[Senate Hearing 117-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:04 a.m. in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairwoman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Feinstein, Murray, Tester, Shaheen,
Kennedy, Collins, Hoeven, and Hagerty.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. JENNIFER GRANHOLM, SECRETARY
opening statement of senator dianne feinstein
Senator Feinstein. I think we will get started. Senator
Kennedy is on his way, but has sent signal that this is what we
should do. So we will do it.
And the Subcommittee on Energy and Water will please come
to order.
Today's hearing is going to review the fiscal year 2023
budget request for the Department of Energy.
Thank you, Secretary Granholm for joining us today. I am
particularly pleased to see you again and back this year. A lot
has happened since we last saw you, including historic funding
for the Department through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill,
and our recent fiscal year 2022 spending bill. I know that
implementing this funding has been keeping the Department busy.
The administration's fiscal year 2023 request for the
Department, totals $48.6 billion, representing more than $3.7
billion increase from last year, and that is billion, not
million. As I understand this, most of this proposal increase
is aimed at reducing our fossil fuel consumption, and
addressing climate change.
Your budget includes funding for research and development,
of renewable energy, batteries, electric vehicles, and also
demonstrates these technologies at a scale that would reduce
emissions. These investments, I believe, are important as we
continue to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for heating
our homes and powering our cars.
Recent international conflicts have highlighted the need to
pursue domestic, cost-effective solutions for our energy
consumption, and energy independence is national security.
So I wanted to take a moment to applaud the
administration's continued resolve to act aggressively to
combat climate change.
Ranking Member Kennedy will be here shortly, and has asked
that we move ahead. So we will. And I might ask the Senator
that is here, if she would have any opening statements on
behalf of her side.
statement of senator susan m. collins
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have a
number of issues that I hope to bring up with the Secretary
today, they range from energy storage which we need to improve
in order to integrate renewables into the electric grid, and to
weatherization programs that will help us conserve, to the
exciting work on deepwater offshore wind energy that is being
performed at the University of Maine. So I look forward to
discussing all of those issues.
And I want to thank the Chairwoman for her leadership.
Thank you.
Senator Feinstein. Excellent. And thank you.
Madam Secretary, please proceed.
summary statement of hon. jennifer granholm
Secretary Granholm. Thank you so much Chair Feinstein, and
to Senator Collins, and in absentia, all of the committee
members who I know are really interested in this topic
regarding the Department of Energy and our 2023 budget request.
I am so proud to lead this Department as the 16th Secretary
of Energy, and I am grateful for the support that you have
given to the Department of Energy, including through the 2022
Omnibus Legislation.
Under the Biden administration, as you have noted, Madam
Chair, the Department of Energy is interested--not just
interested--committed, deeply committed to increasing energy
security, affordability, and resilience. We are committed to
securing the clean energy supply chain that is necessary to
reduce our reliance on unabated fossil fuels, and to increase
our energy independence.
Like the $3 billion from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
for battery manufacturing that we announced on Monday, we are
also committed to strengthening America's competitiveness by
accelerating scientific discovery and innovation. And these
commitments are reflected in this budget, and a look around the
world shows us that this is the right focus, with the right
priorities for this moment in history.
Right now we face a trio of crises. One is climate change
which costs the United States $148 billion last year alone in
damages from extreme weather. Then the second is COVID-19, and
of course now Russia's war, invasion of Ukraine which is
costing American families right now, too, as they see prices
rising from gas stations to grocery stores.
So let me be clear. First, that the Department of Energy is
using every tool available to increase oil and energy supply.
In late-March, for example, the President authorized the
release of 1 million barrels per day from our strategic
petroleum reserve over the next 6 months, 180 million barrels
total, coordinating with our international allies and partners
who also committed to releasing another 60 million barrels.
And I appreciate Congress' support of President Biden's ban
on Russian energy imports. We are also working to offer relief
to American families at home through the $3.5 billion
Weatherization Assistance Program that was provided in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. But ultimately, these crises
tell us that energy security, and energy independence, and
energy affordability, all depend on a shift toward American-
made clean energy.
And that is why we are working with our international
allies to advance alternative energy sources, and boost clean
energy manufacturing. It is why we are grateful that Congress,
through the Energy Act of 2020, and the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law has invested in clean building technologies
here at home, with American parts, and American labor.
I am grateful that we are, with members of Congress, that
they have demonstrated the faith in our Department to oversee a
lot of these investments in the new offices, the clean energy
goals, the supply chain goals that come with them.
We are hard at work implementing this legislation here at
the Department of Energy. Most recently DOE (Department of
Energy) began accepting applications, for example, for the $6
billion in civilian nuclear credit for the existing fleet of
nuclear plants, a way to keep reliable and clean energy online.
The $62 billion from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that
came to the Department of Energy, is an historic investment in
projects that will serve our Nation for decades. But on its
own, it is not sufficient to address the Nation's full energy
challenges, and that is why our request includes base year
funding for efforts to complement the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law, in order to maximize its impact to lower costs, and
provide clean, reliable, secure American power.
This request also supports our Office of Energy Efficiency,
and Renewable Energy, our Office of Science, the 17 national
labs which sharpen our innovative capacity, and our competitive
edge, and of course our budget includes funding for DOE
missions that keep our country safe. Like Environmental
Management, and nuclear security.
I am proud of DOE's work to confront our Nation's most
pressing challenges. I reaffirm my commitment to leading this
extraordinary Department with its extraordinary employees, as
we implement congressional actions. From the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law, the Energy Act, and to those still to come,
hopefully, the Bipartisan Innovation Act, and the President's
full agenda for building a better America.
So I thank you for the opportunity to be here today. And I
am happy to answer your questions.
energy prices
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Secretary. It is my
understanding that this administration has taken several steps
to try to address this issue, and has tapped the strategic
petroleum reserve three different times to try to get more gas
into the market. I support these actions and agree that we
should take as many steps as we can to address gasoline prices.
Madam Secretary, can you explain whether oil being released
from the strategic petroleum reserve is going to be able to
create any meaningful relief at the pump? And what else can be
done, if anything?
Secretary Granholm. Yes, great. Thank you so much for this
question. As we know, the invasion of Ukraine, Russia is a huge
exporter of oil on the global market, and the invasion of
Ukraine pulled, initially, 1.5 to 2 million barrels per day off
of that global market.
So for us in the United States, we are asking how can we
increase enough supply so that when supply like that is
crunched the prices don't go up, out of control. The biggest
tool we have in our arsenal is the strategic petroleum reserve,
and so the President has called, first of all, upon our oil and
gas industry to produce more with the permits that they have,
and the ability that they have to increase supply.
Second, he has called for this, the release of a million
barrels per day for the next 6 months, as the oil and gas
industry improves their production. The Energy Information
Agency has said that by the end of this year, that we will see
an additional million barrels per day from our domestic
suppliers, and so that is why the President has called for an
increase in a million barrels per day from the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve to balance out the markets.
Now, the U.S. has said we will not accept Russian oil,
which is great, so has Canada, and a number of other nations.
The EU (European Union) is on the verge of doing something
similar, if the EU pulls their supply their--if they say no
more Russian oil for us, that will be another, perhaps, 1.5
million barrels that are pulled off the market. So then we will
have about 3 million barrels off the market.
That will create additional volatility. We will see prices
likely to increase. So while we are doing all we can to make
sure that supply and demand meet itself to stabilize, I think
this war has only accelerated the urgency with which we must
move to electrify transportation, and to move toward clean
energy.
Clean energy, that is American-made, is energy that is not
going to be subject to the volatility of petro-dictators, to
the volatility of a fossil fuel market that is global in
nature. So that is why the President's goal is to try to
stabilize supply now, and try to move as well toward clean
energy.
And finally, I will say that the President is doing
everything he can within his power in this global market, to
make sure that we lessen our demand on oil. For example, by
increasing the E15, the ethanol blend in gasoline, taking that
to E15 so that we reduce, again, the amount of oil that is
necessary. This is a very, very difficult situation, but I
think, ultimately, it screams that we must accelerate toward
clean energy.
climate change's impact on the state of california
Senator Feinstein. I would just like to address one
California question to you. We discussed this previously but we
are experiencing a climate emergency, and California is bearing
the brunt of a lot of these changes. We find that temperatures
are causing more intense heat waves making western wildfires
more frequent, destructive, and deadly. These are straining our
power grids and forcing us to rethink their design.
Just last year in California 2.5 million acres burned. It
destroyed 3,600 structures. The recent infrastructure bill
would provide billions to help States upgrade their aging
infrastructure. And so we are pleased about that. But can you
help us understand how quickly this historic funding can be
implemented to help States upgrade their aging energy
infrastructure?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thank you for that too. The part I
think that is very hopeful for California in the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law related to energy infrastructure is the $5
billion for resiliency, which could be used for the purposes of
undergrounding wires in strategic locations. And so we are in
the process, we will be putting out a funding opportunity
announcement shortly. We just called for a request for
information from stakeholders about how they would like to see
that portion funded.
I will also say, I know I am over time, but we are also
focused on the technology associated with the grid that will
allow us to enhance sensors, drones, modeling so that we know
that we can anticipate when wildfires are coming, so that both
the technology as well as undergrounding, are hopeful
improvements for California and States like it.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Senator Collins.
weatherization assistance program
Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome, Madam Secretary. I want to talk to you about the
importance of the Weatherization Assistance Program. In my
State two-thirds of the homes use heating oil to stay warm. And
just last week the cost of a gallon of heating oil exceeded $6.
That is a record high that I have never seen in our State, and
it is causing tremendous hardship.
We know that the Weatherization Assistance Program makes a
big difference in States like Maine where we have some of the
oldest housing stock in the Nation. That means a lot of
uninsulated attics, and leaky windows, which causes discomfort
but also wasted energy. And that is why I have been such a
long-time supporter of the Weatherization Assistance Program.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law which you have mentioned,
and which I was one of ten Senators who negotiated it, included
$3.5 billion for additional funding for the Weatherization
Program.
In light of this large infusion of new funding, Senator
Reed and I, along with several of our colleagues, sent you a
letter on January 13, urging you to update the program's
regulation and guidance to ensure that the money could be spent
more efficiently and reach more people.
I regret to say that we have not yet received a response to
that January letter. And I would ask you today what
improvements you see to help simplify and enhance the
effectiveness of the Weatherization Program?
Secretary Granholm. Thank you for that. Thank you for your
long-time support of weatherization. I agree with you about the
utter importance. There is 39 million homes that are eligible
for weatherization, and unfortunately we can only do in a given
year 35- to 40,000 of them.
And so we need--there is such a great need out there, that
big slug from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will enable us
to do hundreds of thousands more. Here is the update, and it is
reflected in the budget. One is that as you know, many homes
aren't eligible even though their income levels of the owners
of the homes are eligible, because they may have a, you know,
un-structurally safe roof, or they may have mold.
And so part of the update reflected in this budget is
another $30 million to make homes pre-weatherization ready, so
that we can go in and do some of the structural changes on the
homes that most need it. I mean these are homes that need it
more than anything, but the regulations are such that they
haven't been eligible.
So we are doing this pre-weatherization pilot, and we want
to be able to see this expanded, we will come back and let you
all know how that works. But we are very excited about that.
Some local, and I don't know if in Maine they do, but many
States have their own pre-weatherization strategy, where they
get their own State funding for it. But it is clearly
necessary.
The second update is that, as you know, we spend a lot of
money every year on the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, or LIHEAP, and that money goes to people who are low-
income, and can't afford their bills, but often they are
probably living in homes that need weatherization, and that is
why their bills are so high.
So we are combining now that effort, so we have asked in
this budget for another $100 million to do a--focus on the
LIHEAP homes for weatherization so that we can end up as the
government saving money, but we can target the weatherization
efforts on the homes that clearly need it most.
energy storage technologies
Senator Collins. Thank you for that update. A second issue
of great interest to me is energy storage. I was the lead
author of the Better Energy Storage Technologies Act, also
known as the BEST Act, which became law in December of 2020.
And it authorizes long-duration grid scale energy storage
demonstration projects with the goal of strengthening the
resiliency and reliability of the grid, and making it more
feasible to incorporate renewables like wind, and solar.
Again, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $500
million for these demonstrations. My office has been contacted
by several companies including some in Maine who are interested
in accessing this funding. And again I would point out it did
become law in December of 2020.
DOE has yet to issue any requests for information, or
otherwise provided details on how it plans to implement the
demonstration program. When can we expect to see energy storage
demonstration announcements from DOE?
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Senator Collins. It really is the Holy Grail of
incorporating renewables, is improving storage.
Secretary Granholm. A thousand percent. Couldn't agree with
you more, and thank you again for your leadership on this. You
are absolutely correct. We had a roundtable with stakeholders
in April to be able to get feedback for how we should be
thinking about this.
There is three funded efforts that will be under that $500
million umbrella. One is demonstrations, two is an Energy
Storage Pilot Grant Program, and the third is long-duration
demonstrations. We will be issuing an RFI (Request for
Information) very soon. And I can have our team brief you on
that, or your team on it separately. We will make sure that
somebody does that, because I think it is within May we will be
issuing the first RFI.
Senator Collins. Great. Thank you.
consent-based siting for interim nuclear waste storage
Senator Feinstein. Madam Secretary. Oh. Thank you made it
clear that you support safe and workable solutions dealing with
nuclear waste, and for several years we have included 20
million in appropriations for consent-based siting of the
interim nuclear waste storage. And the Department has also
requested additional information from stakeholders to develop a
plan going forward on interim waste. That is my understanding.
Can you bring us up to date and discuss how the
administration plans to break this stalemate on nuclear waste
disposal? I know there is a recent request for information, but
it has taken a long time, and I have watched literally nothing
happen.
Secretary Granholm. Well, the good news is, things are
moving. So the request for information that we issued at the
end of last year, we received over 200 responses. Now, I am not
saying that there are 200 communities that are saying, sign me
up. There may be some that were in opposition.
But we are assessing what we got back, and then we will
proceed with a funding opportunity, but here is the--we will
proceed; excuse me, with the next step which is to really get
honed in on who might be interested from the information we
glean.
You know, the communities that are interested in this are
going to want to know how they will be compensated for the
service to the Nation of being able to store this fuel safely.
And so the first step is to get this RFI, and understand what
they are doing, then we will do a next step on that to hone it
in, that will happen I think in the summer.
And so we will be proceeding, it is our determination to
have this issue resolved as well from an interim basis, which
is what the step is we are talking about. And so we are
enthused by the conversations that we have had with a number of
communities.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Senator, any other questions?
offshore wind technology
Senator Collins. I do. Thank you very much Madam Chair.
Madam Secretary, we have discussed previously a world-class
consortium led by the University of Maine in floating offshore
wind technology. I have worked with the university for many
years on this project. I am very excited about it.
The university is pioneering a new era of energy
independence by harnessing powerful, deepwater offshore winds
through one of the Energy Department's offshore wind
demonstration projects. The advantage of offshore wind is you
can place the turbines far enough offshore so you can't see
them from the shore. And we are working with--the university is
working with our fishing industry to make sure we are not
interfering there.
But once completed, this project, which is known as Aqua
Ventus, will deploy the Nation's first floating, deepwater
offshore wind turbines off the Coast of Maine. And in my State
alone the offshore wind industry has the potential to support
an annual average of more than 2,000 jobs which is very
exciting. I want to urge you to focus on this kind of
technology. The floating, deepwater, offshore wind technology
which is being developed at the University of Maine, in
addition to the work the Department is doing on conventional
fixed-bottom offshore wind projects.
How is the Department prioritizing the advancement of
domestic, innovative, clean energy technologies, particularly
in the floating offshore wind space?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thanks for this too. I share your
enthusiasm about offshore wind, and the University of Maine,
honestly, has been doing some amazing work, not just in
offshore wind, but in materials, and you know, it is--you have
got a great university there.
We are excited both about offshore and fixed-bottom.
Offshore I mean--Senator Feinstein knows this too--will be
particularly relevant for the Pacific Coast as well since we
have such--there is such a steep drop in the shoreline, it is
not graduated like it is on much of the Atlantic Coast.
So the technology that is being developed and that it will
be the first offshore wind platform everyone will be watching
and learning from. We just came from--and I just came from an
offshore wind conference on the Atlantic, in New Jersey, where
the offshore wind world was there looking at both these
technologies, and prioritizing both of them.
Obviously it is a little--we have a lot of European input,
because Europe has been much more advanced in deploying
offshore wind technology, both floating and fixed-bottom. And
so we are learning from them, and we are learning from what our
own great minds at the University of Maine are producing. We
look forward to the continued relationship with the University
of Maine on this, because you are at the forefront.
Senator Collins. Thank you. Madam Chair, would you mind if
I ask one more question?
Senator Feinstein. Go ahead.
advanced manufacturing
Senator Collins. Thank you. You actually anticipated, in
many ways, my next question. And it has to do with advanced
composite materials and manufacturing methods, including large-
scale additive manufacturing, and the manufacturing of bio-
based composites, because they really have the potential to
revolutionize our manufacturing sector.
And I appreciate the fact that there is more than $582
million for advanced manufacturing in the Department's budget
request. Starting in fiscal year 2019, DOE awarded $20 million
in funding to support a truly innovative collaboration between
the University of Maine, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. And
through this partnership, the University of Maine has secured
the world's largest 3D printer, and recently printed the
world's largest 3D printed boat, at 25 feet and 5,000 pounds.
They also are working with the Department of Defense to
produce vessels that could be used to transport cargo for our
Armed Forces. And this is a very exciting collaboration between
one of our national labs and the University of Maine. And the
great thing about it, is not only does it produce innovation,
but it supports job growth in the forest products industry,
manufacturing composites, wind, and boat building.
Could you discuss how the Department plans to maintain and
foster these kinds of collaborations between our national labs
and universities that will help us maintain America's
leadership in advanced manufacturing?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thank you for that too. You know,
again pointing to the University of Maine as leading the way.
But the notion that you have a full spectrum, I mean the Oak
Ridge National Lab which has this great expertise in additive
manufacturing, and the fact that the University is supplying
also next-generation talent.
So it is really a full spectrum. And that Oak Ridge also
works--it is a facility that works with the private sector as
well, having a great manufacturing site there that allows for
them to be able to take advantage of their additive
manufacturing their 3D printing machines.
Just to link this conversation with the previous question--
--
Senator Feinstein. I am sorry. Let me interrupt you.
Secretary Granholm. We are way over.
Senator Feinstein. You are not using the microphone.
Secretary Granholm. Is that better, maybe?
Senator Feinstein. Yes.
Secretary Granholm. Just to link with the previous--because
the 3D printing of wind turbine blades, for example, using bio-
based materials, we will be able to make sure that the life
cycle of wind turbine blades means that it can be recycled
eventually. So the combination of all of these technologies is
where the DOE sweet spot is, and being able to ensure that
next-generation students, the STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics) students that we need for our
labs, and for our scientific endeavors see it in action. And so
we are excited about that too.
Senator Collins. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
hanford site
Senator Murray, welcome.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Chair Feinstein.
Senator Granholm, welcome to you. You know, your Department
is responsible for so many critical programs across the
country, and in my home State of Washington, but I want to
focus my questions on one today, and that is the Hanford site.
As I have told you, and Director Young, and other members of
this administration repeatedly, the Federal Government has a
moral and legal obligation to clean up the Hanford site, and
failure to adequately fund the mission there really jeopardizes
that promise.
The fiscal year 2022 Omnibus provided $2.6 billion for the
site. Your Department's fiscal year 2023 request proposes
cutting funding for the site by $172 million. I know the
administration did not use the fiscal year 2022 enacted levels
in developing its request, but the fiscal year 2023 request
represents cuts from the fiscal year 2021 enacted levels as
well. And it also fails to meet the funding needs that the
Department itself, as identified at the site.
One area that really illustrates that disconnect is the
River Corridor, and other cleanup operations account. The
Department's 2022 Hanford Lifecycle Report projected that this
account needed $261.5 million to keep pace with the Tri-Party
Agreement's milestones. But your fiscal year 2023 Budget only
requests 135 million for that account. Do you believe that
request is adequate?
Secretary Granholm. I look forward to working with you on
this. I know that we need to fund the commitments.
Senator Murray. Well, how did you get to that request? It
is half of what the Department says is required.
Secretary Granholm. I understand. I understand. It is
just--honestly, it is a question of balancing out what our
numbers are across the whole environmental management
portfolio, it is a $7 billion----
Senator Murray. Well, I assure you at the site numbers--it
is not just numbers.
Secretary Granholm. And I totally understand that.
Senator Murray. This is about an incredibly important site
in this country.
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Senator Murray. And we have a requirement to make sure we
clean that up.
Secretary Granholm. Yes. Yes, I know. And I so appreciate
your advocacy on this, and I look forward to visiting. I am
sorry that my hit----
Senator Murray. It is more than advocacy, it is an
obligation.
Secretary Granholm. It is. I hear you. I hear you, and I
agree with you.
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, let me ask you about Building
324, because cleanup of that site is extremely important to the
Hanford communities. Fiscal year 2023 was supposed to fund the
infrastructure needed to start cleanup beneath that building.
Your request would not support that work. Does fiscal year 2023
request just kick the can down the road on cleanup of Building
324?
Secretary Granholm. We will maintain Building 324, and that
should be included in the next budget. We are not at all blind
to how important it is to address it. It should be safe for
this year. It will be maintained and safeguarded but, again,
this was a question of balancing the funding priorities, and
so.
Senator Murray. Well, the High-Level Waste Facility is only
at the beginning of its significant lifecycle costs. In fiscal
year 2023 the Office of River Protection is slated to get ready
for the resumption of construction at that facility. Now,
according to the Department's estimates, the facility's funding
requirements are going to double between 2023 and 2024, and
continue to grow throughout the rest of this decade.
Does your fiscal year 2023 request adequately support the
facility's coming funding needs?
Secretary Granholm. We believe this is a good budget, we
believe this will make sure that the site is safe, and we
continue to do work on it. However, we acknowledge that there
are differing equities, and points of view, and we look forward
to working with you on it.
Senator Murray. Okay. Well, explain to us why the
Department proposes major increases for nuclear weapons and
naval reactors, but cuts cleanup sites like Hanford?
Secretary Granholm. Again, this is a question of balancing
equities across all of the portfolios at DOE, we believe
Hanford is extremely important, it is the largest cleanup site
that we have. We have other cleanup sites as you know, across.
We want to make sure that we do right by the whole of the
budget. And so it is a balance.
Senator Murray. Well, Madam Secretary; Madam Chairwoman,
fiscal year 2024, is going to be really critical for this site,
and I am really disappointed by this year's request. We have
got to do better than this.
Secretary Granholm. I understand.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator. Senator Hoeven.
carbon capture utilization and storage
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate
your holding the hearing today. Thank you so much.
Jen, good to see you again--or excuse me--Secretary, I am
sorry. Good to see you, Secretary. Thanks for being here. I
want to start right out on CCUS (Carbon Capture, Utilization,
and Storage). As you know it is something you and I have talked
about many times.
In terms of getting these projects going and, of course, we
appreciate you coming out to our State last year, as a matter
of fact, on Monday of this week I was part of dedicating the
purchase of the Coal Creek Coal-Fired Electric Plant, 1100-
megawatt plant which is quite a large plant that was purchased
by Rainbow Energy, a remarkably innovative energy company in
North Dakota, from Great River Energy, a Minnesota-based
utility, cooperative.
And so they are moving forward, and of course part of their
plan is to do CCUS, to have CCUS attached. They also have a
biofuels plant on site where they have already started the
carbon capture piece as well, and they want to do the carbon
capture on the coal-fired electric plant.
Not too far from them is another facility, Minnkota,
another cooperative-owned, large coal-fired electric power
plant, and they have what is called Project Tundra, which is
their plan to put carbon capture on their coal-fired electric
plant. And then not too far, to the west of them, we have the
Dakota Gasification Company, which actually converts lignite
coal to synthetic natural gas. They already do carbon capture
for tertiary oil recovery, and have been doing that for some
time, started that back when I was governor.
Now, for the rest of their CO2 stream, they
already separate the CO2, 50 percent of that stream
goes downhole for tertiary recovery. The other 50 percent, now
they are actually building the tertiary storage piece for that,
and we will do geologic storage--not tertiary--geologic storage
for the remaining 50 percent of their CO2 stream to
capture the 45Q tax credit; so that is what is going on.
Now, what we need there are three things that we have put
in place that we need your help on, to keep these projects
moving. The first is the front-end investment funds, so DOE
grants that help put the equipment on these plants to capture
the CO2. That is one.
loan programs office investment in carbon capture and utilization
sequestration projects
Number two, the loan guarantees for the investment they
have to make, so that they can finance it on favorable terms
for the equipment that it takes to separate the CO2.
So first, to help of the front-end funding; two, the loan
guarantees, both through DOE, but also through RUS if they are
cooperative; and then making sure that they are capturing the
45Q tax credit.
So one, we need your help to do this, and we need your
commitment to access these programs in a timely and efficient
way to make this happen. This is about cracking the code on
carbon capture and leading the way forward.
So tell me about your commitment. You are willing to stop,
and what you can do to make this happen sooner versus later.
Secretary Granholm. Great. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven. And accessing these programs.
Secretary Granholm. Yes, yes. I appreciate it. I mean
first, as you are aware, the biggest opportunity is through the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, a $10 billion commitment to
carbon capture and sequestration obviously, North Dakota and
Wyoming, hugely ripe States for that, given your geology.
Senator Hoeven. Really, the only two States with all the
regulatory of--approvals to do it, both State and Federal EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency) approvals to do it. So we are
ready to go.
Secretary Granholm. Primacy. Yes, we know, we know. And so
you have got great examples of projects. We expect that we will
start to roll out the request for information and the funding
opportunity announcements closer to the end of this year. So
look forward to that.
The Loan Programs Office too, we have an additional request
in our budget because they have, even though they have a $40
billion budget they have got billion worth of requests for the
Loan Program Office services. So hopefully you can help us on
that side on the budget.
And the 45Q tax credit, I am just hopeful that we are able
to increase the value of that tax credit through additional tax
incentive, upping the number so that it becomes really
commercially smart to--and get rewarded by the private sector
to be able to capture the CO2. So on both--on all
three I am bullish about being able to be very helpful.
Senator Hoeven. Appreciate that. Also, as you know, we have
to be able to capture and put the CO2 downhole through the
Energy Environmental Research Center, which you have visited at
the University of North Dakota they do--they have a partnership
with DOE.
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
Senator Hoeven. Called PCOR, which is the Plains
CO2 Reduction Partnership, PCOR. Very important that
we continue that partnership, and that funding continues so
that they can continue to do the work, so that we can put that
CO2 downhole. So that is both funded in our approach
budget, and it is also those contracts are in place, we need
you to make sure your people are working to get them the
funding so they can continue to do that part of the equation
too.
Secretary Granholm. Great. I know they really enjoy working
with them so, yes.
Senator Hoeven. It has been a good partnership.
Secretary Granholm. Yes.
ferc approval process
Senator Hoeven. The last thing is, can you help us expedite
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) so that we can get
both pipelines to move natural gas around the country, very
important right now, as well as LNG (Liquefied natural gas)
facilities. Is there something you can do to expedite those
approvals, or help expedite those approvals with FERC, we need
that transmission badly.
Secretary Granholm. Well, we know that we have right now,
in terms of terminals. Are you talking about LNG?
Senator Hoeven. Well, I am talking both pipelines to move
LNG.
Secretary Granholm. Pipelines, all right.
Senator Hoeven. So we don't have stranded natural gas at a
time when we need it, as well as the LNG. Plus, actually the
pipelines are really important nationally and internationally,
the LNG facility.
Secretary Granholm. Yes. I mean, we want to make sure that
there is not flaring, and so you have to make sure that the
associated gas is captured and moved. So yes, FERC has already,
I think approved 12 pipeline projects just this year, and they
are well aware of the importance of this, especially given the
geopolitical concerns that everyone shares about the increase
in fuel costs, but also the pulling back of fossil fuels, and
the cost, as a result of the war.
And our allies needing liquefied natural gas as well, so we
have permitted at DOE an additional four terminals to be able
to send liquefied natural gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement
entities, like Europe. And I know FERC has also permitted, FERC
and DOE have permitted another 30 billion cubic feet per day,
of liquefied natural gas permission, although some of those
terminals are not being built yet.
Senator Hoeven. I apologize for going over my time. Thank
you, Madam Chair, I appreciate it.
Senator Feinstein. Based on time of arrival, Senator
Hagerty is next.
Senator Hagerty. Thank you, Senator Feinstein, for holding
this hearing.
Secretary Granholm, thank you for being here today.
Secretary, last year you divested a large financial stake in
Proterra, an electric bus manufacturing company; is that
correct?
Secretary Granholm. Correct.
Senator Hagerty. Why did you divest it?
Secretary Granholm. Why did I divest?
Senator Hagerty. Mm-hmm.
Secretary Granholm. Because I was appointed, every
appointee has to divest of individual stocks.
Senator Hagerty. They have to divest for what reason?
Secretary Granholm. For ethics reasons. You want to make
sure that if you are involved in any decisions related to, for
example, electrification of buses that there is not a conflict
so I divested early.
Senator Hagerty. I appreciate your executive experience,
and I appreciate the fact that you undertook your
responsibilities in a very serious manner, to avoid even the
appearance of a conflict of interest, in this case, where you
had responsibility.
I want to ask you another question. Do you know, Hunter
Biden?
Secretary Granholm. I have met him.
Senator Hagerty. Have you ever had an opportunity, or your
staff had an opportunity to discuss energy policy with Hunter
Biden, given his experience in the space.
Secretary Granholm. No.
Senator Hagerty. Let me turn to another set of questions.
Do you think it was appropriate for Vice President Biden to
conduct foreign policy in Ukraine while an influential
Ukrainian energy company called Burisma, was paying his son a
million a year to serve on his Board? Or while a Russian
billionaire was providing millions of dollars to Hunter Biden,
at the same time that Hunter Biden was apparently paying his
father's business--or living expenses.
Secretary Granholm. With respect, sir, I am here on the
Department of Energy's budget. I am not sure what relevance
that has to the budget. And I also know that President Biden is
an incredibly ethical human being and would never do anything
that would demonstrate a conflict of interest.
Senator Hagerty. Well, as a member of his cabinet, and
somebody who obviously takes conflicts of interest very
seriously, I wanted to see what your opinion was. I have got
another couple of items to ask you about. Hunter Biden rode Air
Force 2 to China to conduct business deals with CCP (Chinese
Communist Party)-aligned figures, at the same time that his
father was meeting with and conducting foreign policy there
with China.
Does that seem right to you? Would you have allowed that if
you were Vice President?
Secretary Granholm. Sir, I am not here to opine on
something that might have happened in the previous
administration, I am here to talk about the Department of
Energy budget.
Senator Hagerty. Well, in this administration, in 2021,
while his father was President, Hunter Biden still owned an
interest in BHR Partners, he owned that in partnership with
Chinese Communist Party entities, and right after his dad,
President Biden met with Xi Jinping, it was announced by Hunter
Biden's lawyer that he divested his interest in that entity.
Yet no one has given the details about when he divested it, how
much profit he made. Do you think that is appropriate?
Secretary Granholm. Sir, I have no information about any of
the things that you are talking about.
Senator Hagerty. Well, let us just go through the basic
facts, because I think you do appreciate the importance of
ethics in government, the importance of avoiding the appearance
of conflicts of interest, but we have emails and photographs
that show that President Biden, while he was Vice President,
running U.S. Foreign Policy in Ukraine, met with several of his
son, Hunter's, business associates including a Burisma
executive, the Ukrainian energy company that, again, paid
hundreds of millions of dollars. You have got $3.5 million
payment from a Russian billionaire that happened around the
same time. You have got Hunter traveling to China on Air Force
2, conducting business there while his father is Vice
President.
I mean, all of this I would think is very concerning
particularly given the fact that it looks like there is a mix
of personal and official business here. I don't think that you
would want to see that. Would you allow personal and business--
and business interests to be mixed in that regard?
Secretary Granholm. Sir, I am not going to, by the
assumptions in the question.
Senator Hagerty. Well, I appreciate the fact that you have
taken your ethical responsibilities seriously here. I think the
American public is very concerned about what may have
transpired. And I think the Biden White House should be
transparent to the American people about this. I appreciate
your willingness to act in a transparent fashion, to deal with
any potential conflict of interest on your own.
I think you set an example for this administration. I wish
the administration would live by its own dictates, and actually
be responsible in their own disclosures. Thank you very much.
Senator Feinstein. Senator Tester.
clean energy agriculture
Senator Tester. Well, Thank you, Chairwoman Feinstein.
I appreciate the opportunity to visit with Secretary
Granholm. I want to get back to energy. Diesel fuel in Montana
is a $5.44 a gallon, okay, there is a little tax on that, but
it is $5.44 a gallon, which is a lot. And we have got a
situation right now where energy companies are making record
profits, they are doing stock buybacks, they are charging the
hell out of the consumer, and quite frankly blaming a lot of
different issues.
One fact is, is that if they quit using this war as an
opportunity to jack up prices, I think we would see a better
situation for the consumers. We also see last year, for
example, everything west of the Mississippi being in a drought,
everything east of Mississippi had more water than they needed.
I happen to be one of those guys west of Mississippi and we
had the worst crop we have ever had in the history, since my
grandfather homesteaded it in 1910. We didn't cut but a small,
small fraction of what we normally cut, harvest.
So climate change is a problem. And choices for consumers a
problem right now, because quite frankly, I can't put anything
but diesel in my truck, or my tractor, and I would like to be
able to run it on batteries, okay. I would like to be able to
run my field tractor on batteries.
Now, this isn't a 30-horse tractor, this is a 375-horse
tractor. I would like to be able to run it on batteries. I
would like to be able to take my farm at some point in time and
take it off the grid, and have solar, and wind, and put that
into batteries and be able to run my farm off batteries, okay,
because I got great wind resources, trust me, where I live.
The question becomes, you as a visionary, somebody who
takes your job quite seriously as Secretary of Energy is: What
does this budget do to move the ball forward in new generation
that doesn't add to climate change, in battery technology, in
carbon sequestration, to try to be better and cheaper with that
on existing plants, in making nuclear waste benign?
Enlighten me, because I am going to tell you, I am 65 years
old, I have got about another 8 or 10 years left on the farm,
God willing. And in that years I want to have a tractor that I
can't hear, because it has got an electric motor.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Granholm. I want you to have that. And I think
you will have that. Really, because we have this first of all
technology is the answer, right? We are focused on so much of
the advances you have just described, whether it is on battery,
or on wind, and renewables, or on carbon capture sequestration,
or on bio fuels, or on advanced vehicle technology, all of that
is encapsulated within the energy efficiency and renewable
energy increase that we are asking for this committee to
support, and for the whole budget.
But it is also reflected in the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law that that you were supportive of as well. So carbon capture
for example, there is $10 billion in that Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law for carbon capture.
Senator Tester. So the question is, the real question here
is, we have made some investments but the status quo continues
to be $5.44 diesel fuel, the status quo is not an affordable
battery right now, it is not a battery big enough, it is not
about the--there is all sorts of problems there. The status quo
is carbon sequestration costs a bunch of money. If we can lower
those costs we can lower costs for consumers
Does this budget have adequate dollars in it to invest in
the kind of things that we need for 21st century energy
portfolio?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. It absolutely does. It invests in
the research, and deployment, and development that will get us
away from that. I mean, does this bring down the price of gas
right now? No. But it invests in the technology that will get
us to the point where you can have a tractor that you can't
hear.
Senator Tester. Well, I can say this, it doesn't matter
what field you are in, if there is competition in the
marketplace the consumer gets a fair shake, and I have got a
number of bills in a meat packing industry, but you are not
Secretary of AG (Agriculture), you are Secretary of Energy.
The truth is, there is no competition there. And I don't
think there is near enough competition in the energy sector.
You know, if we can develop some of these resources that, by
the way, benefit both carbon-based fuels, and non-carbon-based
fuels, I think it is a step in the right direction, and you are
the right person to do that job. Thank you very much for doing
it.
Secretary Granholm. Thank you, sir.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
The Chair is pleased to call on the Ranking Member. Senator
Kennedy, welcome.
the administration's energy policy
Senator Kennedy. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am
sorry I was late, I was in another Committee.
Welcome, Madam Secretary. I have still got a lot of work to
do on your proposed budget, but I just wanted to offer a few
top line comments. After 15 months I think we--any fair-minded
person who has paid attention, would have a general idea of the
principles of the Biden administration. And it seems to me that
the Biden administration believes in bigger government, it
believes in higher taxes, it believes in more regulation, it
believes in more debt, based on the President's proposed
budget, it believes in a weaker military.
Not by its words but by its actions, I think it believes in
higher energy prices. I think that the Biden administration
hates fossil fuels on which, at the moment, the greatest
economy in all of human history depends. I think the Biden
administration thinks that is a mistake. And I think the Biden
administration thinks that higher energy prices will somehow
wean the American people off of fossil fuels.
The attitude seems to be, not in words but in deed, that we
can see the future better than the American people because we
are experts, and the American people just need to take their
medicine with these higher energy prices, and in the long run
they will be better off because we will use them to get rid of
fossil fuels.
Now, let me talk about your budget. It is not going to pass
in its current form, and I think you know that. I support wind
and power, but I am an all-of-the-above energy type guy. I
think eventually we should, and I don't mean sometime in the
next century, we should realistically ask ourselves: When are
wind and power going to be able to stand on their own feet
without subsidies?
I also believe in nuclear power. I can tell from your
budget that at least some of your work colleagues at the
Department don't. I also believe in thermo--or in hydroelectric
power. I believe in hydrogen. I have said it, but I am going to
say it again, I believe in nuclear, and I think you should
ignore the--I think it is clean energy, and the new technology
with these small modular nuclear reactors has great potential.
You shortchange them in your proposed budget. That tells me a
lot.
But I also believe in fossil fuels, and I think it is
wholly unrealistic, certainly now, certainly for the
foreseeable future, and maybe forever to think that this world
can run without fossil fuels. I am very disappointed in your
budget, at its lack of emphasis on geoengineering. I know your
work colleagues don't like geoengineering because they think it
takes our eye off the ball of climate change.
But I think that is a mistake. I think climate change is
real, but I think it will be solved or lessened by American
ingenuity. It won't be done by the Federal Government. I am
also disappointed in the fact that the Department--and that is
why I say it is clear to me the Biden administration believes
in a weaker military--your decision not to fund one of the
major weapons that the United States has at a time when our
security is clearly threatened. Now, I have given you a
mouthful.
It is good to see you, Madam Chair. I am sorry I am late.
Please don't construe it as a sign of disrespect.
I would like to hear what you have to say.
Secretary Granholm. Great. Thank you. Let me focus on a
couple of things I think we can agree on. One is the importance
of nuclear power, and how it is an essential part of our clean
baseload power, and we ought to be keeping the existing fleet
afloat, and we just issued $6 million in civilian--$6 billion
in civilian nuclear credits to be able to do that. And to
hopefully have as many of them stay operating as possible.
But we have also got a $2.5 billion commitment in advanced,
nuclear reactors, as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
column of our budget, that is number one. So we agree on that,
and we want to continue funding the advanced nuclear reactors.
Number two, we agree on hydroelectric power, and we want to
see more dams, and we want to make sure that we are taking
advantage of a form of energy that is clean, dispatchable
baseload power. I would also throw geothermal in there in that
same sort of category. With respect to wind and solar, your
question about when they become, essentially, reliable baseload
power, is all contingent upon making sure that technology of
batteries becomes cheaper, we have a goal, a earth shot of
getting down the price of long-duration storage by 90 percent.
And when we get down the price of long-duration storage,
essentially wind and power become clean, dispatchable baseload
power.
Here is where we don't agree. This administration believes
in the importance of decarbonizing the fossil fuel industry. We
know that we have gotten here for the past 120 years based upon
fossil fuels, we acknowledge that. And we also know that
technology, for the next hundred years, can power us going
forward, decarbonizing is really important. So we agree on
hydrogen, for example, and that Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
invests $9 billion in hydrogen hubs. And I think one of them
that is going to vie for it is in your region.
Senator Kennedy. Mm-hmm.
Secretary Granholm. But we make sure that we can
decarbonize natural gas, for example, and couple it with carbon
capture and sequestration. We are also big believers in the
technology associated with direct air capture, and other carbon
dioxide removal strategies. That is another $3.5 billion in the
budget.
Senator Kennedy. Do you mind if I stop you and ask you
question about LNG. I saw the President's statement. I want you
to correct me if I am wrong. The President about a month ago,
maybe a few weeks ago, time runs together, said: I want to
expand LNG exports. But then I looked at the fine print of his
statement. He said, but I want the plants that produce the LNG
to be powered only with clean energy.
And then he said: But I am not going to change the
regulatory environment for oil and gas. And shortly after that
he came out with new proposed rules for NEPA (National
Environmental Policy Act) that will make it impossible to build
a pipeline. Don't you think that is misleading?
Secretary Granholm. I am not sure exactly what statement
you are referring to. But he did go to Europe and said that: We
will provide another 15 billion cubic meters per year, we will
increase our partnership with them. So as a result the
Department of Energy has permitted four additional LNG
terminals, allowing their volumes to go to Non-Free Trade
Agreement countries in a way to fulfill that.
The Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission have both permitted another 30 billion cubic feet of
export with the----
Senator Kennedy. But don't you realize the impact that the
proposed changes in NEPA are going to have on the oil and gas
industry?
Secretary Granholm. The proposed changes in NEPA are to
make sure--I am not in the EPA, it is not my call, but----
Senator Kennedy. I know. I know. But it is sure going to
impact you.
Secretary Granholm. The intent there is to continue to use
technology to clean up fossil fuel emissions like methane, and
so making sure that we have got facilities that are not
contributing to the problem, but that are using technology
which they are excited to do. I mean many in the natural gas
world really do want to be able to deploy the technology that
button down pipelines, and make sure that they aren't
contributing further to methane leakage.
Senator Kennedy. But we tried to make NEPA a little more
palatable, not get rid of it, just say you have got to give us
a decision in a couple of years. In the Infrastructure Bill
which the President is very proud of, and he has talked about
it and taken for credit for it, and that is not a pejorative
statement, every chance he has got.
But then you turn right around and undo everything that was
done in the Infrastructure Bill with these new proposed rules
for NEPA. And I know it is coming from EPA.
But Madam Secretary, you are extraordinarily intelligent, I
have watched your career for years, you know as well as I do
the impact this is going to have on LNG plants, on pipelines,
on fossil fuel infrastructure. It is going to slow it down to
the pace of an amoeba.
Secretary Granholm. With respect, I fully disagree.
Senator Kennedy. Okay.
Secretary Granholm. I think that you can have----
[Laughter.]
Secretary Granholm. I think you can accelerate permitting
and still respect the environment, and not slow down the pace
of energy production.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Madam Secretary. It is nice to
see you again.
Secretary Granholm. Nice to see you, too.
Senator Kennedy. I am going to call you about Mexico.
Secretary Granholm. Okay.
Senator Kennedy. They are confiscating our assets. We need
to stop them.
Secretary Granholm. All right, we are on it. I hear you.
Senator Feinstein. Senator Shaheen, welcome.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Madam Chair; and Ranking
Member. And thank you, Secretary Granholm, so nice to see you.
Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
energy prices
Senator Shaheen. And thank you for the great work that you
and the Department of Energy are doing. We have all these
appropriations subcommittee hearings going on at the same time,
so getting from one to the other is challenging.
But I want to start with what I think is the biggest
concern on many of my constituents' minds, and I am sure you
are hearing this around the country, and that is the high cost
of energy, because of the pandemic, and supply chain issues
created there because of the war in Ukraine, we are seeing the
costs of Energy go up in ways that people were not expecting.
So what can we do to address that?
Secretary Granholm. Thank you for the question. I mean the
President is obsessed about this. You know, he desperately, as
like everybody, wants to make sure that people who go to get
gasoline at the pump are not just shocked, but hurt by it,
especially people who are on fixed and moderate incomes.
So the President has used the biggest tool in our arsenal,
which is the strategic petroleum reserve to try to make up for
some of those barrels that have been pulled off the market
because of the Russian invasion. So Russia right now has about
1.5 million barrels per day, to 2 million off the market. As a
result of the United States, rightfully saying, we are not
going to finance Putin's war, Canada same thing, Europe is on
the verge of deciding the same issue.
If they too decide that they will not take Russian oil that
could get as much as 3 million barrels per day off the market.
That supply constraint is what is causing prices to increase,
which is why the President said, we are going to issue a
million barrels per day from our strategic petroleum reserve,
to try to stabilize the market in as much as he is also calling
for increased production from the oil and gas industry.
The Energy Information Agency is saying that by the end of
this year that the oil and gas industry in the U.S. will be
producing another million barrels per day, but we have still
got a gap, which is why we are calling for all oil producing
nations to step up at this moment and to not finance Russia's
war. So that is number one.
Number two, the President has also called upon an increase,
for example, in ethanol blend so that we reduce demand of oil
increase biofuels. It is a smaller strategy, but he is looking
at every way he possibly can to try to address the problem.
Ultimately though, as you know, the solution lies in moving
to clean energy. And so, even as we are increasing supply right
now, we have to accelerate the move and the technologies which
is what this budget represents, to clean.
Senator Shaheen. Well, Vladimir Putin is certainly helping
move us more expeditiously to address energy in a way that
helps us deal with the climate change. So in the long--in the
short term, however, as we said, there are significant
challenges for families. And so anything we can do to help
address that I think is going to be very important.
energy-savings performance contracts
One of the things that I have worked on, and that we have
discussed in the past over the years, is how we address energy
efficiency. It is the cheapest fastest way to deal with our
energy needs. One of the biggest--as you know, the largest
single energy user in the United States is the Federal
Government, and one of the best things we could do is to
promote energy-savings performance contracts within the Federal
Government.
Now, because of the way CBO (Congressional Budget Office)
scores those contracts, it is challenging for Departments to
use those because they are not scored as savings, they are
scored as costs. I think we ought to change that. So far I have
not been able to convince my colleagues that that is something
that makes sense.
But can you talk about, one of the things we saw during the
Obama administration was a performance contracting challenge
that resulted in 340 performance contracts, and $8 billion in
energy savings. Can you talk about the possibility of doing
that kind of challenge again?
Secretary Granholm. I would love to work with you on this,
because I think it is so important to be able to incentivize
the installation of American-made products that end up reducing
energy. It is such a triple win. And I think that particular
challenge, if my numbers are right, created more than 30,000
jobs in American companies. So it is a win, win, win all the
way around. And I would love to work with you on that, because
I love challenges, and I love to incentivize that, and I think
that challenge was particularly effective. I would love to see
it happen again.
Senator Shaheen. Great. Thank you. I look forward to doing
that. We will follow up with the Department.
Secretary Granholm. Okay, great.
weatherization assistance program
Senator Shaheen. The one other question I had was, in too
many years, and the past few we have seen funding for the
Weatherization Program, and for State energy offices be slowed
down. Can you talk about when our State energy offices can
expect those dollars, and whether we expect them to be
distributed on time this year?
Secretary Granholm. Yes. We are going to distribute them
definitely on time. I just want to make sure I get you the
right numbers here. So right, in April we released a request
for information on the--well that was on the building codes
piece of things. Wait a second.
So we have $500 million through the State Energy Program
for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. I know that they are
working on the request for information so that they can shape
the funding opportunities, some of that is going to be formula
I believe, as well. We want to get as much of this out this
year as, possible while we are working on all of the other big
slugs of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This is a hugely
important one. We are working with States as well.
You know, I am a big believer in--as former governor, I
know you are too--in the bottom-up strategies, because so many
at the local level know well how to do this, and they know what
they want to do given their assets. And so both on the State
Energy grants as well as the future-looking energy grants,
which incentivizes states to think about what additional
technologies they want to help shore up inside of their State,
to be able to create jobs in perhaps industrial clusters,
around those energy technologies to create jobs.
Both pieces of those, in addition to what we have known as
Community LIHEP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP)), which is getting--communities that are at the back
of the line often, who want--who have a strategy of, for
example, weatherizing a community to be provided technical
assistance to navigate the Federal system to be able to access
some of these grant opportunities that they might not otherwise
have the technical ability to do all three of those.
Senator Shaheen. Great, thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
additional committee questions
Senator Feinstein. I want to thank you for being here, we
very much appreciate it.
And the hearing record will remain open for 10 days.
Senators may submit additional information or questions for the
record, within that time if they would like. The Subcommittee
requests that all responses to questions be provided within 30
days of receipt.
[The following questions were submitted to the Department,
but the questions were not answered by press time.]
Questions Submitted to Hon. Jennifer Granholm
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
Gasoline Reserve
Question. DOE operates the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve
established in 2014. The reserve was created to provide back-up
gasoline and petroleum supplies in the event of a severe winter storm
or other disruption.
To date, the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve has never been used
and costs taxpayers over $20 million in annual appropriations.
According to a DOE study, operating costs for the gasoline reserve are
more than double what some other countries pay for their gasoline
reserves.
Do you agree that the Gasoline Reserve has never been used?
Do you agree that the Gasoline Reserve is more expensive than other
similar reserves?
Do you agree that the Gasoline Reserve would only supply the region
with \1/2\ to 1\1/2\ days of gasoline?
If Congress were to sell the Gasoline Reserve would the Department
oppose?
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Kennedy
Question. Are emergency releases from SPR the Administration's
long-term plan to combat rising gas prices? If the Administration's
energy policies continue to choke out the fossil fuel industry and
American's use 20 million barrels of oil per day, what is the plan for
when SPR runs out of oil? Is there a plan to refill SPR after the
emergency releases are conducted?
What is the Department doing to ensure our energy grid is secure?
How can Americans be assured that their lights will continue to turn on
and gas will continue to be at the pumps?
Have you or anyone from your department reached out to the
Department of Interior regarding leasing in the Gulf of Mexico?
Will you commit to working with other agencies to help reduce
record high gas/energy prices?
Do you support expanding the use of natural gas domestically--
especially natural gas that is produced here in the United States?
Can you speak on the importance of natural gas, and how it has
helped the US lower emissions for 15 straight years?
Some of the cleanest oil and gas production comes from the Gulf of
Mexico, with that in mind why does the Administration beg countries
with much lower emission standards to increase production? Does China
care about net-zero emissions by 2030?
Environmental Management (Cleanup)
Question. Under the Environmental Management (Cleanup) program the
request includes a 599 percent increase for mission support.
Can you please describe, in some detail, how this funding will be
used and why it requires such a large increase?
Will you work with myself and others in the Louisiana delegation on
potential financial assistance--multi-year funding that has already
been fully appropriated--for CCS projects?
Will this Administration support proposals pending in Congress to
expand the 45Q tax credit for CO2 that is sequestered?
Will you work with us, EPA, and the State of Louisiana on permits
for Class VI injection wells?
Have you given up on SMRs? Is there no more research and
development or promising technologies to pursue? I am interested to
hear your planned path forward on small modular reactors given the
budget request.
Moving to the Advanced Reactors Demonstration Program, what is the
current schedule for each of the two of the two demonstrations being
funded by the Department? Are they still on schedule for commercial
deployment in 2027 and 2028 respectively?
While I am pleased to see an increase in funding for domestic HALEU
in the budget request, the Department has yet to articulate a detailed
plan. Walk us through the Department's plan, including schedule
milestones and associated budgets for production of HALEU.
The fiscal year 2021 appropriations bill provided $75 million to
establish a uranium reserve. Similar to HALEU, most of our uranium
products come from Russia. What efforts has the Department made to
establish the uranium reserve program? What is the path forward for the
program given the budget request includes no additional funding?
Do you have a cost and schedule estimate for how long it will take
to consolidated interim storage sites to be ready to receive nuclear
fuel?
What activities related to interim storage is the Department
currently executing? How will the funds requested in fiscal year 2023
be used?
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
Question. The Plains CO2 Reduction Partnership, or PCOR,
is one of four Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships created by
the Department of Energy and administered by the Energy & Environmental
Research Center located in my State, in close alignment with the
University of Wyoming and the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. The
existing four Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs)
collectively cover most of the United States, and since their
establishment in 2003, have provided critical leadership in carbon
management.
Congress provided not less than $20 million in the final fiscal
year 2022 appropriations bill for the four RCSPs, amounting to a
minimum of $5 million to the PCOR Partnership.
Will you commit that the Department will follow Congressional
direction in promptly carrying out funds for RCSPs?
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Hagerty
Question. Your budget request for fiscal year 2023 proposes to cut
the critical construction and infrastructure budget line that all 17
National Laboratories depend on to maintain their world leading
facilities by $36 million compared to what this Committee provided in
the fiscal year 2022 Omnibus Appropriations Act. This will result in
delay of major user facilities that the Department has deemed essential
for accomplishing mission and reduce effectiveness. Specifically, at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, these cuts could reduce the number of
operating cycles at the High Flux Isotope Reactor by at least 20
percent, which will have an effect on medical isotope production and
other critical work. At the Spallation Neutron Source, the numbers of
instruments available for research would be reduced and a potential
reduction in workforce. At the same time, your budget request proposes
to increase funding for research activities that would be conducted at
these facilities.
Are you aware of this imbalance, and the potential consequences to
user facilities across the Department of Energy?
Will you commit to working with me and this Committee to strike the
right balance between research and operations at these facilities?
Question. The isotope supply for the nation--and the western
world--is at risk. Isotopes are important to our security, health,
technologies, and economy, yet recent events in Ukraine have
underscored the vulnerability of our reliance on foreign suppliers and
how the United States lacks the necessary capacity to scale up
production when the supply chain breaks down. Immediate action is
needed to ensure that the nation has a self-sufficient supply of
isotopes that is outside the influence of world events and foreign
countries
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is the nation's largest
producer of isotopes--materials used in applications across national
security, medicine, industry, scientific discovery, and deep space
exploration. As home to the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR), hot cell
facilities for handling radioactive material, and a legacy of isotope
science that dates to the Manhattan Project, ORNL can produce more than
250 isotopes--an institutional strength not found anywhere else in the
Western Hemisphere. But these world-leading facilities are completely
stretched, and the Ukraine crisis and growing demand for isotopes
domestically and globally have exacerbated the situation. Immediate
expansion of capacity and capability is needed to meet current and
future needs in a manner that avoids reliance on foreign supply chains.
Do you agree that HFIR and the associated isotope production
facilities are critical to our national security to avoid reliance on
foreign supply chains of isotopes?
Does the Department support expanding ORNL's isotope production
capacity and capabilities to replace isotopes previously supplied by
Russia?
What is the Department's immediate plan to expand isotope
production capacity and capabilities in the near term?
Question. For years, Congress has provided hundreds of millions of
dollars to develop a first-of-a-kind advanced or small modular reactor.
I think you will agree with me that when an advanced reactor or a small
modular reactor is developed, we want the United States to be the one
that produces and develops that reactor. As I understand it, Congress
requires that funding grants to industry be openly competed, however,
there has not been much competition in the previous years for small
modular reactors. The Department is currently funding a single project
that was not competed. Tennessee is home to the Clinch River Site,
which is the only site that has an early permit for an advanced reactor
from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Should Congress provide funding for the Small Modular Reactor
Program in fiscal year 23, will you commit to ensuring that at least 3
awards be made, and that no more than 50 percent of the total funding
shall go to any one project?
What is occurring in other countries that is enabling SMR
technology deployment to move more quickly than here in the United
States? What are the potential consequences for the United States in
not being first? What does this mean for supply chain buildout and jobs
opportunities in the United States?
Question. In January, your Department published a Funding
Opportunity Announcement (FOA) soliciting proposals for industrial
decarbonization projects. Page 4 of the FOA contained a chart
illustrating that the refining sector is responsible for 17 percent of
all industrial emissions. Yet the word refining does not appear in the
remaining twelve pages comprising the Request for Funding. Industry
tells me that your Department specifically excluded oil refineries from
the parties eligible to apply. In other words, the refineries are
responsible for 17 percent of industrial emissions, but can't seek
Federal assistance to try to remedy the situation. During a House
Energy & Commerce Committee hearing to review the Department of Energy
fiscal year 2022 Budget, you gave response about increasing support for
the downstream energy sector.
Will you work with the Environmental Protection Agency and Small
Refinery Industry to ensure that industry to discuss suggestions to
lower gasoline prices?
Question. Under Federal law--the Manufactured Housing Improvement
Act of 2000--the HUD Code has exclusive dominion over construction and
safety standards in manufactured housing. Therefore, any energy
standards DOE develops for manufactured homes--including the ones you
are developing pursuant to the 2007 EISA law--are merely draft
standards that can't take effect unless and until adopted by HUD, after
consideration by HUD's Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee.
Can you share with the committee what specific steps you took to
consult with HUD and the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee to
try to develop energy standards that are compatible with the HUD code
and that might have the support of HUD?
Question. Section 413 of EISA requires DOE to develop energy
efficiency standards for manufactured housing. The statute says that
DOE should use the IECC code--Except if it is not cost effective,
comparing energy savings to increased costs to the homeowner. Instead
of analyzing actual costs and burdens to actual manufactured
homebuyers, DOE's proposed rule seems to employ esoteric mathematic
concepts, including assumptions about speculative future price
increases--instead of a simple analysis of the annual cost impact on a
low or moderate income family trying to buy a manufactured home.
Therefore, can you share with this committee any analysis done by
DOE regarding (1) the projected average annual cost increase for
homeowners--resulting from increased mortgage costs directly arising
from the higher home prices that even the DOE proposed rule
acknowledges will occur. (2) The projected average increase in a down
payment requirement related to the higher home price DOE's standards
will cause. (3) The number of families that will no longer be able to
buy a manufactured home--because they will no longer qualify for a
mortgage because higher mortgage payments mean they no longer meet
mortgage debt to income underwriting requirements.
In DOE's proposed rule on this, DOE seemingly offers no evidence
that it followed the statute with regard to this requirement. The
proposed rule offers no evidence that DOE tested out each incremental
increase in energy standards to ensure that each increment meets the
test of being cost effective. Can you offer any concrete evidence to
show that you engaged in such an incremental approach, as required by
statute? Please share the cost/benefit analysis results if they exist.
The Manufactured Housing Institute in its comment letter put forth
a more incremental energy proposal, using the approach required in the
statute. Have you analyzed MHI's proposal--and if you are rejecting
that approach can you explain why you believe your proposed rule is
better.
Question. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is partnering with
National Laboratories and industry to establish a clean hydrogen hub to
produce, deliver, store and use clean hydrogen across a multi-state
region. If granted, this regional hub would make Tennessee a leader the
nation for a carbon-neutral future by leveraging existing production,
consumption and connective infrastructure, to provide immediate, long-
term, and diverse clean-energy jobs and union represented employment in
a retired coal region in transition. Your Department has made $8
billion available to invest in these regional hydrogen hubs.
As the Department of Energy implements this program guidance and
distributes grants from the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, how
is the agency considering projects where TVA is a partner or co-
applicant?
TVA is fully funded from its ratepayers, and does not take annual
appropriations, so as to not create any disadvantages for my
constituents, will the agency treat any resources put forward by TVA as
a non-Federal cost-share?
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy
Question. The transportation sector has historically relied heavily
on petroleum, which supports over 90 percent of the sector's energy
needs today, and, as a result, surpassed electricity generation in 2017
to become the largest source of CO2emissions in the country.
The time to act to reduce carbon emissions within the transportation
sector is now, and I applaud the efforts made by President Biden and
the Department of Energy to realize this goal. To address this
challenge, we must work to develop and deploy clean technologies for
all modes of transportation, from rail and road, to sea and air, while
ensuring that mobility solutions for the transit of people and goods
remains affordable and equitable.
Simultaneously, as the energy needs of our transportation systems
have changed, so too has the mechanisms of mobility through which
travelers and goods are transported. We have seen, with the
proliferation of services like ride-sharing and on-demand grocery
delivery, the potential of mobility-as-a-service technology in
transforming transportation systems in urban areas. The next frontier
of mobility aims to increase access to people living outside urban
areas through new modes of medical, cargo and passenger connectivity.
Electric aviation will empower the Delivery & Logistics Industry to
reduce the costs and emissions. Specifically, electric vertical takeoff
and landing vehicles (eVTOL) will integrate with existing
transportation networks and move passengers and delivery-based commerce
more quickly by allowing point to point, airport-free, movement of
people and goods.
Given the urgent need to reduce emissions from the transit sector
and the interest of the Biden administration to support domestic
innovation and manufacturing, how does the Department of Energy intend
to provide resources to American firms to foster the development of new
and early-stage modes of transportation, like eVTOLs, to address the
future conditions of the transportation sector while ensuring that
domestic industry leads global innovation?
Question. Vermont actively hosts a number of demonstration programs
with electric aviation manufacturers and Delivery & Logistics
companies. These demonstrations have exemplified the vast potential of
electric aviation to revolutionize and decarbonize the ways in which
people and goods are transported, while supporting the research and
development activities with applications that go beyond electric
aviation. Ensuring that funding remains available for demonstration
programs like this will help American organizations, educational
institutions, and companies to develop new technologies.
How will the Department of Energy support technological advancement
within the transportation sector through the creation of demonstration
programs specifically related to battery and electrification
technologies?
Question. On March 28, 2022, the Department of Commerce announced
the launch of an investigation into alleged circumvention of duties for
solar panels imported from four Southeast Asian countries. The
investigation is in response to a petition from Auxin Solar, which
alleged that Chinese manufacturers shifted some production to these
countries in an effort to evade 2012 duties. Solar panel imports from
these four countries account for 80 percent of all solar panel imports
to the United States. The Commerce Department is considering up to 250
percent tariffs on these solar panel imports to be applied
retroactively.
The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) is forecasting that
solar installations for 2022 and 2023 will be cut by 46 percent due to
these circumstances, resulting in a drop of 24 gigawatts of planned
solar capacity. If this capacity is replaced by fossil fuels, the
United States will emit an additional 364 million metric tons of carbon
by 2035. The SEIA is also projecting that 100,000 American solar
workers will lose their jobs. The consequences to this investigation
contradict President Biden's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution
and support good-paying American jobs in the renewable energy industry.
In SEIA's Broad Industry Survey, 88 percent of Vermont solar
companies responded that the investigation will have severe or
devastating impacts to solar business, and that $10 million worth of
projects have already been impacted in Vermont alone. I have heard from
a number of Vermont solar companies that this investigation threatens
their long-term viability, which would not only result in a loss of
jobs in Vermont, but would also stymy the state's ability to address
carbon emissions moving forward.
In May 2021, the Solar Energy Technologies Office released a Multi-
Year Program Plan to accelerate the advancement and deployment of solar
technology. One of the Plan's goals was to expand the solar workforce
to 300,000 employees by 2025.
What is the Department's plan to expand the solar workforce and
open new solar markets in spite of market disruptions caused by the
Department of Commerce's investigation?
Question. On August 18, 2021, the Department announced a plan to
provide $6 million in funding to research and development projects
advancing 5G wireless networking for science applications. Funding
sponsored by the Office of Scientific Computing was awarded to five
National Laboratories. Vermont is home to a U.S. Government Trusted
Foundry, which is also the largest domestic producer of Radio
Frequency-capable chips critical to 5G network implementation.
What are the Department's requirements for trusted microelectronics
in these research and development projects?
How important are trusted supply chains for 5G wireless networking
for science applications?
What value do advanced techniques and materials such as Gallium
Nitride and epitaxial growth provide to science applications of 5G
networking?
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Feinstein. And so thank you so much for being here,
for your words.
And the committee will stand adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., Wednesday, May 4, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]