities in
the bulk power system chain from China and other adversarial
actors. It issued an order to block components that put
critical electric infrastructure at risk. This Administration
immediately rescinded that order, and proposed a renewed
electricity supply chain initiative, seeking information from
stakeholders.
Mr. Turk, you mentioned a set of 100-day sprints in your
testimony. Is the electric supply chain security part of this
sprint?
And what is the status of your work to block components
from adversaries that put our electric system at risk?
Mr. Turk. So this President has made supply chains and
critical minerals an absolute top priority, and we are spending
an awful lot of time at the Department of Energy. We have got
now a dozen in-depth exercises, reviews, studies looking at the
full supply chain.
And completely agree with you, we need to diversify supply
chains, including on critical minerals, including for
batteries, doing more domestic production, more domestic
efforts all across the supply chain, and working with reliable
allies all across the country. So we would be more than happy
to come back up--myself personally, others from the
Department--and give this committee a full briefing, and get
your guidance and thoughts on how we can make sure we work
together----
Mrs. Rodgers. OK, OK, I will look forward to working with
you on that. Thank you very much.
China, overwhelmingly, dominates the global critical
mineral supply chain, including 90 percent of silicon wafers
used in solar panels; 80 percent of the rare Earth minerals
that go into wind turbines and electric vehicle motors. Do you
have concerns that relying upon Chinese supply chains for our
energy resources and technologies can make our grid less
reliable?
And secondly, recent comments from an NBA owner made
headlines over the weekend because of his assertion that there
is a low level of interest in the ongoing genocide of the
Uyghurs in China. Republican members on this committee have
been highlighting the fact that much of the supply chains for
wind, solar, batteries in China are made by forced labor of the
Uyghurs. In fact, we offered an amendment during the Energy and
Commerce markup of the Build Back Better, but it--to prohibit
the use of products made by slave labor. But that was voted
down.
I know you have highlighted environmental justice as a
priority for you at the Commission. Do you think that the
United States should be using technologies including wind,
solar, and batteries produced in China with forced labor?
Mr. Turk. So, completely agree with you, Madam Ranking
Member, on the concerns on the China front, on the forced labor
side and on having a surety of supply over time, including for
these minerals that we will need even more of, going forward.
And we and the Administration, working hand in hand with
Congress, have to get serious about actually putting in place
the ability to build up our domestic manufacturing.
Solar PV manufacturing is a great example. We at the
Department of Energy, our national labs, funded by the
Congress, funded by the American citizens, did all the
groundbreaking work to get solar PV technology in the place
that it has gotten to. And what we didn't do is follow through
to have the incentives, make sure that we have got in place the
manufacturing infrastructure to take advantage of that. And now
all of that has moved to China and a few other countries around
the world.
We need to have incentives, just like included--the SEMA
legislation that is included in the Build Back Better agenda,
to actually have incentives to make sure that we can do the
domestic production that we need to. So happy to work hand in
hand, and make sure that we have got a series of incentives, a
real plan to build domestic manufacturing, including on supply
chains, including in all of these raw supplies and other
materials we get from China.
It is not good to be beholden to one country for these
supplies, absolutely.
Mrs. Rodgers. We need domestic--you know, the steelworkers
in Spokane, Washington told me that a real infrastructure
package would have included mining in the United States of
America. I am anxious for that recommendation to come from the
Administration to unleash--if we are really going to do this,
we need to be honest about what it is going to take.
I do look forward to working with you, too. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now would
like to recognize a man of two distinctions in the Congress,
who has also announced that he will not seek re-election. He is
renowned as a Member of Congress, and also as the coach of the
Democratic baseball team, none other than our friend, the
representative from the great state of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Doyle, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just let me
say what a pleasure it has been serving with you in Congress
over these past 27 years, and on the Energy and Commerce
Committee, and I wish you the very, very best in the future. I
know that both of us still have things we want to do. We just
won't be doing them in Congress after this year. But thank you
again, and I want to thank you and Ranking Member Upton for
holding this hearing.
You know, as some recent high-profile events have proven,
disruption to our energy supplies has some dire consequences.
And the need for reliability is only going to increase as we
see more extreme weather events and the proliferation of cyber
attacks.
The reliable delivery of energy, whether it is gas, oil, or
electricity, is absolutely critical. And so I am glad this
committee is having this hearing on legislation that would
finally bring standards to the sector, and ensure that
consumers will have power when they need it.
Chairman Glick, Pennsylvania is second only to Texas in
domestic natural gas production, but the reliability issues
that might happen in Texas, such as failure to account for cold
weather in the winter, may not arise in other regions. Do you
think that oil and gas reliability standards should vary,
depending on a region's geography and climate, and would FERC
be likely to take those factors into account in improving
standards imposed by the Energy Product Reliability
Organization that the Act would create?
Mr. Glick. Thank you for the question, Mr. Doyle.
So the standards themselves, as you pointed out, would --
under the legislation, would be set by the EPRO. And the EPRO
would, essentially, recommend whether the standards should be
applied internationally, or applied to certain sections of the
country, depending on various factors--as you point out,
weather being one of them. That is--a similar thing happens on
the electric side, where sometimes standards are different,
depending on where the utility is located, and what the
particular issue is.
So I think that the legislation would provide--as currently
drafted, I believe the legislation would provide flexibility to
the EPRO to provide that type of flexibility to different
people around the country, depending on their circumstances.
Mr. Doyle. Yes, I think that would be important.
Deputy Secretary Turk, this Department of Energy has been
on the front lines combating cyber threats against our energy
infrastructure. Can you tell us what type of cybersecurity
threats pose the greatest risk to the reliability of our energy
infrastructure, and where are those threats mostly coming from?
Are the threats posed to the electric industry different
than the threats posed to our natural gas and oil
infrastructure?
Mr. Turk. Well, the honest answer, we have got threats
across the board. We have got threats from criminals, the
ransomware and other things that we have seen, including in the
Colonial Pipeline situation. And then we have threats coming
from governments, as well, very sophisticated threats.
And it is not just electricity, it is not just pipelines,
it is refineries, it is across the electricity and across the
energy spectrum. So we need to be prepared for all of that.
And just to answer your previous question to Chairman
Glick, we certainly completely agree. We need to have mandatory
standards. We need to have minimum standards, working hand in
hand with the private sector. We need to update those
standards. And it is good for those standards to be national,
just as you said, so that, whether it is pipelines or other
infrastructure in one state, as----
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Turk [continue]. But we have really got to continue to
work on these issues. We have got no time to waste.
Mr. Doyle. Well, let me ask you. While TSA is theoretically
responsible for setting cybersecurity standards for pipelines,
two GAO reports have pointed out how inept they have been in
this regard. Can you elaborate on how the new EPRO would
finally put energy experts in charge of creating enforceable
reliability standards?
Mr. Glick. Mr. Doyle, if I may--this is Chairman Glick--I
think the EPRO would, in several ways, differ from TSA's
current authority.
First of all, TSA has authority over cybersecurity and
physical security of pipelines, but not other reliability
standards, impacts on whether--other issues that impact the
reliability of pipelines.
Secondly, the--as I understand, the TSA standards that were
recently released only last for a year, and the EPRO would be
able to propose--and FERC would essentially approve--standards
that would be more long-lasting, they would be permanent
standards that could be modified over time.
And I think it is very important to have a standard-setting
situation where you don't just have to come back every year and
renew those standards, that you would have some sort of
certainty for pipeline companies and others to make the
investments they need to make to comply with longer-lasting
standards.
Mr. Doyle. Thanks for that clarification.
Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired, and I will yield
back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Latta for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thanks very much for--our witnesses, for being with us today.
And also, I would like to just congratulate you for all
your years of service here in the House of Representatives, and
also to this committee. I want to wish you all the best in your
years ahead.
Late last year, as we were approaching the beginning of
winter, and home heating costs were surging to a seven-year
high, the Biden Administration was considering shutting down a
critically important pipeline that delivers fuel to the
Midwest. And I know my good friend from Michigan has already
touched on this.
In response, I wrote a letter with several of my colleagues
to President Biden, expressing our concerns that revoking the
permit for Line 5 would eliminate tens of thousands of jobs,
jeopardize billions of dollars in economic activity, exasperate
fuel shortages, and price hikes across the Midwest. It appears
the President read our letter, because several days after
receiving it his White House backed down the idea that they
were going to intervene and shut down the pipeline.
However, Michigan Governor Whitmer continues to play
politics in trying to shut down the pipeline, and the Biden
Administration is still in consultations with the Canadian
Government over the pipeline's fate. That is why I also joined
my colleagues, the gentlemen from Michigan, Messrs. Walberg and
Bergman, to introduce the PIPES Act, which would prohibit sole
executive authority for revoking permits for the construction
or operation of cross-border energy infrastructure facilities.
If I could start with the deputy secretary, Mr. Turk, and,
again, in keeping with the great traditions of this committee,
with our chairman, former chairman, Dingell, who this room is
aptly named after, I am going to ask a series of yes-or-no
questions.
Are you aware that PHMSA determined there is no unsafe or
hazardous conditions that would warrant shutdown of Line 5?
Mr. Turk. I am not personally aware of that. Again, other
agencies have the jurisdiction on that, so it is not an issue I
have spent a lot of time on.
Mr. Latta. All right, because I know I sent a letter to
PHMSA in late 2020, asking for them to confirm this.
Yes or no, based on safety data from DoE and DoT, isn't it
true that pipelines, rather than rail and trucking, are
considered to be the safest and most efficient method for
transporting energy products?
Mr. Turk. So, as a general rule, there are some positive
safety benefits from pipelines over trucking or other ways to
bring it in, especially when you are talking significant
volumes.
Mr. Latta. OK. Yes or no, has DoE conducted an analysis of
the energy security and energy price impacts that would result
from the shutdown of Line 5?
Mr. Turk. Again, I have not personally spent time on that,
so I can't speak--what analysis has been done or not on that.
We can certainly get that back to you on the record----
Mr. Latta. OK, is DoE consulting with the White House or
the State of Michigan on a potential Line 5 closure?
Mr. Turk. I have not personally consulted on that issue. We
have got a full range of other issues that I have been focused
on.
Mr. Latta. OK, who would be the one being consulted on
that?
Mr. Turk. So we can certainly have a follow-up discussion,
and have an answer for the record. And----
Mr. Latta. Yes. I mean, we really need to get that,
because, as I mentioned earlier, we are talking about billions
of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs that could impact Ohio
and Michigan.
You know, you mentioned earlier about--and your testimony,
also--about cybersecurity. Just by coincidence, in today's Wall
Street Journal we got ``Risking Cybergeddon,'' and about a
coordinated attack could shut down 80 percent of the U.S.
electrical grid.
And so, you know, we have been talking a lot about cyber in
this committee, and how important it is.
Last year, two bills that I co-led with my good friend,
Energy and Commerce member, the gentleman from California, Mr.
McNerney, were signed into law as part of the infrastructure
bill to help boost grid security and resilience by encouraging
coordination between DOE and electric utilities. Will you
commit to quickly implementing these two bills, the Cyber Sense
Act and Enhancing Grid Security Through Public-Private
Partnerships, given the pressing threat posed to the grid by
cyber attacks?
Mr. Turk. So, as I have said, we absolutely have to, and I
completely agree with you, Congressman, we absolutely have to
do more on cybersecurity. And the President has said so. The
Secretary, my Secretary, has said so. Our chairman of our FERC
has said so, and eager to work hand in hand with you on any
piece of legislation. And certainly we can provide our
technical expertise and advice on what we think makes the most
sense.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. Let me ask this, in a follow-up
to a--from a question a little bit earlier.
Is an LNG export ban being considered by the
Administration?
Mr. Turk. So again, our statutory authority--and FERC has
another statutory authority--is looking at the national
interest. And we need to look at affordability, we need to look
at----
Mr. Latta. OK, but--so the question, though, is----
Mr. Turk [continue]. Security----
Mr. Latta [continue]. Is it being considered, yes or no?
Mr. Turk. So we are looking at the full range of----
Mr. Latta. So you are saying that--so if I can interpret
what you are saying, you are saying yes.
Mr. Turk. So we are doing this analysis more broadly.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much.
Do you believe that it is in the United States' interests
to provide natural gas to our allies and trading partners to
reduce their energy dependence on dangerous regimes?
Mr. Turk. So again, there is a very significant energy
security benefit from our LNG going to Europe, to Japan,
elsewhere. And in the national interest we need to look at the
energy security piece, we need to look at the affordability to
U.S. consumers, and we need to look at the environmental
sustainability in the CO2 footprint, as well. So we need to
look at all of that. But certainly, there are energy security
benefits.
Mr. Latta. OK. But again, I am trying to get a yes or no
here, because, again, you know, we--especially when we are
seeing it happening right now in Russia and Ukraine, and making
sure that--I was with the then-chairman----
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Latta. Well, I guess my time has expired. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from California, who has also
announced his retirement. And the Chair wants to personally
thank the gentleman for the many times he has assumed the gavel
in the chairman's absence. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
McNerney for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chair and the two
witnesses, and especially Mr. Rush, for your friendship, and
working together, and all your leadership on the issues that we
are discussing today.
I have been working for years to improve the reliability of
our energy systems, especially by addressing the cyber
vulnerabilities, including the two bills to improve grid
cybersecurity with Mr. Latta that he just referred to. These
were included in the Infrastructure Investment and Job Act just
signed into law last year.
Deputy Secretary Turk, I am concerned, however, that not as
much attention has been devoted to pipeline cybersecurity as
has been devoted to grid cybersecurity, and that the lack of a
central agency with energy expertise overseeing pipeline
cybersecurity creates confusion, which, in turn, reduces
security. Since the establishment of the CESER office at DoE in
2018, how has the DoE built up its internal expertise and
capacity to address and advise on cyber threats?
Mr. Turk. Well, thank you very much, Congressman, not only
for the question, but for your years and years of focusing on
the cybersecurity side of things and, I have to say, ahead of
the curve in many, many ways.
So this is a top priority for DoE, and we made the
investments. You mentioned the CESER office, a terrific group
of colleagues--Puesh Kumar, who is the head of that office, but
a terrific group of colleagues. And we focus on everything from
leveraging our expertise, including our national labs, on
cutting edge technology that can be helpful on the
cybersecurity side. We coordinate with the energy sector, not
just the electricity sector, but the oil and gas sector on our
coordinating councils. We work on testing, including on our
CITRIX system, to try to test and make sure that we can bring
that expertise for the private sector, and make sure that we
have got ability to have information sharing from the public
and private sector. Our CRISP program, in particular, has been
incredibly important along those lines.
And we have got a--what I think is a very robust regime on
bulk power, and that is the FERC/NERC model that I think has
worked quite well.
And we absolutely need to have mandatory standards on
pipelines, but it goes beyond pipelines to refineries, and
throughout the supply chain on the oil and gas side of things,
as well. We really need to bolster that.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you for that pretty comprehensive
answer pretty briefly.
Do you see a significant role for artificial intelligence
in the development and implementation of pipeline
cybersecurity?
Mr. Turk. So we focused on artificial intelligence, machine
learning, making sure we are using all our advanced computing
capabilities, and we have got phenomenal advanced computing
capabilities in our national labs, in particular. And there is
absolutely a role that it can play on pipeline safety, in
addition to a number of other areas.
And certainly, we need to make sure, if we are bringing
artificial intelligence to bear, we have got to have good
cybersecurity protections there, to make sure that that kind of
technology is not hacked into in ways that are detrimental.
But we should use all the tools we have on the reliability
front.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Chairman Glick, many cities in California are working to
reduce their reliance on natural gas to meet state climate
goals, and to move away from price volatility and intermittency
exacerbated by climate change. That was demonstrated last year
in Texas's winter storm.
Does climate change and the associated extreme weather
events pose a risk to the reliable delivery of energy products
like oil and natural gas? Please answer with a yes or no.
Mr. Glick. Yes, Senator--I mean Congressman.
Mr. McNerney. I will take the promotion, maybe.
Mr. Glick. Take the promotion.
Mr. McNerney. Anyway, how has NERC, which serves a function
similar to the proposed Energy Product Reliability
Organization, respond to increasing climate threats and setting
standards for the bulk power systems? Have they done enough?
Mr. Glick. So, Congressman, I appreciate the question. So I
think the--you know, the standards that have been set at the--
and the electric level, I think, have generally been pretty
good.
But I want to point out an example where I think we failed
a bit, and that is going back to the Texas situation, in the
sense that there was a similar cold weather event back in 2011,
and there was a similar report done. And the report recommended
that there be standards for weatherizing generation facilities.
And unfortunately, those--that recommendation got watered down
into some sort of guidance, and the guidance wasn't,
essentially, followed, because, you know, generation is a very
competitive business, and some electric generators didn't want
to make the investments if their competitors weren't going to
make the investments.
So I do think that is where it is a good example of where
mandatory standards are absolutely necessary, essentially, to
require everyone to engage in that--those type of investments.
If we had done that back in 2011, we probably wouldn't have had
the disaster that occurred last February in Texas.
Mr. McNerney. So national mandatory standards, I take it.
But thank you, and I yield back.
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Rush [continue]. Now recognizes my dear friend from the
great state of West Virginia. And I emphasize my dear friend.
Mr. McKinley, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and congratulations
to both you and Paulette coming through. You defeated COVID
over the holidays.
But as for your decision not to return next year, your
voice, your passion for so many people across America is going
to be sorely missed.
Mr. Rush. I share that with you.
Mr. McKinley. But Mr. Chairman, with all due respect,
however, this bill may be well-intended, but the committee
should be addressing the rising energy costs of today.
According to the EIA, heating bills could increase as much
as 54 percent this winter. And in the Build Back Better plan,
Democrats wanted to add a tax on natural gas that the
national--the American Gas Association estimated that that
would raise household energy costs by an additional 17 percent
on top of it. So fortunately, this bill is dying in the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, is your party tone deaf? The people across
America are struggling.
According to Help Advisor, last year more than one in four
Americans said they went without basic needs to pay their
energy bill. Why isn't this Energy--why isn't this committee
considering ways to lower the cost of energy bills?
But this bill fails to address that, and the White House
relentlessly continues this war--this wage of war on pipeline
development. Just look at the Environmental Justice Report on
page 59. It specifically says it recommends that no new
pipelines in America. They already want to shut down the
Atlantic Coast Pipeline, the Mountain Valley Pipeline, Line 5--
we have already talked about those today--and all while
supporting Russia's Nord Stream 2.
Let's put this in perspective, Mr. Chairman. Last year,
with a new President and your party in the majority, the
committee held only 74 hearings and markups, most of which were
to add more regulations. Contrast that with 2017, when
President Trump's first year in office, and when Republicans
were in the majority. This committee held a 106 hearings and
markups. That is nearly 50 percent more. And our focus is
primarily on transparency, and streamlining permittings, and
removing barriers for job creation.
With that decrease in hearings, it is no wonder that the
public doesn't trust Congress, and their polls will indicate we
are headed in the wrong direction. It is two in three people
say we are headed in the wrong direction. To rebuild that trust
we should be working to reduce energy costs, not add to it.
So, Chairman Glick, the Natural Gas Act requires FERC to
conduct a public interest review before a pipeline project can
move forward. With a yes or no, do you believe it is in the
public interest to have access to reliable and affordable
supplies of natural gas? It is a yes or no.
Mr. Glick. Yes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. But now FERC wants to redefine
public interest to include climate change and the social cost
of carbon, which will hinder pipeline development. Because of
that, the pipeline restrictions, New England currently now
imports its natural gas from countries like Russia because of
pipeline restrictions. This--and we know the Russian gas is 40
percent dirtier than our American gas.
Can you define for me why is this in our public interest,
to import gas from Russia rather than use American gas that
also is more affordable?
Mr. Glick. Thanks for the question, Mr. McKinley. You know,
I wouldn't say I disagree with the premise of the question. The
Commission is enforcing greenhouse gas emissions regulation on
pipeline development or pipeline considerations. We are
required to, under both the law and by the courts.
And what my point is is that the courts have repeatedly
told us over the last several years that, if we don't engage in
that type of analysis to determine what the impact of pipelines
might--a proposed pipeline might be on greenhouse gas emissions
on climate change, the courts send the cases back to us. And
that is the problem. We end up creating more uncertainty, more
delay, and less gas production--
Mr. McKinley. If I could, Mr. Glick, do you think it sends
a message of trust to the American people when they see a
tanker coming from Russia to provide gas to New England? Is
that how we rebuild trust, we rely on foreign nations to bring
this thing in?
Mr. Glick. I think the gas situation in New England is
complicated, but in large part it is due to the fact that there
isn't--hasn't been enough demand to bring in new pipeline
development.
But I want to point out, not that it is much better, but
the gas, the natural gas that is supplied by LNG into New
England is primarily from Africa, and not from Russia.
Mr. McKinley. Mr. Chairman, I have run out of time, so I
yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on
Environment, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5
minutes.
[Pause.]
Mr. Rush. Mr. Tonko is recognized.
[Pause.]
Mr. Rush. Mr. Tonko is not--Mr. Tonko is recognized.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Veasey, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Veasey?
[No response.]
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from--Mr.
Johnson from Ohio.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it is a bit
ironic that today we are now finally hearing--having a hearing
on protecting our nation's pipeline infrastructure, because my
Democrat colleagues have spent over a year now conducting an
all-out assault on reliable and affordable fossil fuels, and
the infrastructure needed to transport these vital resources to
market.
But----
Voice. No.
[Pause.]
Mr. Johnson. But this hypocrisy is nothing new. Let me take
you back to May of 2021, the Colonial Pipeline, which supplies
nearly half the fuel consumed on the East Coast. As we all
remember, it suffered a major cyber attack. And Secretary
Granholm, from the White House podium, admitted that, when it
comes to moving America's fuel, she said, and I quote, ``pipe
is the best way to go.''
Mr. Turk, do you agree with Secretary Granholm? Is pipe the
best way to go?
Mr. Turk. So thank you, Congressman, for the question. As I
referenced earlier----
Mr. Johnson. No, it is a yes-or-no answer, Mr. Turk. Do you
agree with Secretary Granholm? I don't need an elaboration. It
is a yes or a no.
Mr. Turk. So yes, there are----
Mr. Johnson. OK, thank you. All right, then. Well, I don't
know about you, Mr. Deputy Secretary, but I do agree that pipe
is the best way to go.
With the litany of anti-pipeline actions from this
Administration, it makes you wonder who is really responsible
for American energy security, because President Biden sure
isn't listening to his energy secretary or to people like you,
Mr. Turk, that think pipe is also the best way to go.
I mean, we all know about the Administration's actions
against the Keystone XL pipeline. And then, the Enbridge 5
line, which provides energy to Michigan and my home state of
Ohio, considering shutting that down.
But here is another one. Have any of you heard of the
PennEast pipeline: a billion-dollar pipeline to carry reliable,
affordable natural gas from Appalachia to New Jersey? Our
chairman's--full committee chairman's home state, by the way.
Last fall, it was canceled, due to massive opposition from
environmentalists and radical, left-wing state politicians. I
wonder. Do my Democrat colleagues really want to secure our
pipelines? Or do they want to just side with the radical
environmentalists, and shut down the pipelines in favor of
weather-dependent renewable energy sources?
It seems to me that many of our Democratic friends can't
seem to make up their minds.
So Mr. Turk, you were previously the deputy director of the
International Energy Agency. A recent report was published by
that agency that stated we need to move an energy economy,
quote--we need to move to an energy economy, and I quote,
``dominated by renewables like solar and wind instead of fossil
fuels.'' Do you agree with that, that we should move to an
energy economy dominated by renewables like solar and wind,
instead of fossil fuels?
Mr. Turk. So I think we need to do two things
simultaneously. Given the climate imperative--and we are
already seeing the risks and damages to climate across our
country----
Mr. Johnson. I don't want to debate climate change, Mr.
Turk.
Mr. Turk. Well----
Mr. Johnson. I asked you a simple question. Do you agree
with that agency's statement, that we should move to an energy
economy dominated by renewables like wind and solar?
Mr. Turk. Because of these climate impacts, we need to move
very aggressively in a diverse way with a variety of clean
energy resources.
Mr. Johnson. So you agree----
Mr. Turk. Wind, solar, hydrogen----
Mr. Johnson. You agree with Secretary Granholm that we
should protect what we have, and diversify, right?
Mr. Turk. Well, that is the second part of the answer I was
going to say. As we move to this diverse, robust, clean-energy
future, we need to make sure energy is--existing energy is
reliable, secure.
Mr. Johnson. But how do we----
Mr. Turk [continue]. Protect our American citizens----
Mr. Johnson. How do we make sure that the energy is
reliable and secure, when the efforts to shut down the very
pipelines that take that energy to market are being throttled?
How do we do that? How do you account for the Administration's
protection of where we are today? Because that is not
happening.
Mr. Turk. So just to be clear, the challenges we are seeing
across the country on affordability right now, whether it is on
the oil side or the natural gas side, are largely stemming from
the pandemic, and supply and demand being out of whack.
Mr. Johnson. I mean, these pipelines, some of these
pipelines, have been running since 1953. The consideration to
close down the Enbridge 5, since 1953 it has been running. The
XL pipeline has been in construction for years, had nothing to
do with the pandemic.
Mr. Turk. But that is not the issue that is causing the
current affordability challenges we are seeing across the
country. Right now we do not have enough supply matching up
with the demand, as our economy is roaring back, and the U.S.
economy is doing quite well right now. And we don't have enough
supply on the oil side to match up to that. That is why we are
doing the kinds of things we are doing with the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve to try to bridge that time period, as our
domestic producers get more and more market--more and more
product on the market.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, we should be doing everything we
can to increase production and use of our own resources here in
America, and that is not what this Administration is doing.
That is what would bring down the price of gas at the pumps,
and lower the cost of groceries on the shelves.
With that, Mr. 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. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for your years of service to this country. And thank you to
both of our experts for being here for today's discussion about
how we can safeguard our energy systems from a whole gamut of
threats, everything from weather to cyber terrorism.
I have two questions, one for each of you, and I will
direct the first to Deputy Secretary Turk.
As you know, hydropower is a reliable and inexpensive form
of clean energy, and my state, Washington, is the hydro capital
of the country. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
provided a much-needed investment in our hydro industry, and I
was, therefore, really proud to support that legislation.
Now, with the impacts of climate change and droughts
occurring in Western states in the past year, at least one
hydro generation facility was actually taken offline. So
greater investments in our facilities to increase resiliency is
critical toward ensuring that we can continue to rely on
hydropower as we transition to clean and renewable sources.
What additional measures is the Administration taking to
address these challenges in potential years of lower flow to
make sure we can still rely on hydropower?
Mr. Turk. Well, thank you, Congresswoman, for the question,
and your focus--rightfully so, in my opinion--on hydropower. It
is such an incredibly important part of our clean energy
generation. Currently--and we feel that hydropower needs to
play an even more important role, going forward.
And so, whether it is the funding provided in the
bipartisan infrastructure legislation--and thank you for your
leadership on that, and others--or all the other efforts we are
doing on hydropower to make sure we retain the existing
hydropower that we have, look at additional ways to bring
additional hydropower generation where it makes sense
throughout, and using hydro for storage and to balance with
other renewables like solar and wind as well. So we are
spending an awful lot of time and attention, rightfully, on
hydropower.
And we also need to, just as you said, take into account
climate change's impact on snowpack and other hydro resources,
and make sure we are prepared to deal with that, as well.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you. Thank you for also mentioning--as a
great method of storing energy. And I think that Representative
McMorris Rodgers and I agree that adding power generation to
dams that are already in existence is another way to increase
our use.
Chairman Glick, when extreme weather causes gas production
to drop, as it did again in Texas three weeks ago, generators
are left scrambling at the last moment to find alternative
sources of supply, often passing the costs onto ratepayers. My
question is whether you agree that electric generators would
benefit from increased visibility into gas market conditions,
where it is, where they can get it, and whether Chairman Rush's
proposed legislation could help ameliorate what is a
significant vulnerability in our current gas supply system.
Mr. Glick. Thank you for the question, Ms. Schrier. I
think, certainly, increased transparency in the natural gas
market would certainly benefit electric generators, would
benefit consumers, would benefit a lot of folks, just to have a
better sense of what is going on there, out there in the
market.
And as you mentioned, sometimes electric generators are
forced to go out there and scramble for fuel supply when fuel
supply gets tight. So it certainly would have significant
advantages to the extent there is better transparency.
I don't believe that the legislation before us, which is
primarily focused on reliability, and ensuring that pipeline
companies are more reliable, would provide much in terms of
transparency. But I would say that, to the extent that we
ensure that these pipeline systems are more reliable,
especially on the natural gas pipeline system, electric
generators will be more confident that they will be able to
access the fuel that they need to keep the electric generation
going during times of extreme weather.
Ms. Schrier. Great. I am--thank you. Thank you for that
clarification.
And then lastly, our system in Washington State, we depend
on the Canadian natural gas supply chain. How do you see
international connections being included in sharing gas market
conditions, but also in these measures for cybersecurity?
Mr. Glick. So, Ms. Schrier, I can compare it to our
electricity standards. So our electricity reliability standard
process is set by NERC, which not only operates in the United
States, but also in Canada and a small part of Mexico, where--
that is connected to the rest of the electric grid. And so the
standards that are applied there have to go through a review by
the Canadian Government, for instance, but they are similar in
most cases, the same exact standards that apply here, in the
United States.
And there is a provision in the bill before us, H.R. 6084,
which says that this electric--the EPRO, the pipeline
reliability organization, would have to try to make efforts to
have--to get similar notification and recognition in Canada, as
well as the United States.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from----
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
pleased to have two Administration witnesses here today amid
surging energy prices that are eating into families' budgets
across the country. It is important that this committee
exercise oversight into the policies that are sacrificing our
energy security and affordability.
I am disappointed that the Oversight and Investigation
Subcommittee has not been allowed to hold a single hearing to
examine how the Administration's policies may have played a
role in the energy crisis. In fact, the Oversight and
Investigation Subcommittee hasn't been allowed to hold a
hearing from September 29th of last year until tomorrow's
hearing on cleaning up cryptocurrency, the energy impacts of
blockchain.
OK, shifting gears, Deputy Secretary Turk, in your written
testimony you mentioned devastating impacts of disruption
through multiple events. You cite cyber threats, important;
supply chain risks in critical hardware, important; and in
software, important. You mentioned incidents like the February
2021 winter storms and the May 2021 Colonial Pipeline incident.
In testimony here today we have heard about hydropower just
now, and climate impacts, and how they should be looked at, and
so forth, and that is important.
Have you had numerous briefings with the Federal--with
Federal--other Federal agencies and industry on these issues,
as you imply on page one of your written statement, yes or no?
Mr. Turk. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Griffith. And can you give me an estimate of how many
such briefings have occurred? Five, ten, dozens?
Mr. Turk. So myself, I spend time on these issues on a
daily basis with interagency colleagues, with industry
colleagues. I don't know what number I--with other colleagues
at DoE, it is hourly----
Mr. Griffith. So dozens. Yes, so dozens with other
agencies, states, and industry.
Mr. Turk. Well, absolutely, focused on affordability,
focused on reliability, all the issues that you referenced.
Mr. Griffith. How many briefings have you participated in
with other Federal agencies, states, or industry on cleaning up
cryptocurrency, the energy impacts of blockchain? We couldn't
get an answer this morning from your agency.
Mr. Turk. So that is an issue I have personally spent some
time on, including when I worked at the International Energy
Agency.
Mr. Griffith. Yes.
Mr. Turk. And looking not only at the impacts of blockchain
and digital impacts today, but looking into the future. And I
know folks at the Department of Energy----
Mr. Griffith. But it would be fair--yes. But it would be
fair to say that you focused more on the issues that you put in
your written statement, and what you have talked about here
today, such as cybersecurity. Wouldn't that be fair, that you
focus more on cybersecurity and problems with the supply
chains, and the issues that you put in your written statement
that you have testified to previously today? Wouldn't that be a
fair statement, yes or no?
Mr. Turk. Sir, it is a big agency. We work on all of these
things.
Personally, I have probably spent more time on
cybersecurity, more time on affordability----
Mr. Griffith. Have you----
Mr. Turk [continue]. Side.
Mr. Griffith. Have you talked about those issues in the
last four months? And you have spent more time on cybersecurity
and so forth. Have you talked about those issues in the last
four months?
Mr. Turk. So I have. It is an issue that we are focused on.
Mr. Griffith. Yes. So, you know, from the actions that you
have told me about--and I appreciate that--it seems to me that
perhaps, just maybe, just maybe, the Oversight and
Investigation Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce ought to be
focusing on some other issues that are more pressing than the
energy use of cybersecurity or--excuse me, the energy issues
related to cryptocurrency in energy.
We have heard today about Line 5. Mr. Johnson just brought
up another one. We heard about a hydro. Members are bringing up
all kinds of issues, the causes for the cost increases. You
were about to get into a debate on that with Mr. Johnson. That
is all fine.
But the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, which has
not met for almost four months, also has jurisdiction over
healthcare. So issues like nursing shortages, broadband, the
Internet, manufacturing, and, of course, not only for energy,
but for all kinds of sectors, including why does the House have
masks made from China, when we could get those made in the
United States of America--that this is what the House provided
us, maybe that is what Oversight and Investigations ought to be
doing.
I know you can't answer that question, Mr. Turk, but I
greatly appreciate you being here today. These are important
issues, but I think that the Oversight and Investigation
Subcommittee ought to be freed, and ought to be able to find
its own course. And sometimes I will agree with the chairwoman
and sometimes I won't, but that is an important subcommittee
that is not being used currently by leadership. It is a shame,
and it is a waste.
I want to talk about--and I will probably send you some
questions later--about parity between fossil fuels and
renewables, because I think it is important, as we see China
and India both increasing substantially there, and the European
Union substantially increasing their use of coal. We need to
find new technologies to make it better. We can do it. This is
the United States of America. We can make it happen.
I appreciate your time, and I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair of the
Oversight Committee is on the screen, but now the Chair
recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, the chairman
of the committee--the Subcommittee on Environment, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you
for your great work as subcommittee chair on energy.
So, Chairman Glick, welcome. I know you and FERC must
frequently consider the boundaries between Federal and state
responsibilities in our energy system, and I am assuming that
the proposed Energy Product Reliability Organization in
Chairman Rush's bill would require significant Federal
coordination. So can you give us some sense as to how we can
think about these jurisdictional----
Mr. Glick. Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Tonko.
I think there are--again, I want to point to a good
example, which is, again, the way we handle electricity
reliability, the way we--the legislation from the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 addressed the issues is it gave FERC and NERC the
authority over the reliability of the bulk power system, you
know, the long-distance transmission lines, the big generation
facilities, and so on, and it gave the states jurisdiction
over--or essentially, left to the states jurisdiction over the
reliability of the distribution system. And I think that is the
way we are going to have to think about that on a going-forward
basis.
The states have a significant role to play with regard to
the LDCs, the local distribution companies that provide natural
gas to homes and businesses and so on, in factories. And I
think if they--they need to play a very significant role in
ensuring that those pipelines, the pipelines that get to the
end of the system, so to speak, that those are also reliable.
And so I think that they--it is an issue that FERC and the
states need to coordinate on, just like we do on electricity
reliability.
Mr. Tonko. And basically, the responsibilities of the
Federal Government, or perhaps this NERC-like organization?
Mr. Glick. So I think it is the responsibility of the
Federal Government. The way the legislation is currently
drafted, H.R. 6084, it doesn't make a distinction between the
local distribution and the--essentially, the interstate grid of
natural gas pipelines. It is something that I would recommend
that the Commission--that the committee take a look at as it
proceeds through the legislative process.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And if NERC partially serves as a
model for this proposal, how has NERC been able to overcome
some of the Federal-state coordination and jurisdictional
issues that exist in the electricity system?
Mr. Glick. Well, I think NERC works very closely with a
series of regional reliability organizations that are spread
out throughout the country that are more focused on some of the
local reliability issues. And I think NERC also plays a very
big role in coordinating with NARUC which is the association of
state utility commissions, and the individual state
commissions, as well. I know that, in fact, they spend a lot of
time talking with them, making sure their jurisdictions--that
they are working together on the same issues.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And even with this legislation, do
you believe there will still be an important role for energy
security planning and emergency preparedness by the states?
Mr. Glick. Absolutely. Yes. We mentioned earlier there is
three million miles of pipes around the country, and I think
the Federal Government, through the--through this process
established by this legislation, will address some of the
bigger issues. But I think a lot of the local-level issues are
issues that are already within the jurisdiction of state
utility commissions, such as ensuring that the local pipelines
are operating reliably, they are providing reliable gas service
to homes, for instance, for heating, and so on.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And Secretary Turk, welcome. The Department's cybersecurity
efforts have required significant public-private coordination.
But is there anything you can tell us about the need to improve
coordination between Federal and state partners on these
reliability and cyber issues?
Mr. Turk. I think, Congressman, it is an excellent
question, and right to focus on those issues of coordination--
public, private, and Federal, and state, and local, as well.
And we spend an awful lot of time--our CESER team, in
particular--working hand in hand with FERC, working hand in
hand with others in the interagency, but working hand in hand
with state and locals, and making sure that we have got a full
plan in place to provide the reliability in the cybersecurity.
Everyone needs to be on board here.
Mr. Tonko. Right, thank you. And Secretary, I want to
commend DoE for the Building a Better Grid Initiative. This
focus on our nation's transmission system is critical to
achieving reliable, resilient, and clean electricity across the
country.
But if our modern and reliable transmission system is very
dependent on generation that may have unreliable delivery
infrastructure, the whole system could crumble. So how do you
see pipeline reliability and cybersecurity standards
complementing the Department's broader goals of building a more
modern and resilient electricity system?
Mr. Turk. So first of all, let me thank you, Congressman,
and others who supported the bipartisan infrastructure
legislation, which gave us $16 billion at the Department of
Energy to work further on electricity resilience. That is a
historic level of funding and support that we plan on using
very effectively to promote the reliability of the security,
the resilience, more generally.
Electricity is certainly tied, hand in hand, with natural
gas and with other parts of the energy system, and we need to
be thinking of cybersecurity and reliability and resilience all
together, and throughout the value chains, and throughout
multiple value chains, as well. So just as the FERC and NERC
model has worked well for electricity, we need to have
mandatory standards, from the Department of Energy perspective,
for other parts of our energy spectrum.
Thank you to TSA for stepping up and having some mandatory
standards put in place for pipelines. But we also think other
parts of that value chain need standards, need Federal
standards, national standards, including refineries and other
parts of that value chain, as well, again, having a coherent
system in place so that we can do what we need to do.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Bucshon, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Bucshon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would like to say thank you for your service to
your country. And in your retirement I hope you continue to
promote the policies and the things that you have been doing on
behalf of your constituents in the Chicago land area. So----
Mr. Rush. Thank you so much.
Mr. Bucshon [continue]. Thank you.
Thank you, Deputy Secretary Turk and Chairman Glick, for
being here today.
Well, here we are in 2022. Americans around the country are
still facing the consequences of the dreadful state of American
energy under this Administration. This month my constituents in
Indiana are paying gas prices that are nearly 40 percent higher
than last year. Winter is underway, and Hoosiers are having to
devote more of their paychecks to pay their energy bills, and
forgo other basic household necessities like food and medicine.
Stunning levels of inflation that have hampered the
American economy for the last several months, and are ongoing,
and are not short term, are causing and exacerbating the
effects of these high energy prices. Unfortunately, the Biden
Administration has not effectively addressed this fundamental
problem impacting millions of Americans.
This committee should be conducting oversight of the
Administration, and working with the Department of Energy to
address this inflation and rising fuel prices. However, as
evidenced by the bill we are discussing today, the majority
appears to be more interested in finding ways to expand the
Federal Government's regulatory footprint in the U.S. energy
sector, rather than resolving key problems impacting ordinary
Americans.
Therefore, I am disappointed that the rising energy costs
and inflation are not the central topic of today's hearing.
Deputy Secretary Turk, I just have one question, which is a
little out of the direction I was headed here, but I would like
to know, as it relates to LNG and crude oil exports, yes or no,
is an export ban on the table as a way to--unfortunately, it
won't address energy costs here, but I guess the Administration
thinks maybe it will.
Mr. Turk. So an export ban, either on the LNG side or on
the oil side, is not something we are currently discussing and
under consideration.
Mr. Bucshon. Great, thank you for that answer.
I mean, I am concerned the Administration's--about the
Administration's mismanagement of the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, in my view, in response to energy prices. The SPR is
intended as a safeguard to protect U.S. energy from the effects
of a natural disaster or other major disruptions in the energy
market, not as a tool to influence domestic fuel prices.
Going back to the Obama Administration, we directed DoE to
conduct a long-term strategic review of the SPR. We also
authorized a series of drawdowns to ``right-size the SPR,'' and
provide funding for a life extension and modernization program.
Deputy Secretary Turk, I am concerned the Administration is
attempting to circumvent Congress and the statutory limitations
under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act designed to
protect the SPR from political manipulation. A yes-or-no: by
law, the President must make an emergency declaration to
determine that a severe energy supply interruption exists
before authorizing an SPR drawdown, is that correct?
Mr. Turk. So there are a number of ways you can--we can use
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And in the case of the 50
million barrels that was announced and we are deploying right
now, there was not an emergency designation. That was not one
of the authorities that we used.
For the 50 million barrels, what we did, 18 million barrels
of that was a congressionally-mandated sale that we moved up
the timing of that, all perfectly consistent with congressional
authorization. And then the other 32 million barrels was done--
what is called an exchange. And we used that mechanism for the
particular moment in time because our economy is heated up, but
our supply of oil has not matched that. That is why we have the
pressures, and that is why the price has gone up, including
what consumers pay at the pump.
Mr. Bucshon. OK. So why didn't----
Mr. Turk. This tool is meant to be particularly suited for
this backwardation we currently have in the market, in order to
round that off, and to make sure we get more product into the
market now, when consumers need those--that price reduction.
Mr. Bucshon. Fair enough. I mean, I think you did it before
Thanksgiving because his polling numbers were down, and the
American people were mad that their energy prices were going
up. And honestly, based on your answer, 99.9 percent of the
American people wouldn't be able to decipher the reason why he
did it.
So why didn't he make a finding of a severe energy
interruption? Is it because other International Energy Agency
members in Europe refused to authorize a collective drawdown of
their reserves?
Mr. Turk. So we spent months and months looking at the
available tools that we had on this, and we came forward with
what I think is an incredibly well-put-together plan for that
particular moment in time that we faced, and we had a
significant backwardation in the market.
We do so again, now that the prices have gone back up. When
that supply from the U.S., from Canada, from Brazil, and from
some other countries in OPEC Plus match up with that demand,
the prices will go down. That is what our EIA experts and
others are predicting in 2022.
But we have a peak of the curve, if you want to think about
it this way. And the exchange mechanism, in particular, helps
shave that peak off, protecting consumers from----
Mr. Bucshon. Fair enough----
Mr. Turk [continue]. More supply.
Mr. Bucshon. Fair enough. I mean, I think it was used to
get around Congress, personally, but fair enough.
I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the very capable and effective chairman of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Ms. DeGette, for 5
minutes.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
pile on my thanks for your years of service to this committee
and the Congress, and also your years of personal friendship to
me. It means a lot.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Ms. DeGette. I also want to thank the ranking member of the
Oversight and--Oversight Subcommittee for already preparing in
advance for our wonderful hearing on energy use in
cybersecurity and cyber issues tomorrow.
And I also want to say that I would have a hearing in
Oversight and Investigation every week. Under the pandemic,
only one of our two committee rooms is wired for the ability to
do Webex and in-person at the same time. And I have been asking
the chairman if we could get both of our committee hearing
rooms up and running, so that we can have a robust number of
hearings. And so--but I just want to say, Mr. Griffith and all
of the rest of my Democratic and Republican members of
Oversight and Investigation, get ready for a very robust year,
starting with our cyber currency hearing tomorrow.
I want to ask--I have a number of questions, but, Chairman
Glick, I want to ask you. Several of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle have, unfortunately, implied that it is the
Administration's policy to get natural gas from China and
Russia. I would like you to, if you can, talk just for a brief
moment about what the Administration's policy is, in terms of
importing natural gas from foreign sources.
Mr. Glick. Thank you for the question, Ms. DeGette.
So FERC is an independent agency, and so I can't speak for
what the Administration's position is or not. I will say that
the Commission has, over a number of years, approved a large
number of proposed LNG export facilities. And our job is to
make sure that the facilities are, essentially, operated
safely, and that when they are constructed, that they are
constructed safely and they don't have an adverse impact on the
environment.
And so I think the--we have seen the demand. The companies
are coming in, asking for----
Ms. DeGette. Sir, you are not answering my question, so I
am going to move on, because I have some other questions.
I want to ask you, during Storm Uri, many utilities and
independent power producers, including those in Colorado, were
forced to pay exorbitant national--natural gas prices on the
stock market----
[Audio malfunction.]
Ms. DeGette [continue]. Gas suppliers did not fulfill their
firm contracts.
So I want to ask you if Chairman Rush's legislation can
protect ratepayers from similar costs in the future.
Mr. Glick. Yes, thank you, Ms. DeGette, and it is a great
question, because that is exactly--I think that is the reason
we are here today. We are talking about energy prices.
Ms. DeGette. Answer the question, sir.
Mr. Glick. We need to also talk about what happens to the
energy prices when pipelines are not--no longer reliable. And
we saw what happened with regard to the natural gas system in
Texas. Not only did that bring down electricity, and it
obviously caused blackouts, caused enormous amounts of cost for
consumers, it also raised natural gas prices in the entire
region. And consumers in Colorado, consumers in Kansas,
consumers in Oklahoma and elsewhere had to pay for that, and
they are still paying for that, exorbitant rates, in large part
because the supply-and-demand system was out of whack. There
wasn't enough natural gas to go around.
And so I think that is one of the benefits of this
legislation. We promote a more reliable natural gas system. Not
only do we reduce cost on the electric grid, you are--also
reduce costs on the natural gas--for natural gas consumers, as
well.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you. Now, you identified in your
testimony four features of Chairman Rush's bill that will help
address the risks posed by our current lack of gas reliability
standards, and one of those features is the ability to issue
emergency energy production standards, reliability standards--
--
[Audio malfunction.]
Ms. DeGette. Now, can you tell us why----
[Audio malfunction.]
Ms. DeGette [continue]. Is essential? And do you think the
Federal Power Act should be amended to give the Commission the
ability to issue emergency electric reliability standards?
Mr. Glick. I do believe so. The current approach on the
electric reliability side isn't always nimble enough to address
emergencies, and the Department of Energy has, certainly,
emergency authority under certain circumstances. But I think
FERC should actually have the authority, both on the electric
side and the natural gas side, to actually propose and actually
implement emergency reliability standards when those conditions
warrant.
Ms. DeGette. OK, that is great.
Deputy Secretary Turk, now I understand that the
Transportation Security Administration and the Cybersecurity
and Infrastructure Security Agency recently issued security
directives aimed at owners and operators of TSA pipelines. And
so I am wondering if----
[Audio malfunction.]
Ms. DeGette [continue]. Was the Department of Energy
involved in those standards, and any determinations----
[Audio malfunction.]
Ms. DeGette. And briefly, can you tell me what factors were
considered in those designations?
Mr. Turk. Thank you. We work hand in hand and provide our
expertise to our full interagency partners, including TSA and
CISA, as well.
And we were very pleased that there are now mandatory
standards on the books for pipelines that TSA has put out. As
Chairman Glick has said, though, that is a one-year emergency
designation. We are going to have cybersecurity issues for more
than a year, and we need to have that longer-term piece.
And we also need to have standards, from our opinion, on
refinery and other parts of the value chain, as well.
Ms. DeGette. Thank you so much. Thanks to both of our
panelists.
And again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your service.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Walberg for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I wish you all
the best. You have got a year left to work here. We are glad we
will have the chance to work with you, and look forward to
seeing you here. However, as you know, I was born and spent the
first six years of my life in your district, so I can find you.
I know where you are at.
To review, on his first day in office President Biden
issued an executive order revoking the cross-border permit for
the Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone XL pipeline would have
created tens of thousands of jobs, and ensured a stable supply
of nearly 800,000 barrels per day of crude oil from our closest
ally and trading partner, Canada, my neighbor. If President
Biden had not revoked the permit, the Keystone Pipeline would
allow the U.S. to produce more gasoline and diesel, which would
help us reduce imports from the Middle East, and Russia, and
Africa.
Unbelievably, especially in light of the fact that
Secretary Granholm is a former governor of Michigan, the
Administration is also considering closing down Michigan's Line
5 pipeline, which delivers the majority of Michigan and the
region's propane and other essential fuels for heating,
agriculture, and manufacturing.
Political whims should not decide whether Michiganders can
heat their homes or not, so I have introduced the Protecting
International Pipelines for Energy Security, PIPES, Act, which
would prevent President Biden from punitively shutting down
existing energy pipelines, like Line 5, without congressional
approval.
Deputy Secretary Turk, welcome. Thank you for being here.
Do you support the construction of pipelines from Canada to
increase the domestic supply of oil and refined products, yes
or no?
Mr. Turk. So just to be clear, on Line 5 we don't have the
authority on that front. And----
Mr. Walberg. We will talk about that later. I have heard
that statement, and I have some concerns with that.
But yes or no, do you support construction of pipelines
from Canada to increase the domestic supply of oil and refined
products?
Mr. Turk. Well, one thing, and I think we should be clear
on this. It is not the pipeline issue that has caused the
current affordability challenge that we have----
Mr. Walberg. I am not asking for that.
Mr. Turk [continue]. Oil or natural gas----
Mr. Walberg. Do you support----
Mr. Turk [continue]. Side of things.
Mr. Walberg [continue]. The construction?
Mr. Turk. So when I would look at any energy
infrastructure, I would look----
Mr. Walberg. Let me go on to the next question.
Mr. Turk [continue]. Does it promote security, does it
promote affordability?
Mr. Walberg. If I am not going to get the answer--I only
have a certain amount of time.
Did DoE conduct an analysis to evaluate the energy security
impacts of canceling the Keystone XL permit?
Mr. Turk. So I--that was before my time. I am sure there
was some analysis. I don't--I should say I don't know what
analysis was done.
Mr. Walberg. I am amazed. I am amazed that Secretary
Granholm, having been in front of us before, last year, and
asking questions about the Keystone Pipeline--Line 5 pipeline,
as well, that you weren't prepped to respond to questions that
you knew we would ask, because there is great concern, because
it impacts my district and many other districts.
Let me ask you this question. Did DoE warn the White House
that canceling the Keystone XL pipeline would lead to job
losses and energy prices increases? Have you heard that?
Mr. Turk. So I don't have any knowledge of that analysis,
or what----
Mr. Walberg. That is amazing.
Mr. Turk [continue]. Analysis would have said.
Mr. Walberg. What precedent does Keystone XL set for other
cross-border pipelines and electric transmission facilities?
Mr. Turk. So again, I don't think the pipeline issue is the
affordability issue that you and other members have flagged as
a primary concern and that we are working on in this
Administration.
We are looking to use whatever tools we have got in the
near term----
Mr. Walberg. It ain't working.
Mr. Turk [continue]. To deal with supply and--well, we have
4.5----
Mr. Walberg. Look at the gas, the price at the pump. Look
at the price on my farm constituents as they are trying to dry
late-season harvest, and the cost of propane.
The Canadians are filing a claim under NAFTA to recover $15
billion in economic damages caused by President Biden's
meritless decision to revoke the Keystone XL pipeline permit. I
am concerned that American taxpayers will be forced to pay this
penalty, another casualty of the Biden Administration's anti-
fossil fuel agenda.
In the few seconds that I have left, in your response to
Congressman Latta and also Ranking Member Upton you indicated
that DoE hasn't conducted any analysis to determine the impact
of closing Line 5. If that is the case--and the Administration
ought to be having, from the Department of Energy,
consultation, advice that deals with energy in this country--it
amazes me that that is not happening.
And regardless of what you think you have priority or
responsibility for that, the consultation to this
Administration to give them the reality of what energy
resources are needed, and how to get them to our people, and
doing it the safest way possible--in fact, the way it was done
before January 20th.
With that, I will leave, I will yield back.
Mr. Rush. The time is up. The Chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from the great State of California, Ms. Matsui, for
5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I also want
to say thank you for your many years of service, and I look
forward to working with you the rest of this term, and I am
looking with curiosity as to what your next chapter of your
life will be. And I look forward to working with you there. I
am sure it will be exciting.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Ms. Matsui. And I want to thank the--both witnesses for
being with us here today.
Deputy Secretary Turk, your testimony identifies many ways
in which the Department of Energy engages with industry to
address cybersecurity threats. Yes or no, do any of those
programs result in mandatory, enforceable cybersecurity
standards?
Mr. Turk. So FERC is a part of DoE, an independent part of
DoE, and FERC has responsibility, with NERC, for electricity
bulk power, in terms of the mandatory standards. And we help
FERC, and we help TSA, and we help others on their mandatory
standards.
Ms. Matsui. OK. I am looking ahead also to see what other
enforceable cybersecurity standards do we need to protect
critical energy infrastructure?
Mr. Turk. So I have certainly come to the conclusion,
having dealt with cybersecurity more than I thought I would,
frankly, as deputy secretary of energy, over my first year, a
little less than first year, and I have come to the conclusion
we do need mandatory standards across the board when it comes
to critical infrastructure. It is just too important.
We can't just rely on every company doing what they should
do, and we need to have some baseline mandatory standards. So
electricity on the FERC and NERC side, pipelines, refineries
throughout the value chains, doing it in a common-sense way,
doing it with an awful lot of discussion with the private
sector, as NERC does, as FERC does, as we do from the DoE side.
But we need to--we just need to be prepared. So we absolutely
need those mandatory standards, in my opinion.
Ms. Matsui. Great, thank you. Looking ahead, I am excited
by the potential for offshore wind development off California's
coast. But it is important for the stakeholders to have an
opportunity to provide input into the development of this
nascent industry. And that is why I was thrilled to see this
Administration announce last week that it would be investing
and building a better and more reliable electric grid,
including for offshore wind.
Deputy Secretary Turk and Chairman Glick, can you speak to
both DoE and FERC's respective role in that initiative?
And how will your agencies use their respective--or their
experience engaging with stakeholders to ensure that our
government's approach to offshore wind transmission is
collaborative and inclusive?
Secretary--Deputy Secretary Turk?
Mr. Turk. Thank you for the question, and thank you for
flagging offshore wind. I think the potential for offshore wind
is huge. We have got a 30 gigawatt target by 2030 in this
Administration. I think we should be even thinking more bold
than that, and more--even more numbers than that, certainly
beyond 2030. The capacity factor for offshore wind is higher
than onshore wind. It balances out a number of parts to the
clean energy generation piece to it.
We are spending an awful lot of time, including in our
national labs, on the innovation and the cost reduction side,
including for floating offshore wind, which would be so
important for California and off our West Coast. And then we
are working with FERC, with others on the transmission side,
just as you rightfully flag. We need to make sure we are
building that infrastructure so that we can bring those
offshore capacities into the fold, and have them be an
incredibly important, reliable, resilient part of our energy
infrastructure.
Ms. Matsui. Absolutely.
Chairman Glick, would you like to comment?
Mr. Glick. Yes, thank you very much, Ms. Matsui, and I
appreciate the question.
So we are going to be providing technical assistance to the
Department of Energy, in terms of carrying out its grid
initiative, in particular with issues related to offshore wind,
such as interconnecting offshore wind facilities to the grid--
vitally important for the development of those technologies.
Secondly, we actually have our own grid reform initiative
underway, in which we are hoping to establish a regulatory--
reforming our regulations with regard to transmission. One of
the things we are really focusing on, what is needed to access
this--what is undoubtedly going to be a substantial demand, in
terms of offshore wind, both in terms of the East Coast, but
also, as you mentioned, off the West Coast.
And clearly, we are going to need to figure out what is the
most efficient way to build these transmission facilities. Do
you build one transmission facility that accesses and collects
power from a bunch of different offshore wind facilities, or do
you do it on a case-by-case basis, building a line out to each
individual offshore wind generating farm?
And those are the type of issues we are going to be dealing
with, in terms of our transmission reform initiative.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, in addition to offshore wind, what
lessons can we take from climate and cybersecurity incidents in
the past year to ensure that the transmission and deployment of
new, clean energy sources is safe and reliable?
Mr. Glick. So I think, clearly, if you look at the
situation in Texas with the extreme cold, if you look at the
situation in the West Coast with regard to extreme heat and
wildfires, if you look at--with regard to the, obviously,
Hurricane Ida that took place, and the devastation that
occurred there, we are going to need to make the electric grid
much more resilient than it currently is to address and
withstand some of these extreme weather conditions. And we are
actually engaged in that.
We have opened up a docket, we have held a technical
conference, which is our version of a congressional hearing,
and we are looking at what initiatives--working with our
colleagues to consider what initiatives that we can pursue to,
essentially, encourage utilities to make their grid more
resilient towards the--to extreme weather conditions.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Well, thank you very much, and I yield
back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back. I
have enjoyed serving with you.
Let me just say this, that the SPR release amounted to a
blip in gasoline and diesel prices. Prices did go up, as Mr.
Turk said, and will continue to go up as demand increases
throughout the winter months. But it will go back down. They
will go down when the weather warms and demand decreases, at
least for a little while, until we get into the summer vacation
travel season. Then demand goes up, and prices will go up as
supplies are used up.
But one thing the Administration did was acknowledge that
these were basic economics of supply and demand. The way to
address this energy crisis is by increasing supply, not
stifling it, which is Democrat policy, stifling energy
production in this country.
Now, the title of this hearing is pipeline reliability, but
Democrats really don't like pipelines. That is obvious. They
shut down the Keystone pipeline, they shut down the pipeline
the gentleman from Michigan talked about. In fact, they shut
down the Atlantic Coast pipeline. There is an article here that
says that Congressional Progressive Caucus has been successful
fighting restrictions of natural gas production through
fracking and blocking natural gas pipelines, including Atlantic
Coast Pipeline. Senator Sanders celebrated efforts by
progressives to cancel the ACP.
Another example of Democrats not liking pipelines is the
fact that there is no pipeline really taking available natural
gas from Marcellus up to New England states. The lack of a
pipeline requires--because they have a thirst for energy in New
England, and they don't like looking at the wind turbines off
their coastline. They don't want pipelines because they think
that gas might be fracked gas, which they don't like. So they
are going to import gas from Russia and Africa and other
places, import it to the United States. LNG ships sit in the
Boston Harbor, providing dirty Russian gas, African gas to New
England. The thirst is still there for the energy. The thirst
to use natural gas is still there. They just don't want
American gas through a pipeline, reliable or not, as the title
of this hearing is.
Mr. Glick, are you familiar with the letter sent to you by
over 40 Democrats on 5 January 2022?
Mr. Glick. Yes, I am.
Mr. Duncan. OK. I have got the letter here, and it raises
concern with the effect that anticipated increases in heating
and energy costs will have on their constituents this winter.
We are all concerned about costs that--energy costs have on our
constituents.
Now, I agree with another point of the letter, that lower-
income households face a higher burden when dealing with
increased energy costs. In fact, Republicans have talked about
this for a long time. There are certain sources of energy that
cost more to produce, and that is wind and solar and other
things. So their letter addresses that.
The letter demands FERC investigate whether market
manipulation, rather than an environmental agenda or supply
constraints, is causing natural gas prices to rise over 30
percent on average for consumers last year.
You are not supposed to use the word ``hypocrisy'' in
Congress. I was told that when I first came here. But this is
very hypocritical, because their same policies of limiting
offshore drilling, ending leases, not wanting to have hydraulic
fracturing, not having pipelines to bring the gas where the
need and demand is, using dirty or burning Russian gas to heat
in the homes and produce electricity, all of that is
hypocritical.
It is also hypocritical to try to say there is market
manipulation when the Administration is shutting down
production in this country, while at the same time promoting
energy sources that cost more to produce, and that cost is
pushed down to the lower-income people that they are talking
about here. Hypocrisy at the--at its finest.
You know, the Biden Administration has revoked the permit
on Keystone Pipeline, halted all new Federal oil and gas
leases, greenlighting the completion of Russia's Nord Stream 2
pipeline. Another hypocritical thing.
The same Democrats are concerned with high energy prices
for their constituents, championing blocking our natural gas
pipelines. It is just amazing.
So Mr. Glick, do you agree that pipelines are the safest
method to transport oil and gas?
Mr. Glick. That--we are not in the business of examining
safety of natural gas pipeline transportation.
Mr. Duncan. Well, I do. I will just stop you there. I get
it. We have a bunch of natural gas here in the United States:
Marcellus, Bakken, Barnett, Eagle Ford. I could go on and on.
I also think their innovation, not over-regulation,
government mandates in the energy sector will continue to lead
the world in oil and gas production, as well as reduce
emissions.
I think Europe is going to find that them being beholden on
Russia for their energy sources, once the Nord Stream 2 adds to
the Nord Stream 1 pipeline that brings gas there, and Vladimir
Putin continues to use that as a lever of policy and political
influence, they are going to wish they had U.S. LNG ships and
terminals to offload that in Europe.
Anyway, I am out of time. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the----
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Rush. --Mr. Veasey----
Mr. Veasey. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I want
to thank Chairman Glick and Deputy Secretary Turk for being
here today, too, to answer questions.
Over the past year we have seen many events, including some
tragic ones in my home state of Texas, that really show the
importance of reliable energy. I wrote a letter to FERC last
year, and I support the joint inquiry by FERC and NERC to
investigate operations of the bulk power system during the
storm that we had. And I think there is a need to have a real
conversation about the benefits and challenges of greater
interconnections between ERCOT and the rest of the country.
Electricity, as all of us know, is as essential as food and
water, and we can't have reliable electricity if we do not have
reliable natural gas. Electric gas coordination is critical,
and I think FERC has a role to play in some regulation over
interstate pipelines and increasing transparency. This
legislation addresses that, and directly addresses one of the
issues laid out in the FERC-NERC report in response to Winter
Storm Uri.
It is also critical that, as we address the problem of the
Texas blackout, that we take a serious look at the rest of the
infrastructure that supports our electric grid, including
natural gas production and transmission. As many of you know,
Texas, we are abundant with natural resources, including
natural gas that helps fuel our economy and keeps us
competitive, globally. It is all the more important that we
take action to ensure these resources are there when we need
them most, like during the historically cold winter storm that
we had.
While the legislation in front of us will address some of
the concern, a lot of the problems that we are facing in Texas
with constrained natural gas supply were related to disruptions
upstream, particularly with frozen wellheads, and I was hoping
that Chairman Glick could describe the extent of first
jurisdiction over interstate pipelines.
In particular, can you speak to FERC's oversight of 311
service and Hinshaw pipelines?
Mr. Glick. So thank you very much for the question, Mr.
Veasey. So we have authority over siting interstate natural gas
pipelines under the Natural Gas Act. We also have some
authority over regulation of the transportation rates. And
primarily, we have authority over the jurisdiction of our
interstate pipelines, transportation of natural gas over
interstate natural gas pipelines.
But there are also intrastate natural gas pipelines,
including some in Texas, that will also provide some interstate
service. And so we--in those cases we also regulate the rates,
pursuant to Section 311, I think, of the Natural Gas Policy
Act.
Mr. Veasey. Given FERC's exercises--given FERC exercises
limited jurisdictional oversight over 311 service and Hinshaw
pipelines based on states' oversight of both, does FERC assess
or confirm that such state oversight is sufficient?
Mr. Glick. No, we don't have the authority to do that, but
that--you are exactly right, those facilities are primarily
subject to, I believe, the Texas Railroad Commission in Texas.
Mr. Veasey. Given that we know that there is a lack of
weatherization of natural gas assets--it was a documented
problem during Winter Storm Uri--could gas supply shortages and
subsequent issues during Winter Storm Uri have been avoided if
there was some additional visibility with intrastate pipelines?
Mr. Glick. Thank you for the question. I don't believe so.
I think the major issues were, essentially, weather--there
were two issues. There was weather conditions, which --
essentially, those production facilities and those processing
facilities for natural gas froze.
Secondly, those other facilities that were still
operational lost their power. There wasn't, essentially, a
system set up, and I think Texas is now look at that--looking
at that, to make sure they are not cut off when there are
rolling blackouts, that those facilities are not cut off.
So I think that is where the--those were, essentially,
where the responsibilities lie, in terms of the impact and what
caused the blackouts in Texas. I don't----
Mr. Veasey. What----
Mr. Glick. Yes?
Mr. Veasey. What if there were capacity postings for
interstate pipelines, similar to the bulletin boards available
for interstate pipelines? Do you think that generators could
have prepared like that?
Mr. Glick. I think generators would have had--to have more
insight, essentially, as I mentioned earlier, to have more
transparency into what is going on in the natural gas side,
would essentially allow generators to go out and purchase
natural gas elsewhere, instead of at the last minute, which
certainly caused some of the problems and drove up prices in
the region.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your presence will
be missed. I wish you well.
I have been sitting here listening to the responses from
the witnesses, and I am kind of stuck somewhere between
perplexed and confused and ashamed at how unwilling you are to
give a straight answer to a straight question, and how little
you seem to know about some of the subject matter.
I mean, you were asked about pipeline safety. I don't care
if that is your area of expertise or not. You ought to know
that the safety record for pipelines is impeccable, 99.999
percent safe. It is, by far, without question--except,
apparently, by you two guys--the safest means of transporting
energy. It is also the least expensive. And that is a big, big
deal for American families.
As I have pointed out many times on this committee, I grew
up dirt poor, so I have a real burden for low-income families
and what they are experiencing right now, particularly going
into this winter. We have already had two snows in Alabama,
which is a little bit remarkable. But people are literally
going to be choosing between eating and heating because they
can't afford their energy.
You saw what has happened in Europe over the last few years
as they have pivoted away from natural gas, and tried to go to
almost all renewables, particularly in the UK. I think it was
either the winter of 2016/2017 or 2017/2018, they had almost
17,000 people that they classified as excess winter deaths
because they couldn't adequately heat their homes.
I mean, is that the kind of policy that this Administration
supports, Mr. Glick?
Mr. Glick. I can speak for FERC, I can't speak for the
Administration, since we are an independent agency, but I will
say this, that our responsibility is to ensure that rates, in
terms of transportation of fuel and in terms of electricity
transportation and generation within our jurisdiction, is the
rates are just and reasonable.
And so the answer is it is not acceptable when rates go up
extremely high, and we have taken a number of initiatives over
the years to reduce--over the last several years to try to
reduce energy.
Mr. Palmer. But here is what the Administration is doing,
and you made this point. You said demand is up, supply is down.
You--that was your answer, wasn't it?
Mr. Glick. That would be Secretary--but I agree with that.
Mr. Palmer. OK, Deputy Secretary Turk made that point.
OK, here is the thing. If you understand that price is a
function of supply and demand, when you shut off the
construction of a major pipeline like Keystone XL, when you
threaten to shut down other pipelines, when you restrict access
to energy resources that were making us energy independent, you
create a situation, with Russia and OPEC, where the President
is having to go hat in hand, on bended knee to ask them to
increase production because the supply is now affected.
Do you understand that? Apparently you understand that,
Deputy Secretary.start here.
Mr. Turk. So just to be clear----
Mr. Palmer. I don't want a long, drawn-out answer.
Mr. Turk. Yes.
Mr. Palmer. I have only got a minute and a half left.
Mr. Turk. What is----
Mr. Palmer. Just--do you understand it?
Mr. Turk. What has thrown us out of whack here in the near
term is COVID. When demand went way down, production then went
way down on oil and gas. The economy is roaring back, and
production has not kept up with that.
Mr. Palmer. But the first thing----
Mr. Turk. That is where we have got to----
Mr. Palmer [continue]. This Administration did was shut
down XL----
Mr. Turk. That is where we----
Mr. Palmer [continue]. The construction of XL, Keystone XL,
and restrict access to energy resources on Federal lands. You
took zero action to address the demand issue, which is going to
continue to be an issue, and you basically gave a geopolitical
windfall to Russia.
And that brings me to--back to this other point about how
insane these policies are, considering the condition--the
conditions that we face right now with an adversarial Russia
and, I believe, an enemy in China, and adversaries in the
Middle East, and making us more dependent on foreign oil
because we have policies that are preventing us from
constructing the infrastructure that we need that is the
safest, most economical infrastructure for energy delivery, and
shutting ourselves down from--cutting ourselves off from access
to the resources that we have to keep prices down, to keep
families whole in the sense of their economic wholeness, and in
regard to our national security. It just doesn't make any sense
to me.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair has been
made aware that the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
Pallone, has returned.
Mr. Pallone, you are----
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Rush [continue]. For 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush. I wanted to ask
Chairman Glick.
Your testimony explains that the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation, or NERC, is empowered to issue
reliability standards to the electric industry, but there is no
comparable organization empowered to issue reliability
standards for the gas industry.
So how does the status quo affect FERC's ability to
implement the recommendations from the recent FERC-NERC joint
report on lessons from Storm Uri, which identified needed
reliability standards for both electric and gas industries?
Does it mean that FERC can implement the recommended
standards for the electric industry, but not for the gas
industry?
Mr. Glick. Essentially, yes. We are--FERC, working along
with NERC, are working to try to implement as many of the
recommendations as we can, but we don't have the authority to
implement the recommendations regarding natural gas
reliability.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Now let me ask Deputy Secretary
Turk.
Section 215 of the Federal Power Act also empowers NERC to
issue cybersecurity standards that are necessary to maintain
the reliable operation of the bulk power system. From DoE's
vantage point as the sector-specific agency responsible for the
energy industry, does NERC's success in issuing cybersecurity
standards for the electric industry demonstrate that the
proposed Energy Product Reliability Organization could perform
a similar function for the oil and gas sector?
Mr. Turk. So we think the FERC-NERC model has worked quite
well in the electricity and the bulk power market. And again,
TSA has put some mandatory standards on the books for a year,
emergency standards for the pipeline. But it doesn't cover
refineries, it doesn't cover other parts of the chain, and it
is only for a year, as well.
Mr. Pallone. And so--but do you think that this proposed
agency could perform a similar function for oil and gas, the
oil gas sector?
Mr. Turk. So again, it is up for Congress to decide who has
what authorities, and we are happy to have further
conversations on the regime that is in place that makes the
most sense in this place.
I will say FERC and NERC have done a very good job on the
electricity bulk power side.
Mr. Pallone. OK, and let me go back to Chairman Glick.
The Electric Reliability Organization was the product of
bipartisan work by members of this committee, and ultimately
passed as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in a Republican
Congress, and signed by a Republican President. And that idea
has withstood the test of time, and demonstrated that industry-
led stakeholder processes subject to FERC oversight can
establish meaningful reliability standards that protect the
reliability of the bulk power system.
So given that the--this proposed Energy Product Reliability
Organization is expressly modeled on the Electric Reliability
Organization, do you think that the industry-led stakeholder
process established by Chairman Rush's legislation can likewise
be a successful mechanism for protecting the reliability of the
oil and gas infrastructure?
Mr. Glick. I believe so. The electricity model has worked
very well with the legislation you mentioned created in 2005,
and I believe a similar model would work on the--with regard to
pipeline reliability.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Let me just say--I don't know--I
wanted to comment on my Republican colleagues, but--and there
are still--there are some of them here, and some on the--that
are being--that are virtual.
But I guess I just--you know, I don't like to criticize you
guys, but you continually criticize today the Biden
Administration's move to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to
address energy prices. And you know, I do think that that was
significant, and was necessary. And so I don't really
understand why that criticism is taking place.
But I do want to say that I support the Biden
Administration's efforts, and I also want to--you know, with
regard to this--and I also want to highlight that Republicans
on this committee used the SPR as a pay-for when they drafted
the 21st Century Cures Bill, which I also supported.
And so, you know, if we can use the SPR to pay for
healthcare legislation, why do they--why do you all of a sudden
oppose using it to address energy prices?
I am not looking for a response, but I just--I have to
comment on the fact that, you know, I thought that that made a
lot of sense, and I don't really understand the criticism of
it. That is just my comment.
And did some--I am not asking for you to comment, but if
you want to, you can. Otherwise, I am going to yield back.
All right, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Arizona, Mrs. Lesko, for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I wish you the
best in your future endeavors.
My questions are from Chairman Glick--for Chairman Glick.
Chairman Glick, I am concerned that FERC is unfairly
second-guessing final decisions that the Commission made under
the prior chairman. For example, FERC recently issued five
notices of intent to prepare new Environmental Impact
Statements and projects for which FERC already determined that
final environmental assessments were sufficient.
So going forward, Chairman Glick, can the public and
regulated industry rely on FERC to make final decisions and
then stick with the decisions?
Mr. Glick. Thank you for the question, Mrs. Lesko. I would
disagree with the premise of the question. Actually, the FERC
never did say that those previous environmental reviews were
sufficient. Those were staff analyses, and they didn't make
that determination, either.
Basically, we are doing what the courts are requiring us to
do. And I want to use an example. So over the last several
years the courts have repeatedly said FERC is not doing this
right. We are not--and other agencies, too, they are saying
FERC and other agencies are not essentially reviewing pipelines
sufficiently, in terms of the environmental impacts. And what
happens is we issued our orders in the past, the courts sent it
back to us, it takes several years to go back and do the
additional reviews. And all it does is cost extra money and, in
many cases, it causes pipelines to cancel those projects. It
has happened in the past.
So what we are trying to do is follow what the law requires
and what the courts are telling us. And so we are trying to
do--if you look at the last several court cases, they are
essentially saying we have to do an environmental impact
statement to review the environmental impacts of these
particular projects. And so we are doing so. In the long run,
it is actually going to expedite the process, not slow it down.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you for the answer. My next question is
also for you.
In order 871, which was recently implemented this year,
FERC changed well-settled practice, and created new project
risks. Order 871 significantly restricts what companies can do,
while it requests a rehearing of FERC certificate orders
pending, which can delay a pipeline's access to the land
necessary to conduct project surveys for environmental and
cultural resource permits, land acquisition, and construction.
The order also announces a presumptive stay on all future
pipeline certificates pending, rehearing proceedings, which is
contrary to congressional direction in the National Gas Act.
Further, the order is not clear about what a pipeline needs
to prove to lift the stay. The order provides incentives for
project opponents to seek rehearing to delay projects.
We all know that building infrastructure projects has taken
longer and longer in recent years. How much delay do you expect
FERC's recent order 871 to add to pipeline development
timelines, considering that most of these projects already have
taken multiple years to design, permit, and build?
Mr. Glick. So order 871, essentially, was a response to the
courts, which, essentially, told FERC that we weren't handling
the pipeline siting process sufficiently in terms of ensuring
that landowners have their day in court. And I want to quickly
explain.
Under the Natural Gas Act, when you get a certificate of
public convenience and necessity, you automatically--the
pipeline developer can automatically go to court, and actually
take land by eminent domain. With those people, landowners and
others that are challenging the Commission's decision to issue
the certificate, it takes a little while because of the way the
Natural Gas Act is written to get to court and those who
challenge those particular decisions.
So what 871 says is we are going to delay the effective
date of the certificate to give those parties enough time to
make their challenge at FERC, and then go to court. And if the
court then stays the Commission's decision, that is one thing.
If they don't, then they can go and move forward with taking
land by eminent domain.
But it is all about making sure that landowners have their
day in court before land is taken by eminent domain.
Mrs. Lesko. How much time do you think that will add onto
the already long time it takes to get permitting?
Mr. Glick. I--if any time--and I don't have--I can't give
you a specific answer--I think very little, in large part
because the process--we only--we limit it. Under 871(b), what
the Commission did is limited this time period to 90 days. So
essentially, you have to wait 90 days, or earlier, if the
Commission acts on the rehearing proposal earlier, before you
can actually go to court and seek to take land by eminent
domain.
But that is early on in the process. It is not necessarily
going to delay the development of the pipeline itself, because
it takes a long time. Even if you take the land, you need to
get the other permits you need from state agencies and other
Federal agencies.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr.
Chairman, you leave quite a legacy here in Congress and back in
your home community, and I know you are not done yet.
And thank you to our witnesses, Chairman Glick, and to
Deputy Secretary Turk, for being here.
You know that the deadly Texas freeze last February
demonstrated how important it is that we weatherize our
existing infrastructure, and do everything we can to blunt the
higher costs and risks fueled by the climate crisis.
Now, this Congress has acted on several strategies to lower
the cost for consumers and businesses, and make the grid more
reliable, especially upgrading and expanding our electric grid,
investing in energy efficiency, conservation, distributed clean
energy resources, and clean back-up storage. And today we are
focused on the pipeline infrastructure angle here, and the
reliability standards.
Now, there is a--there is an untold story that a lot of
people don't know, but there was an article in the Texas
Monthly. I believe it was--it came out just recently that the
gas industry received $11 billion in windfall profits from the
Texas freeze. Without reliability standards, the gas industry
will continue to reap windfall profits, while leaving customers
out in the cold. And it is not just Texans that are impacted.
The gas spot price went up thirtyfold in Southern California.
Minnesotans had to pay an extra $800 million.
So Chairman Glick, tell us more about the cost of consumers
in other parts of the country having to cover the cost because
of the failure of the Texas grid.
Mr. Glick. I appreciate the question, Ms. Castor. And in
fact, I recently read that article, as well.
And I would say that, you know, that is--if we are talking
about impact on consumer bills, the bill increases we have seen
as a result of what happened in Texas and surrounding states
last winter, by many folds we are talking about much higher
increases than the other rate issues that we have been talking
about today. And in large part it was because of simple supply
and demand. Gas production facilities--and Texas supplies a lot
of natural gas around the country--gas facilities in Texas
froze, many of them froze. Many of them became inoperable, as
did the processing stations, and so there wasn't enough gas to
go around.
So what gas was left, both in Texas and elsewhere, the
prices dropped--jumped dramatically. And you mentioned some of
the--talking 800 percent, 700 percent. Different states had
significant, enormous rate increases.
So the benefit, I think, of the bill that we are talking
about today, or the concept of ensuring the reliability of the
gas infrastructure, if that gas infrastructure was more
reliable, and the facilities didn't freeze, and they didn't get
cut off from electricity supply, we would have seen rate--rate
increases would have been much smaller, only basically due to
the fact that it was cold and there was more demand for gas
because of that.
And so I think this is not only an important perspective
from reliability and in certain terms of making sure that
people's lives are protected, which is obviously the most
important, but it is also in terms of the pocketbook. And this
legislation, I think, or the idea behind this legislation, will
help promote what I believe will keep energy prices, both
electricity and natural gas prices, much lower if we have a
more reliable natural gas pipeline system.
Ms. Castor. I agree.
And Deputy Secretary Turk, would you like to add your
views?
Mr. Turk. Yes, happy to, and thanks, Chairwoman, for all
your leadership in the Climate Committee, in particular, and
all else.
So I think you are absolutely right to focus on the cost of
climate change to American consumers: $145 billion last year is
one estimate from extreme weather exacerbated or caused by
climate change.
So we need to look at all of our tools to make sure there
is not manipulation in the market, and to assure affordability,
including on heating for those consumers who are having
challenges. And price--the price of gas at the pump right now
is too high. We think it is too high. This Administration
thinks it is too high. That is why we are doing the kinds of
things we are doing.
We have got 4.5 billion in LIHEAP. Congress appropriated
21.5 in emergency rental assistance tat is going to help pay
energy bills along those lines. We have gotten 14 utility
companies to avoid shutoffs for those consumers who are having
challenges during this COVID crisis. So we absolutely have to
keep our eye on that affordability issue.
Ms. Castor. Yes, and I think Chairman Rush's Energy Product
Reliability Act fills that very important gap, whether we are
talking about cybersecurity or we are talking about the rising
costs and risk fueled by the climate crisis.
So thank you very much, 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 and Ranking Member
Upton, for holding this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses
for appearing before our committee.
The bill before us today misses the mark in addressing
issues facing my constituents this winter. Rental assistance
is--helps pay the rent. It does not help pay the utility bill.
Right now, families across Indiana's 6th district are paying
more to heat their home, cook their meals, and drive to work.
Unfortunately, H.R. 6084, as currently written, is an
unworkable solution in search of a problem. Our discussions
today about reliable energy distribution for electricity
generation should focus on access to abundant fuel supplies at
an affordable price, as both of you have mentioned today.
If the majority and the Biden Administration want to push
the electrification of our economy, particularly our
transportation economy, we would need more production of
natural gas and expanded capacity of new pipelines to meet
increased electricity demands. It is clear, however, that
construction of new interstate natural gas pipelines under this
Administration could grow increasingly difficult, like Line 5
that Chairman--Ranking Member Upton asked about earlier.
For a state like Indiana, that does not have substantial
local resources of natural gas, interstate pipelines serve as
an economic lifeline. Having spent my career in the energy
distribution industry, I know firsthand that pipelines are the
safest, most reliable form of transportation.
A robust and competitive market for fuel distribution is
the best way to ensure businesses and consumers have reliable
access to affordable energy. Adding a regulatory regime that
oversteps state and local authorities, like H.R. 6084, isn't
the answer. And I am not real sure that it clears things up and
keeps things out of court.
In particular, I am concerned that this bill could expand
Federal authorities into intrastate pipelines that are already
regulated by my Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. When I
speak with local distribution companies like Southeastern
Indiana Gas Company and Mylan, they are not asking for Federal
Government to layer on additional regulations. A company like
Southeastern needs access to gas supplies at a competitive
price, so they can offer affordable services to Hoosiers in our
community.
When we consider our future energy outlook, I am concerned
that vulnerabilities to reliable fuel transportation could
arise from a lack of supply and an over-regulated market, not
because FERC needed more broad and unchecked authority,
personnel, or money.
Chairman Glick, it appears that this Administration has a
singular focus on the complete electrification of our economy,
from the cars we drive to the stovetops we use. As we have
discussed today, if the goal is electrification, natural gas
will need to play a significant role. Expanded pipeline
capacity will be all but required to meet the increased
electricity demands of our economy. The agenda of this
Administration may only deter necessary investments into new
pipeline construction. Reliable financial investments into new
pipelines will require certainty of a stable market and
regulatory environment.
However, competition between Federal and state oversight
authorities could cloud the regulatory future, and introduce
more uncertainty to potential investors. If certainty is what
people need to make investments, how will a regulatory regime
like that of H.R. 6084 impact the cost of constructing new
interstate or intrastate pipelines to meet increasing
electricity demands, and are you supportive of new natural gas
pipelines?
Mr. Glick. First of all, I would say that the--thanks for
the question, Mr. Pence. I would say that, first of all, that
the--I don't think it would add any--this legislation being
enacted would not have any impact, in terms of the construction
of natural gas pipelines or the cost associated with the
construction of natural gas pipelines. This is really--this
legislation and the idea is really focused primarily on----
Mr. Pence. But wouldn't you agree a pipeline company --some
of the increased regulations for cybersecurity may be
additional expenses for their company----
Mr. Glick. It is----
Mr. Pence [continue]. Which would reduce the amount of
dollars they have available for investments?
Mr. Glick. The long and the short term--I think we have
seen this some in the electricity side. I think, if you talk to
all the--many of the electricity companies, they would argue
the fact that we now have mandatory reliability standards on
the electricity side that have actually reduced their cost,
because they became more reliable, they don't have to buy
backup power. Sometimes they don't have to, you know, to extend
the facilities--to go out and build the facility over and over
again every time a hurricane comes in--lands in their shores.
And so I think that--I think, actually, in the long term we
are talking about a more reliable system--making sure that that
actually--the cost to consumers goes down.
Mr. Pence. Well, you and I disagree on that. I think more
regulation costs more money. But I thank you for your time, and
I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Schrader, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for your historic leadership of this committee and your
tenure in Congress.
Mr. Glick, just to get a little perspective here, what has
been the trend in pipeline failures and pipeline incidents over
the last decade or so? Is it starting to increase? Is that----
Mr. Glick. I will have to get that information for you for
the record. I am not aware of that, Mr.----
Mr. Schrader. OK, OK. It is kind of important, because, you
know, if we need to change the regulatory framework, it would
be, I assume, because we are having more problems.
Mr. Glick. If I could interject just quickly----
Mr. Schrader. Sure.
Mr. Glick. I think--and again, as we saw in Texas last
winter, I think there are problems in terms of natural gas
infrastructure, especially with greater incidences of extreme
weather. In terms of pipelines themselves, I think we--I would
have to come up with some figures for you and we will get back
to you.
Mr. Schrader. OK, that would be helpful.
Is there evidence that the pipeline companies are not
maintaining the pipelines adequately, not doing their due
diligence?
Mr. Glick. I don't have any evidence of that, no.
Mr. Schrader. OK, OK. That also seems kind of important to
me to help make a decision.
Well, I guess, what is the agency right now doing to ensure
pipeline safety? I mean, that is, obviously, an area of
expertise for DoE. What are your goals there?
Mr. Glick. So the authority over pipeline safety is
primarily given to PHMSA, but we do have authority--when we
site a new interstate natural gas pipeline, we have authority
to ensure that the pipeline, essentially, is going to be in the
public interest. So we do review the safety elements up front,
you know, before it is constructed, to make sure it is planned
in the right way and so on. But once the project goes into
operation, those issues are handed over to PHMSA.
Mr. Schrader. So then we have PHMSA doing a lot of that
stuff already, OK.
What is the industry doing to increase the safety of their
pipelines? Some are older, they have been around quite some
time.
Mr. Glick. Well, again, I would recommend talking to the
industry. But I would say that what we hear from them is they
say they are making increased investments to deal with older
pipelines. We know the pipeline system is aging around the
country.
And then on cybersecurity, they are--what they tell us is
they are making certain investments to address cybersecurity
threats, as well, to the pipelines.
I would say, though, there is always a weak link in the
system when you are talking about what utilities are doing on a
voluntary basis. And I would go back again--the recommendations
that were made in 2011 that were voluntary recommendations--
this is on the power side, but to weatherize power plants. And
generators said, ``Oh yes, we are going to do it, we are going
to invest, we are going to make sure that our power plants
are--next time the cold weather comes around, we are going to
be ready.'' And the fact is they weren't, because they didn't
want to make the investments that someone else--that their
competitor wasn't willing to make.
And so I think that is the lesson we need to learn when we
consider whether there needs to be mandatory standards on the
pipeline side----
Mr. Schrader. Well, it sounds like it seems we need
oversight, you know. And I would assume the Department of
Energy, you guys have regulatory authority to do that to some
degree with the states. If it is intrastate, the states would
have that authority. It could be brought up to speed on that.
I have some concerns about NERC in this space, to be honest
with you. We have had some catastrophic wildfires out in
Oregon, and the whole West Coast, for that matter, parts of
Colorado. It has been devastating. And I don't see where NERC's
province seems to be playing heavily in that area to prevent
those types of catastrophic wildfires.
I will say Congress has stepped in in many cases. We passed
a bill that myself and Representative LaMalfa from California
put together that is, hopefully now, going to be implemented,
that talks about making it easier for power companies to do
hazardous tree removal along power rights-of-way. That is
critical, as we have seen in these recent wildfires--I don't
care if it is California, Oregon, you name it--to get those
rights-of-way cleaned up. Sometimes it is the Federal agencies,
like the Forest Service and BLM, not doing their due diligence,
or making it more difficult. Sometimes it is the companies. And
our bill, hopefully, will do that. And I would assume your
agency will monitor that work pretty closely.
One of the nice things that we have done here most recently
in the bipartisan infrastructure bill that passed here this
year--nice bill, both parties, everyone involved--is set aside
money for wildfire mitigation in our energy network to improve
transmission, to make it more reliable. There are grants
provided for different companies, different jurisdictions to
apply for.
What is the timeliness in getting that money out the door?
And I don't know if that is a question for you, Mr. Glick, or
you, Mr. Turk.
Mr. Turk. So this is a game changer, just as you said. The
investments in the bipartisan infrastructure legislation,
whether it is wildfires, whether it is reliability more
generally in the electricity sector, 16 billion--so we are
working right now to get all that set up. Some of it requires
some new offices. We have said we need to hire 1,000 additional
people to make sure that we are doing this in the way we should
be doing it. And if anybody who is listening wants to come work
at the Department of Energy, we would be happy for them to
apply.
So we are going to try to do this quickly. We can't wait,
whether it is wildfire risks, cyber risks. And we certainly
feel like there is a necessary mandatory minimum that everyone
should be doing, cyber hygiene in particular, on that front.
And even if many parts of the industry are doing what they
should be doing, if some parts aren't that is a vulnerability
from a national security, from a national infrastructure
perspective. And we need to, from our perspective, make sure we
have got that foundation, that floor that we can build upon.
Mr. Schrader. Just--last comment. Wildfire season is
coming, so please hire the people and get the rules of the road
written. Thank you.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Armstrong, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I go
into my questions on pipelines, I would just like to address
why I personally was critical of the release of the strategic
oil reserves, and that is because the best case scenario was it
was a cynical ploy for the Administration to look like they
were doing something for high energy costs.
The worst case scenario is that it shows a complete lack of
knowledge by the most--the Administration of the most powerful
country in the history of the world as to how, actually, energy
markets work. Because the month before they released the
strategic oil reserve, WTI price was 81.48. The month after
they released the strategic oil reserve the price was 79.83. As
of now, it is 84.93. The month before the strategic oil reserve
was released, compared to the month after strategic oil reserve
was released, gasoline went down by a whopping one cent. But
don't worry about it, because right now, January, it is up
$.93, year over year.
So these have--and it has real consequences, because now we
feel the strategic reserve at a significantly higher price,
costing taxpayers money. So that is just--just to be clear of
where and why we would be critical of decisions like that.
Within his first week of taking office, President Biden
issued executive order 14008, tackling the climate crisis at
home and abroad. And amongst its many problematic provisions is
section 209, which requires agencies to target perceived fossil
fuel subsidies, and take steps to ensure that Federal funding
is not subsidizing certain energy sources.
Aside from the fact that the President is intent on picking
winners and losers at the expense of national security,
reliability, and affordability, it has come to my attention
that employees at the Department of Energy seem to have taken
it upon themselves to inform various organizations that the
Department will not continue to support research in the fossil
fuel space. Employees have referenced President Biden's
executive order when advising about awards through fossil
energy programs, implying the executive order precludes them
from honoring certain awards.
Mr. Turk, is it true that the Department will no longer
support research in fossil energy?
Mr. Turk. So we support research across the energy
spectrum, including an awful lot of research, and we have more
funding coming from the bipartisan infrastructure legislation
on----
Mr. Armstrong. Well, let me be more specific.
Mr. Turk [continue]. hydrogen----
Mr. Armstrong. Does the Department support research and
technologies like carbon capture and sequestration that result
in emission reductions?
Mr. Turk. So we are absolutely investing in carbon capture,
utilization, and storage. The Department has for many years,
and now we have 10 billion and more for CCUS demonstration
programs in the bipartisan infrastructure legislation that we
look forward to working with North Dakota and other states
around the country on.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, now I want to turn specifically to
programs utilized in North Dakota that have a substantial
impact on fossil energy research, and understand what the
Department will prioritize over the next year.
The Department's fiscal year 2022 budget zeroes out the
unconventional fossil energy technologies budget line. This
seems to be a huge mistake, given the energy independence the
United States has developed over the last decade.
While the Department is seeking to eliminate future funding
for this program, will you commit to the Department funding key
unconventional energy projects that have already been awarded
and are underway in North Dakota?
Mr. Turk. So I would have to look at the particular
projects that you are talking about to make sure I am giving
you a responsive answer. So happy to take that for the record,
or have a side conversation.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, I appreciate that.
Through the Energy and Environmental Research Center in
Grand Forks, North Dakota, it is intricately involved in the
Department's regional carbon sequestration partnership. With
over 120 public and private-sector stakeholders, the Plains CO2
Reduction Partnership is laying the groundwork for permanent,
safe, and practical underground storage of carbon dioxide from
industrial facilities in the region. The Department has worked
with us in the past, and I am hopeful that they will continue
to honor their commitment to provide continuing funding for the
regional partnership, including the Plains CO2 partnership.
In addition to working on carbon sequestration, the ERC has
assembled a key test center for solid oxide fuel cells for the
Department of Energy. It is anticipated, for a previously
approved proposal, that this is--this center will receive 2
million in the fiscal year 2022 to continue to support research
efforts. Will the Department commit to honoring the solid oxide
fuel cells test center and other previously-approved proposals?
Mr. Turk. So again, happy to get to you on the particulars.
We don't yet have our fiscal year 2022 budget. We are still on
a CR, so it is difficult to plan those kinds of things.
And let me underscore, as well, on the CCUS side, we have a
North Dakotan, Brad Crabtree, who is the nominee to lead our
fossil energy and carbon management office, and we hope he is
confirmed very quickly, so he can help North Dakota and other
states around the country.
Mr. Armstrong. Well, I think I speak for all of my
colleagues in the House to say we would like to have more of a
say in confirmations, but that really happens on the north end
of the Capitol.
And with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire, Ms. Kuster, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
organizing this hearing today to discuss Federal efforts to
strengthen pipeline safety and reliability.
And Chairman Rush, I also want to take a moment to
recognize you at this first Energy Subcommittee hearing after
your recent decision to retire from Congress. You distinguished
yourself over a lifetime of service to your beloved city of
Chicago, and to this nation, and our country is a better place
because of your commitment to racial justice and dedication to
ensuring that the most vulnerable among us are not left behind.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
Ms. Kuster. As the May 2021 Colonial Pipeline cyber attack
drove home, our nation's energy system is only as reliable as
the security of the digital systems that serve as the backbone
for America's energy distribution. And I am pleased that the
committee is reviewing the Energy Product Reliability Act,
which will enhance the cybersecurity and reliability of our
nation's energy infrastructure.
Most Americans would be shocked to learn that the Federal
Government has done little to ensure--excuse me--that our
nation's pipelines are secure. As we saw after the Colonial
Pipeline cyber attack, this failure to provide clear guidance
to industry has a direct impact on consumers. Up and down the
East Coast, gas prices surged because of this cyber attack, and
Americans were left waiting in line to fill up their cars, and
paying more for the fuel they need.
The results of future cyber attacks could be even worse.
The North American Electricity Reliability Commission, NERC,
has warned of potential winter electrical outages in New
England, due to constraints on natural gas supply. If the
pipeline networks that supply our region with natural gas are
compromised during a cold snap, the effects on electricity
generation and home heating will be immediate.
Chairman Glick, what would be the effects on New Hampshire
if pipelines delivering natural gas to New England were
compromised by a cyber attack?
Mr. Glick. Thanks for the question, Ms. Kuster.
So currently, New England is--a significant portion of the
New England electric generation facilities are fueled by
natural gas. Some of them are dual-fueled, with also heating
oil, for instance, or some type of oil. But a lot of them are
just fueled directly by natural gas. So it is a--I think it is,
like, in the neighborhood of 18,000 megawatts, or something
like that, in New England is fueled by natural gas.
And so clearly, if there is a supply disruption with regard
to pipelines, for instance, and those facilities can no longer
run, on a very cold day, in particular in the winter, that
would certainly endanger the reliability of the electric grid
in New England.
Ms. Kuster. And will this bill, the Energy Product
Reliability Act, improve the security and reliability of
pipelines that deliver natural gas to our region?
Mr. Glick. I think establishing some sort of mandatory
standards process, such as we have on the electric grid side
for interstate natural gas pipelines, in my opinion, would
certainly enhance the reliability of the grid, and reduce the
threat of gas supply disruptions, which would also lead to
electricity supply disruptions.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you. Now, switching gears, this is--
opportunity to note how clean energy resources can help support
a more reliable electric system.
In a hearing earlier this year, David Hardy, the CEO of
Orsted America, gave testimony to this committee, where he
emphasized that offshore wind turbines are built to operate
reliably in extreme winter climates. During the 2018 polar
vortex, when New England faced an extreme cold snap, its
hydropower resources were held in reserve to back up a--energy
system. And thanks to hydropower, the New England electric
system stayed online.
Mr. Turk, in the event a cyber attack limits natural gas
supplies into New England, could a more diverse power
generation portfolio, that includes clean energy resources like
offshore wind and hydro, help prevent electricity shortfalls?
Mr. Turk. Well, the short answer is absolutely. And
offshore wind can be incredibly important in that. Hydro can be
important--and thank you for all your leadership with the Three
R's, and all your efforts on that front. We feel incredibly
strongly hydro is such an important part of the equation.
Storage is such an important part of the equation.
Hydrogen, if we can get clean hydrogen at the volumes, we would
like to get clean hydrogen.
So there is a variety of diverse sources. And the
infrastructure bill that was passed bipartisan from the
Congress gives us new authority to try to push those out as
quickly as we possibly can.
Ms. Kuster. Great. Well, I can't do better than that. Very
kind kudos to our 3Rs. I call it a damn good idea.
And I just use this moment to ask the chairman if we could
schedule a subcommittee hearing in the Energy Subcommittee on
hydro in the near future. And with that, I yield back.
[Pause.]
Voice. Mr. Chairman, I think you are on mute.
Mr. Rush. I am on mute. The Chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragan, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing on pipeline reliability, and for your work to
elevate this issue.
In the last year we have seen the consequences of our
country's dependence on fossil fuels, from the gas supply
issues during the Texas winter storm power outages to the
hacking of the Colonial Pipeline that threatened the energy
supply of parts of the Southeast and mid-Atlantic. America
needs to aggressively transition off fossil fuels to clean
energy for a climate, environmental justice, and our energy
security.
But while we work to reduce our dependence, residents and
businesses can't afford the severe disruptions that can come
with pipeline breaks, leaks, and cyber attacks. These
disruptions also pose threats to workers in our--to our
environment and our national security. We need improved
reliability, safety, and environmental standards for our
pipelines, and accountability for when they are not followed.
My first question is for you, Deputy Secretary Turk. In
October of last year there was a major oil spill caused by the
rupture of an underwater pipeline four-and-a-half miles off the
coast of Long Beach, near my district. While the investigation
is still ongoing, indications are a ship anchor disrupted the
pipeline months before the spill was detected, and the leak
could have been ongoing long before it was detected.
It is also important to have reliability standards for
offshore energy pipelines. Is that accurate?
And how does your Department work with the Department of
the Interior, which has primary jurisdiction over off-line
pipelines to ensure energy security and environmental hazards
such as leaks or breaks can be detected?
Mr. Turk. Well, Congresswoman, let me just completely agree
with you that we have got to go very, very ambitiously and
aggressively on a full, diverse range of clean energy sources
good for our climate, good for affordability, good for
resiliency and reliability. And at the same time, make sure
that our existing energy infrastructure is secure, is safe, is
reliable.
We work hand in hand with the Department of the Interior,
not just on the underwater pipeline issue, but a variety of
other key issues, as well. And whether it is underwater
pipeline or pipeline on land, certainly from our perspective,
we need to have a minimum set of standards to make sure that
all of our populations across the country, including those on
the coast, like yours in California, are protected.
Ms. Barragan. OK. Are there any adequate Federal standards
in place to secure offshore energy infrastructure from hazards,
such as leaks or breaks in offshore pipelines, that can
devastate the environment?
Mr. Turk. So the chairman should certainly come in here, as
well. My understanding is there is some regulatory, at least on
the safety side. I think PHMSA has some coverage, but maybe it
is in tandem with some other parts of Interior, as well, on
this particular issue.
But again, this is one thing that has come up again and
again on this hearing, is avoiding a patchwork and making sure
that we have got coherence. And what we focus on, from the
Department of Energy side of things, is making sure we have got
coherence across energy systems and across the whole parts of
energy systems, in particular. And we just need to make sure
that that is the case for any infrastructure-related energy,
from our perspective.
But Chairman, if you would like to, comment further on the
existing authorities.
Mr. Glick. Thank you, Deputy Secretary.
Just quickly, Congresswoman, I do believe that PHMSA has
the responsibility, but also the Interior Department shares
responsibility with PHMSA over the safety of those particular
facilities.
Ms. Barragan. Right. Well, thank you for working for--with
the Department of the Interior to--I believe it is important we
have reliability standards so--regardless of where the
pipelines are, under water or above ground.
Deputy Secretary Turk, how vulnerable are offshore oil rigs
to cyber attack, and what can be done at a Federal level to
improve the security of their computer systems?
Mr. Turk. So, from our perspective, what we see in
classified setting and the public reporting is there is a
variety of threats: criminal gangs, ransomware, and state
actors, as well, across key parts of our energy infrastructure.
And so offshore rigs are certainly part of the critical
part of our key energy infrastructure as it currently exists,
and we need to make sure they are safe, just like pipelines are
safe, just like electricity is safe. So we can't have any weak
links.
Ms. Barragan. Well, great. Thank you.
Chairman Glick, I am out of time, but what I am going to do
is submit my question on methane leaks from natural gas
infrastructure to you, and we will look forward to getting a
response to that.
[The information follows:]**********COMMITTEE
INSERT**********
Ms. Barragan. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Delaware, Ms. Blunt Rochester.
[Pause.]
Mr. Rush. Oh, wait, wait, no. I see Mr.----
[Pause.]
Mr. Upton. Mr. Chairman, we have Mr. Carter here, ready to
go.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Carter for 5
minutes.
Mr. Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank both of you
for being here.
I know that this hearing is supposed to be for pipeline
reliability, but it is not often that we get the chairman of
the FERC, as well as the number-two man in the Department of
Energy in front of us. So instead of discussing the creation of
a new level of bureaucracy for pipelines, we should be fighting
the current energy crisis.
Gentlemen, I want to read from the Department of Energy's
website. ``The mission of the Energy Department is to ensure
America's security and prosperity by addressing its energy,
environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative
science and technology solutions.''
A year ago, the United States of America was energy
independent. There are some of those who would say that we were
energy dominant. We were actually exporting energy. And I would
say that the Department of Energy was actually adhering to its
mission pretty well at that time.
You know, I am old enough to remember the late seventies,
when we realized that we were too dependent on foreign
countries for our energy needs, and we did something about it.
We set out to achieve energy independence, and we achieved
that. We did just that, to the point, as I indicated just a
second ago, that we actually were able to achieve energy
dominance.
But today that is not the case. Energy prices have
skyrocketed. The most obvious for my constituents is the prices
at the pump. The Energy Information Agency has raised its
outlook for gas for 2022, saying that we are at risk of hitting
$4 a gallon as a national average. AAA, last week, said that
gas prices in Georgia have increased, and are nearly $1 more
than this time last year.
Gentlemen, I have the honor and privilege of representing
the entire coast of Georgia, including the two metro areas of
Savannah and Brunswick, and they, in my district, have the
average--the highest average gas prices in the state, higher
than even in the Atlanta metro area. Savannah and metro areas
are--which are in my district, these two areas are home to two
of the country's busiest ports, seaports, where we have seen
firsthand how the energy crisis has exasperated the supply
chain crisis.
American families and businesses are being crushed by
expensive utility bills. Electricity is up over six percent in
the last year. Natural gas is up over 25 percent. Also, energy
costs are the top driver of the record inflation we see today.
So families are feeling it everywhere.
Deputy Secretary Turk, I want to ask you, considering the
Department of Energy's mission, as I quoted before, what are
you doing to ensure American energy security and affordable
energy for all Americans?
Mr. Turk. So thank you for the question, and I have to say
I feel incredibly proud to be part of this Department of
Energy, and this Administration, and I think we are pushing all
the authorities that we have, all the funding streams that we
have, including 62 billion in new funding authorities that the
Congress has given us through the bipartisan infrastructure
legislation to build the diverse, secure, affordable, resilient
energy supplies that we need in the future, not just today, but
5 years, 10 years from now, to benefit all our U.S. citizens,
all our U.S. people around our country.
And prices are too high right now. COVID has thrown the
supply and demand for oil and gas out of whack, and we are
suffering from that. We have got a near-term problem. It is not
caused by pipelines, it is not caused by other things. It is
caused by COVID, and we are trying to deal with that.
Our strategic petroleum reserve is to try to shave that top
part of that curve, as our domestic supplies, other supplies
around the world for oil catch up with where demand is because
we are now increasing our economy coming out of COVID, which is
a great thing, but energy supplies have not matched up with
that. In 2022 we will have the supplies meet the demand. We are
just in a real tough spot right now. But absolutely, we are
focused on affordable----
Mr. Carter. Let me ask you this, Mr. Turk. And with all due
respect, you mentioned the Strategic Petroleum Reserves. Do you
think it is important for the United States to maintain its
energy independence?
Mr. Turk. So absolutely. And I think it should be important
for Europe, for Japan, for other countries around the world.
Mr. Carter. Yes, but we are not talking about Europe and
Japan. We are talking about the United States of America.
I remember former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, saying
what a great asset it was to be able to travel to other foreign
countries, and know that we had energy dominance and energy
independence. Yet we don't have it now. We have actually had to
ask the Middle East to pump more oil in order to do it.
You mentioned the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, and I know
that the Administration made available 50 million barrels of
oil to lower prices for Americans. How much of an effect did
that release from the SPR have on oil prices?
Mr. Turk. So just to be clear, energy security is also
offshore wind and solar, and wind, and storage, and----
Mr. Carter. Understood.
Mr. Turk [continue]. hydrogen----
Mr. Carter. That was not my question.
Mr. Turk [continue]. Nuclear. On the SPR piece of it, what
we designed was a carefully set--a sale and an exchange, tied
together for the particular moment in time we are with this
supply and demand disruption.
On the exchange part, what we designed that to do is shave
off that top part of the curve, provide some affordability,
provide some additional affordability protection for American
consumers who are paying too much at the pump--completely agree
with you on that--and the exchange means that oil and gas
companies actually return more product into the SPR on the back
end of this. So it is good for the SPR, good for consumers.
Obviously, it is a huge oil economy, and a huge oil market
out there, and there is a lot of forces outside of our
immediate control. But we are doing everything we can to
promote affordability----
Mr. Carter. Is that what the SPR was intended for, was to
bring down prices like this?
Mr. Turk. So it is dealing with a supply challenge, a near-
term supply challenge caused by COVID. And the SPR is one tool
in the tool belt that I have to say we spent two more--many
months designing this particular exchange mechanism----
Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time is----
Mr. Turk [continue]. Like it is really fit for this moment.
Mr. Carter. Thank you. My time has expired, and I yield
back.
Mr. Rush. For the record, let me say that these are
questions from members who have waived on to the subcommittee.
And so we are now entertaining questions from those Members of
Congress who waived on to the subcommittee.
And with that said, the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady
from Texas, Mrs. Fletcher, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Fletcher, you are recognized.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairman Rush. Thanks to
you and Ranking Member Upton for holding this important
hearing, and for allowing me to participate.
I would like to thank the witnesses for taking the time to
testify.
Energy reliability is key to ensuring safety and security
of our energy supplies and our communities. In my home state of
Texas we saw just last year the real-life impacts of supply
disruption, the potential collapse of our grid during the
coldest days of the year. And it really can't be overstated:
our fellow Texans, our fellow Americans, froze to death in
their homes.
And I remain concerned, looking at the minimal action we
have seen from state legislators and our governor, that Texas
is not truly prepared for the next storm. And that is why this
bill is a good starting point for a discussion on how to
improve energy reliability. I think there are some improvements
that can still be made, and I look forward to discussing those
issues with our panelists today, and I have two issues I want
to touch on in the time that I have.
First, the need for developing new pipeline infrastructure.
A significant energy reliability challenge is that permitting-
related obstacles in some localities have prevented the
expansion of pipeline infrastructure where it is needed. To my
understanding, the proposed organization that we are talking
about in the draft, some kind of EPRO organization, would
forbid the new reliability regulator from setting standards for
adequacy of pipeline infrastructure.
For example, ISO New England, which operates the electric
power grid in New England, states that the region is vulnerable
to pipeline interruptions because there has been tremendous
growth in natural gas-fired generating capacity. But the
natural gas pipelines that deliver low-cost shale gas into the
region have not been expanded at a commensurate pace. And in
the last few weeks New England has had to resort to using fuel
oil to meet their energy needs.
Burning fuel oil is one of the least environmentally
friendly sources of power generation. In 2020, one percent of
power generation nationwide was from fuel oil, and in the last
month, as much as 24 percent of New England's grid relied on
fuel oil as a power source.
So I want to ask both of our witnesses to quickly answer
whether you agree with ISO New England, that more pipeline
capacity is needed to promote reliability in certain regions
that currently have constraints.
And also, if you could, say whether you feel that a
potential natural gas and pipeline reliability regulatory body,
as discussed in this legislative draft, should include
authority to look at pipeline capacity issues when considering
overall reliability.
And then I have a second issue I want to touch on, as well,
so if you could answer those questions, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Glick. So, Mrs. Fletcher, if I could respond first--
this is Rich Glick--so with regard to New England, I think the
issue isn't whether they need new gas pipeline capacity. They
need new capacity to get additional energy, whether it be
through transmission lines or natural gas pipelines or building
more generation in the region. The reason--and FERC actually
has authority to site natural gas pipelines, interstate natural
gas pipelines around the country. And one of the things we have
to do is find out whether--we have to determine whether the
project is needed or not before issuing a certificate to
authorize the pipeline.
And in New England, the issue hasn't been necessarily
government stopping--we are not permitting pipelines. The issue
is pure economics. Natural gas pipeline developers don't want
to build those pipelines unless the electric generator
customers agree to take firm capacity, agree to pay them
throughout the year for the pipeline capacity. But in fact,
they only need the gas maybe ten days out of the year, when it
is really cold. And so there has been a kind of a two ships
passing in the night situation, really, with regard to electric
generators and natural gas pipelines, which is why natural gas
pipeline capacity hasn't been built in New England.
With regard to the provision in H.R. 6084, it is very
similar to a provision that was in the electricity reliability
language that was enacted in 2005, essentially forbidding NERC
to order electric generating--electric utility companies from
building electric transmission capacity. And so I think there
is an issue about usurping jurisdiction, usurping the state's
jurisdiction to tell the utilities to build pipelines, or build
local distribution facilities. So it is really more of a
jurisdictional issue as to who should have that responsibility
to build pipeline capacity when it is needed.
Mr. Turk. In the interest of time, let me just agree with
the chairman. And certainly, New England is very complicated,
but we need to work with our state and local utility and other
colleagues to try to bring some fixes there, because it is just
not right for the consumers who face those kind of prices and
challenges.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you for that quick answer. The 5
minutes does go quickly, so I will submit my second question
for the record. But what I would like to know from you is
whether a proposed reliability regulator should include a focus
on issues at the wellhead, like we saw in Texas during Winter
Storm Uri. I will submit that for the record.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Fletcher. And Mr. Chairman, with that question, I have
cited an article from Texas Monthly that Ms. Castor referenced
earlier in the hearing. I would love to seek unanimous consent
to--this Monthly article into the record for this hearing.
But thank you again for letting me participate, and I yield
back.
Mr. Rush. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Rush. That concludes the witness----
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Rush [continue]. Our witnesses here participating in
today's hearing.
I want to at this time remind members that, pursuant to--
they have ten days to submit additional questions for the
record. Answers by the witnesses--I ask each witness to respond
promptly to such questions that you may receive.
Before we----
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Rush. I request unanimous consent to enter into the
record the following----
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Upton. Mr. Chairman, we have seen the list, and we have
no objection.
Mr. Rush. All right. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Rush. And at this time the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:56 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]