[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.]