[Senate Hearing 117-441]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-441
THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OF THE U.S.
ENERGY SECTOR, WESTERN WATER AND
PUBLIC LANDS, AND CONSIDERATION
OF A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 24, 2021
__________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-972 WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARK KELLY, Arizona BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
Renae Black, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Nicole Buell, Professional Staff Member
Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
Justin Memmott, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Energy
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West
Virginia....................................................... 1
Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
Wyoming........................................................ 2
Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon...................... 4
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, a U.S. Senator from Washington............. 5
WITNESSES
Hogan, Dr. Kathleen, Acting Undersecretary for Science and
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.............................. 5
Trujillo, Hon. Tanya, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for
Water and Science, U.S. Department of the Interior............. 13
French, Chris, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S.
Department of Agriculture...................................... 26
Holtz-Eakin, Dr. Douglas, President, American Action Forum....... 33
O'Mara, Collin, President and CEO, National Wildlife Federation.. 43
Mills, Mark P., Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute............... 53
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 103
American Lithium Corp.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 105
Barrasso, Hon. John:
Opening Statement............................................ 2
Letter from Senators Wicker and Barrasso to FCC Chairman Ajit
Pai, dated 10/28/2020...................................... 168
Letter from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to Senator Barrasso, dated
1/6/2021................................................... 169
Chart depicting CBO estimate of unspent COVID stimulus funds. 170
Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
Opening Statement............................................ 5
Daines, Hon. Steve:
Photograph of collapsed drop structure in Montana............ 72
Map entitled ``Stonewall Vegetation Project Decision Fire
History and Park Creek and Arrastra Creek Fires'' dated 7/
25/2017.................................................... 74
French, Chris:
Opening Statement............................................ 26
Written Testimony............................................ 28
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 94
Fusion Industry Association:
Statement for the Record..................................... 113
Hogan, Dr. Kathleen:
Opening Statement............................................ 5
Written Testimony............................................ 7
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 86
Holtz-Eakin, Dr. Douglas:
Opening Statement............................................ 33
Written Testimony............................................ 35
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Mills, Mark P.:
Opening Statement............................................ 53
Written Testimony............................................ 55
Mumgaard, Robert:
Statement for the Record..................................... 110
O'Mara, Collin:
Opening Statement............................................ 43
Written Testimony............................................ 45
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 98
Resources for the Future:
Opinion piece by Daniel Shawhan, Fellow at Resources for the
Future, first published by The Hill on May 20, 2021........ 117
Working Paper 2-10, entitled ``The Value of Advanced Energy
Funding'' published in April 2021.......................... 119
Trout Unlimited:
Letter for the Record........................................ 156
Trujillo, Hon. Tanya:
Opening Statement............................................ 13
Written Testimony............................................ 15
Questions for the Record..................................... 92
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 160
WateReuse:
Statement for the Record..................................... 161
(The) Wilderness Society:
Letter for the Record........................................ 164
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
Opening Statement............................................ 4
----------
The text of the discussion draft addressed in this hearing is
available at https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/8E5E06C5-
60F6-4C50-8D19-20A80D0F255B
THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OF THE U.S. ENERGY SECTOR, WESTERN WATER AND
PUBLIC LANDS, AND CONSIDERATION OF A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in Room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin III,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. We are here today to discuss infrastructure
investments to address our energy sector, public lands, and
western water needs. While we will be focusing our discussion
on our jurisdiction, let me begin by noting that
infrastructure, broadly speaking, is truly a bipartisan issue
that serves as the backbone of society. It is critical at this
time in our history that we come together to invest in our
country in ways that are both fiscally responsible and reflect
the needs of our nation. With the right strategy, reinvesting
in our nation's infrastructure can also strengthen the economy,
create jobs, boost our competitiveness, and help tackle climate
change. Although I do not anticipate we will all agree on the
size or scope of investment necessary to do this, I think all
of my colleagues will agree that the areas within our
jurisdiction are an important piece of the broader conversation
about our infrastructure needs.
Let me turn now to the draft legislation before us
[discussion draft of the Energy Infrastructure Act] and the
areas in which it invests. First off, the bill funds the
demonstration of pilot projects included in the bipartisan
Energy Act in an all-of-the-above way, with billions of dollars
for advanced nuclear, carbon capture and direct air capture,
renewables, energy storage, and industrial emissions solutions.
You have all heard me say time and time again, we need to
address climate change through innovation, not elimination, and
that is what this legislation would do. That includes going
after the low-hanging fruit, like energy efficiency, and doing
what we can to reduce energy use in our residential,
commercial, and industrial buildings. This not only results in
real emission reductions, but it also saves people money.
The text also builds on and complements the Energy Act by
investing in CO2 infrastructure that will be needed
to make CCUS (Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage) and
direct air capture a reality in the way we need it to be. It
would invest in technologies that have low or no emissions,
including supporting our existing zero-emission nuclear fleet
and advancing hydrogen technologies that can significantly
decarbonize our energy, industrial, and transportation sectors
without relying on foreign supply chains. It would also build
out supply chains that are needed for clean energy
technologies, including making it easier to responsibly mine
critical minerals and investing in domestic refining
capabilities, in addition to onshoring battery manufacturing
and recycling. We currently rely on other countries for each
piece of that supply chain, some with questionable mining
practices, and that is just not right.
This legislation would also invest heavily in our
electrical grid to improve the resilience, flexibility, and
security of our energy infrastructure. We have seen across the
country, time and time again, that the grid is not as resilient
as we need it to be from extreme weather events, wildfire, and
cyberattacks. On the theme of resilience, this legislation
would also make substantial, targeted investments to restore
the health of our forests and mitigate the wildfires that have
been impacting many of the communities in our western states.
It also includes significant investments into legacy
cleanup efforts to address issues with abandoned energy
infrastructure that powered our country to greatness. That
includes plugging orphaned wells, which not only puts people to
work, but also curbs methane emissions, which are 84 percent
more potent than CO2 in the first two decades. It
also includes investing in the reclamation of abandoned mine
lands (AMLs). Our coal communities bear the scars of having
mined the coal to power this country to greatness over the last
century. While this funding will do a great deal of good, it
will still not be enough to cover all of the outstanding
reclamation work that is desperately needed to finish the job
and protect the health and safety of these communities in many
cases, and provide new economic opportunities for these areas.
So I will be continuing to work with my colleagues to
complement this funding with an extension of the AML
Reclamation fee that is set to expire in September. Inaction is
truly not an option.
These are just a few of the highlights of all the
infrastructure investments the bill contemplates. This almost
$95 billion investment would deliver on the President's
American Jobs Plan in many big ways that can garner bipartisan
support. I look forward to discussing these proposals and the
needs they address with our panel today. With that, I turn to
my friend and Ranking Member, Senator Barrasso, for his opening
remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for your commitment to develop bipartisan
infrastructure legislation. We are very grateful. It is
critical that this Committee and the Senate as a whole proceed
through regular order, not the partisan reconciliation process.
I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to begin
a regular order legislative process on infrastructure
legislation. I applaud you also for drafting a bill that
recognizes the necessity for advanced nuclear and carbon
capture technologies. I am also grateful that the legislation
includes money for water infrastructure in the West. If any
projects within this Committee's jurisdiction meet the
definition of infrastructure, they are clearly Bureau of
Reclamation projects.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to
understand the rationale behind the lack of process used to
draft the legislative proposal before us today. We all
recognize the need to move infrastructure legislation in a
timely manner. Neither I nor my staff had the opportunity to
review or provide input on the draft bill before it was
released last Thursday. It is also true for most of the
Republican members of this Committee. So I believe we should
work to build a broad consensus. The lack of consultation means
we are not including the priorities for all of the Committee
members who represent the states with different needs. There is
time to right the ship to build this consensus and to pass
something that we can all support. So I am ready to work with
you, Mr. Chairman, to do just that.
I believe the draft bill still needs work. It does not
authorize programs where we should and it does appropriate
money where we should not. The Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee is, after all, a committee that authorizes
programs--does not appropriate funds. I am aware of no
precedent where this Committee appropriated anything close to
the $100 billion included in this draft bill. I am troubled
that the bill includes $5 billion for a program that appears
designed to further bail out the State of California and its
failing electric grid. The State of California already has a
$75 billion budget surplus.
I am concerned that the bill funds the Department of Energy
to coerce states to adopt building codes which may restrict the
use of natural gas. I am opposed to spending $500 million for
schools to plant outdoor gardens and install green roofs. I am
concerned about appropriating 10 times the amount of money that
Congress has authorized for weatherization assistance. I am
opposed to a 20-fold increase for an energy efficiency program
and am concerned that this bill includes almost no permitting
reform. Permitting reform is one thing that we really need to
actually get infrastructure built. The draft also leaves open
critical questions. How will we pay for this bill? Will the
bill be incorporated into Majority Leader Schumer's partisan
reconciliation process or will it go by regular order? Is this
bill a wise and prudent use of American taxpayer dollars, or
does it spend money on initiatives which the private sector
already intends to support?
Now I, along with all the Republicans on this Committee, am
ready to get to work, Mr. Chairman. We have policy ideas and
legislation that address America's infrastructure needs. We
also need answers to our questions and changes to address our
concerns. I want to again thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this important hearing and for beginning this committee process
on this very important topic. I also want to welcome the
witnesses to the Committee today and look forward to the
testimony from all of you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
I would like to welcome all of our witnesses to the
Committee and thank you for being part of the important
discussion today.
Today, we have with us Dr. Kathleen Hogan, Acting
Undersecretary for Science and Energy at the Department of
Energy; Hon. Tanya Trujillo, Assistant Secretary of Interior
for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior; Mr.
Chris French, Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest Service; Dr.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the President of American Action Forum;
Mr. Collin O'Mara, the President and CEO of the National
Wildlife Federation; and finally, Mr. Mark Mills, a Senior
Fellow with the Manhattan Institute.
Before we get started with you, Dr. Hogan, I have Senator
Wyden who has a committee that he has to run to real quick.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your
thoughtfulness and Senator Barrasso as well. I pledge to make
this a filibuster-free zone, and I will take just one minute to
be very brief.
Mr. Chairman, I want it understood that I think you have
put out a laudable product here, and I am not saying this just
because you included three of my pieces of legislation. I do
want everyone to know--and I see my western colleagues, you
know, with us--that every living soul in the West is
collectively holding their breath right now for the next
devastating wildfire to hit, and people sure have reasons to
worry. Parts of my state are already on fire because of the
record-breaking heat and severe drought conditions and it is
still only June.
So Chairman Manchin, your hearing on energy infrastructure
could not be more timely. Obviously, we are working in several
areas with respect to infrastructure to implement the
President's Build Back Better agenda. There is an urgent need
to address this climate crisis and invest in clean, renewable
energy, and the three bills that I would like to put
additional, supplemental material into the record on are the
Disaster Safe Power Act and the prescribed fire legislation and
additional language with respect to the Forest Service Legacy
Roads and Trails program. We are going to need, in my view,
increased funding above what it is in this proposal, but I
think we all know that we have to work on these issues in the
way this Committee has always focused, which is to do it in a
bipartisan way.
I thank the Chairman for the chance to take this minute and
the indulgence of, particularly, my western colleagues, because
I think it would be fair to say, for purposes of the record, we
are very much like-minded on this issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
And also, we have Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
The Chairman. She has to go to her Commerce Committee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
indulgence. I hope to come back much later, obviously, in this
process, but I just wanted to thank you for your draft
legislation. So important to the very important needs to ensure
electricity prices remain affordable, harden our grid against
increasing intense and extreme weather, and the importance of
cybersecurity as well as the competitiveness to manufacturers
to export great products around the world.
Temperatures in Washington State are going to reach a
record high next week and this weekend. And so I think that
these debilitating highs that impact so much of our western
economy now need to be dealt with. Mr. Chairman, you
incorporated several provisions on the Grid Modernization and
Expansion Act--very important legislation. I hope that this
21st century grid is smarter, more resilient, more reliable,
and more affordable. So thank you for including those
provisions, and I appreciate your leadership.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Is there anyone else in the Committee that wants to make a
quick statement before we go to the witnesses?
If not, thank you all.
We will start with Dr. Hogan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF DR. KATHLEEN HOGAN, ACTING UNDERSECRETARY
FOR SCIENCE AND ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Hogan. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on behalf of the Department of Energy on
the role of energy infrastructure in achieving the Biden-Harris
Administration's clean energy and jobs goals and our initial
evaluation of the infrastructure discussion draft.
Affordable, clean, reliable, and secure energy is essential
to a prosperous America, and DOE is already jump-starting
efforts to improve our energy infrastructure and create jobs,
enhance national security, and transition to the clean-energy
economy of the future, and we are prioritizing the communities
who have been left behind. We have set ambitious new goals to
cut solar costs, add new gigawatts of offshore wind capacity,
and reduce the cost of clean hydrogen. And with other agencies,
we have identified nearly $38 billion in existing federal
resources to help the hardest hit communities as they shift
their reliance on fossil fuels. And we are leading an
interagency working group on coal and power plant communities
to promote investments in such communities.
So this discussion draft of the Committee will help us do
more, but today's challenge will not be met without the scale
and scope of the American Jobs Plan. President Biden released
the American Jobs Plan in March. It is the biggest investment
in America since World War II, positions the U.S. to win the
global energy market, will put millions of Americans to work,
and lays the foundation for economic growth for decades to
come. The plan recognizes the urgency to act. It goes beyond
addressing critical infrastructure and requires addressing
head-on the challenges posed to our security and our economy by
the climate crisis. It proposes investments in clean energy
research, a full range of demonstration projects, it would
deploy technologies to deliver clean, affordable energy to
every community, and invest in factories to propel U.S.
leadership in clean energy manufacturing, providing good-paying
jobs. We see this discussion draft as inspired in part by the
American Jobs Plan and advancing the recent Energy Act of 2020.
I will speak to some expanded DOE capabilities as well as some
areas where greater authority and funding would be beneficial.
First, the discussion draft, building on the Energy Act of
2020, appropriates important funding toward key research
facilities and demonstrations, including and as you mentioned:
energy storage, advanced nuclear, renewable energy, critical
minerals, and industrial decarbonization. It includes
additional efforts on carbon capture, hydrogen, carbon
transportation and storage, grid resilience, and
cybersecurity--all elements of the American Jobs Plan. It
broadens key DOE capabilities with the existing nuclear fleet,
the loan guarantee program, and upgrading our nation's
electricity transmission system, largely consistent with the
President's vision for a grid-deployment authority at the
Department of Energy. It helps lower utility costs for schools,
federal facilities, low-income homes, and other buildings and
facilities.
That said, additional capabilities, flexibilities, and
funding as outlined in the American Jobs Plan are needed. For
example, more flexible and larger state, tribal, and local
grants to advance clean energy throughout the country, greater
supply chain investment beyond the batteries and critical
minerals sphere, and more resources to help retool existing
factories and transition workers. Additional transmission-
related provisions, so DOE can support states and utilities as
they plan, permit, and pay for hardened, expanded, and
modernized transmission systems. Additional scope for DOE's
loan program and additional funding to allow use of the
broadened scope, and a clean energy standard to leverage
private sector investment, yield locally tailored energy mixes,
and offering another way to provide incentives for nuclear
power as you envision.
So we do have before us a generational opportunity to
invest in our future, capitalize on an emerging $23 trillion
global clean energy market and create millions of good-paying
careers, while making our electricity grid, our homes, and our
communities safer, cleaner, and more resilient. So again, the
Committee's infrastructure discussion draft is an important
step, but this generational opportunity to Build Back Better
requires the American Jobs Plan. We look forward to working
with you throughout the legislative process and here to answer
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hogan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Hogan.
Next, we are going to have Ms. Trujillo.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TANYA TRUJILLO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF THE INTERIOR FOR WATER AND SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso,
and members of the Committee. Thank you for providing the
Department of the Interior with the opportunity to testify on
the discussion draft of the Energy Infrastructure Act. In
addition to my testimony today, Interior will be happy to
provide the Committee with additional views and assistance as
the bill moves forward. We are very happy to be working closely
with our colleagues at the Department of Energy and the
Department of Agriculture on these important programs.
Many of the provisions in the draft bill complement the
Administration's American Jobs Plan and fit well within the
Department of the Interior's priority goals. Addressing the
challenges of climate change and America's aging infrastructure
are priorities for the Department as we continue to invest in
measures to increase climate resilience and manage our public
lands for the benefit of the American people. In my role at
Interior, I work closely with the Bureau of Reclamation and the
U.S. Geological Survey, but all parts of the Department are
united in tackling these important challenges. Faced with
unprecedented drought and record-setting temperatures, Interior
is working closely with our sister agencies and with state and
local entities to provide assistance to farmers, tribes, and
other water users to help respond to the severe drought
conditions we are facing. Providing additional capabilities to
respond to drought and meet water supply needs are some of the
many examples in the draft bill that are complementary to the
Administration's proposals in the American Jobs Plan and to our
ongoing work at Interior. For example, with respect to the
provisions in Title II, we are utilizing the best available
science to help ensure that we can meet the Administration's
recently announced goals to strengthen American supply chains
and to promote economic security, national security, and good-
paying union jobs here at home.
With respect to critical minerals, the USGS (United States
Geological Survey) is responsible for mapping, characterizing,
and quantifying the nation's geologic resources, including
critical minerals. The Department will work very closely with
other federal agencies, tribal nations, and state and local
entities to ensure we can meet the goals for sustainable
production, refining, and recycling capabilities for critical
minerals here at home through environmentally responsible,
appropriately sited, critical mineral production from our
public lands. We look forward to working with this Committee to
achieve those goals.
In Section 6001, relating to orphaned wells, that section
establishes a program to plug, remediate, and reclaim orphaned
wells through grants to states and new programs for tribes and
federal lands. The Department recently testified before this
Committee in strong support of that section's goals and for
remediating the thousands of orphaned oil and gas wells on
federal and nonfederal lands. Those wells and abandoned mines
pose serious safety hazards while also causing ongoing air,
water, and other environmental damage. Reclamation of orphaned
wells helps to ensure that any impacts on the land and
resources are not permanent, and the additional reclamation
creates jobs.
Section 7001 would provide additional funding for the
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to address legacy abandoned
coal mine sites throughout the nation. The Administration
supports reauthorization of the Abandoned Mine Land Fee
Authority before its expiration on September 30th in order to
continue this important work.
Title VIII of the draft bill highlights the magnitude of
this year's severe heat and drought to emphasize the need to
improve our wildfire management capabilities before, during,
and after the fires occur. We agree with the draft bill's
provisions that there is an urgent need to focus equally on
wildfire prevention and mitigation efforts while continuing to
carry out our core wildfire response activities.
With respect to western water provisions, as I mentioned
earlier, the Department recognizes the drought impacts facing
the West. I work on them every day. Drought resilience
projects, water efficiency projects, and other water management
improvements provide critical support for our communities and
stakeholders as they continue to prepare to respond to the
drought.
We would also like to see the addition of additional
provisions relating to other priorities, such as Indian water
right settlements, rural water projects, and critical dam
safety improvements.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Department's
views on this discussion draft. The President has made clear
that this is a top priority, and we welcome the opportunity to
work with the Committee. This concludes my statement, and I
will be happy to answer questions. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Trujillo follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. French.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRIS FRENCH, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. French. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today. The Energy Infrastructure Act
discussion draft before us recognizes key investments critical
to the USDA Forest Service and highlights areas detailed in the
President's American Jobs Plan. It offers thoughtful solutions
to many of the issues our agency currently faces.
First and foremost, our greatest challenge is to address
the wildfire crisis occurring throughout the nation. We must
address it at the scale of the problem and bring long-term
relief to our firefighters, our communities, and our forests. I
am happy to see that the discussion draft addresses this crisis
on several fronts. As you know, last year was one of the most
devastating fire seasons on record. There were too many lives
lost, more than 10 million acres burned, and more than 17,000
structures lost. We find ourselves facing another challenging
year. Drought conditions exist in much of the West, and we are
seeing record high temperatures. With more than 29,000 fires
that have occurred so far this year, we have already raised our
national preparedness level to level four, a level we have not
been at this early in the season since 2002. We have already
deployed more interagency resources and are experiencing more
fires than we did at this same point last year. Again, we have
a crisis.
To that end, the discussion draft recognizes the need to
increase, recruit, retain, and compensate a professional
federal firefighting workforce. It recognizes the need to make
key investments in technology, predictive services, and state
and local firefighting partners. And most imperative, it
recognizes the need to reduce the risk of wildfires through
restoring our forested landscapes through a variety of federal
and state-based programs. As the draft recognizes, federal
firefighters need to be properly compensated for their work and
the risks they take. Federal wages for firefighters have not
kept pace with wages offered by state, local, and private
entities in many areas of the United States. I know this
firsthand. Early in my career, I started as a GS-4 temporary
firefighter. In 1992, I made $7.60 an hour. Thirty years later,
that starting pay is $11.60 an hour, an increase of only $4. It
is not enough for us to be competitive, to recruit and retain
the firefighters, nor does it recognize the risk of the work
they do. So we share the Committee's concerns about the
competitive pay and are engaging with the wildland firefighter
community and the Office of Personnel Management to find
solutions. I look forward to working with you on this important
issue.
Next, the Forest Service carries out nearly three million
acres of wildland fire treatments a year, but it is not nearly
enough. To really make progress, our scientists show us that we
need to accomplish two to four times these treatments per year,
but they have to be in the right places, where the outcomes of
those treatments reduce the risk to our communities. In many
cases, these are not the easiest and the cheapest acres to
treat, but they are the right acres. President Biden's American
Jobs Plan, through initiatives such as the Civilian Climate
Corps, calls for restoring nature-based infrastructure to
increase resilience and reduce the risks associated with
extreme wildfires. We believe the investments in wildfire risk
reduction in Title VIII will make a significant start to
reducing the threat of wildland fire communities across the
West.
We also appreciate the provisions that invest in ecosystem
restoration. We have a lot of work to do on our post-fire
restoration needs. For example, wildfires right now create 80
percent of our reforestation needs and the Forest Service is
only enabled to keep up with about six percent of that. We have
a rapidly increasing reforestation backlog. Provisions in Title
VIII that address restoration activities, post wildfire,
invasive species, and stream restorations will help us
accommodate critical work that often goes undone. It is also
important that we remediate National Forest System lands
significantly impacted by past use. The Forest Service has
inherited more than 11,000 orphaned oil and gas wells, and we
appreciate the Committee's attention to this important issue
and support the goal of Section 6001.
Finally, this past year, we saw 168 million users on our
national forests, a new record and an increase of nearly 18
million people. We know that national forests and grasslands
provide restorative experiences and natural connections that
people needed during the pandemic. The Great American Outdoors
Act addresses about 20 percent of our deferred recreation
maintenance, but there is a need to provide facilities and
services that match the surge in visitor demand and that reduce
barriers for communities that are not served by our current
infrastructure. I appreciate that Title VIII includes
acknowledgement of and some additional funding for recreation
sites experiencing use beyond their carrying capacity.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
would be happy to take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Eakin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF DR. DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN,
PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ACTION FORUM
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso,
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be
here today to discuss this important and very timely issue. I
think I would like to make three brief points and then I would
look forward to answering your questions.
First, is that Congress and this Committee have the
opportunity to do something very important by investing in
productivity and long-term growth in the United States. The
Administration's budget, which is more optimistic than the CBO,
shows long-term growth at two percent or a little bit below.
Investing in core productive infrastructure of the type
contemplated by this Committee is a way to raise that
productivity growth and benefit Americans in all walks of life.
It is the most important single economic indicator over the
long term. The composition of the spending is the key there.
This has to be things that raise productivity. And so, even
though there are going to be other demands for taxpayer
dollars, focusing on those core infrastructure areas and
avoiding spending money on things which will not raise
productivity, is probably a key design issue for this Committee
and for the Congress.
The second thing is that it can do that without
exacerbating the risk of higher inflation that we are
experiencing right now. This spending would be very different
than that in, for example, the American Rescue Plan (ARP),
which is one of the things that has fueled the rising
inflation. We have seen in the first half of 2021 an increase
in inflation across the board. We saw the highest core CPI
since June 1992 in the Mace statistics. We see supply chain
price increases. We see producer price increases. Asset prices
have been extremely high and volatile. All of this is a tribute
to the kind of over-stimulus that came from the front-loaded
$1.9 trillion that we saw in the ARP. This Committee and the
Congress can back-load this plan and pay for it in its
entirety, avoiding the inflationary risks, but at the same time
supplementing the pace of long-term economic growth and that, I
think, would be a tremendous design opportunity for the
Committee and for the Congress and I encourage you to take
advantage of it.
The third point I would like to make about the programs
that are in the jurisdiction of this Committee is that
investment in energy infrastructure is what the private sector
does. Over the past 10 years, if you look at Department of
Energy and other government programs, they spent about $30
billion on investments in energy. In 2020, hardly a banner year
for the U.S. economy and for investment, the private sector
invested $85 billion in clean energy efforts. So in thinking
about your policy goals, remember, it is the private sector
that is going to provide the money, whether it is done through
paying taxes, buying the bonds that the Treasury tries to sell,
or investing their own dollars and giving them appropriate
incentives, is what the market has done. We have seen the
market apply profits tests to different projects and reward
innovation in clean energy. That is at the heart of being
successful in addressing the climate goals that the nation has
set out. And so I would encourage you to take advantage of the
private sector in the design to use it for project selection
and innovation and to allow the economy to continue to innovate
and grow more rapidly. That would meet all the tests of
improving the long-term outlook for economic growth, improve
the long-term outlook for the planet and the climate and
avoiding near-term risks of inflation, which could be damaging
to fixed-income seniors and low-income Americans.
I thank you for the chance to discuss this today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Holtz-Eakin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. O'Mara.
OPENING STATEMENT OF COLLIN O'MARA,
PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
Mr. O'Mara. Thank you, Chairman Manchin. Good to see you,
Senator Barrasso, and members of the Committee. I cannot think
of a better Committee to be having this conversation with than
the Committee that last year in the previous Congress managed
to pass the Great American Outdoors Act public lands package,
as well as the Energy Act of 2020. And the work that this
Committee did over those two years has laid the foundation for
so many of the items that you are proposing for investment
today. So I just want to thank you for the great bipartisan
leadership that we see in this Committee.
Now, the time in which we are talking about these
investments, coming back to where Senator Wyden started just a
few minutes ago, the landscape is rough right now. You know, we
are looking at wildfires--at least 39 major fires across the
country--already at half a million acres burned across the
West, 40 million acres burned over the last five years, and
that is on top of the challenge we are having with drought
conditions that are at record levels all over the West, as well
as an above-average hurricane season they are anticipating in
the East. To have an infrastructure package that is so well
climate-informed is truly historic. I am greatly appreciative
of all the language in this bill that does conform, in great
ways, with the American Jobs Plan that President Biden put out,
but also showing that some of these investments are bipartisan.
I just wanted to use my few minutes today to highlight five
areas that I think are important to keep in the package, maybe
a few ideas for tweaks and improvements, but again, just
thanking all of you for coming together to show that we can
work across the aisle on these important issues to both advance
our climate goals and our economic competitiveness and
productivity goals.
In the energy innovation and industrial sector, thank you
for including the level of funding that you are proposing--for
carbon capture and sequestration and the nuclear investments.
We do think there are opportunities to go bigger on the
renewable side and the energy efficiency side, but again, these
are wildly popular proposals--75 percent of the American people
support energy innovation deployment of these technologies. We
would encourage you to plus-up Title X. I think there are more
opportunities to reduce criteria pollution in the carbon
capture space and that is something we would like to work with
you on because there are concerns about the pollution that
comes from some of these technologies. The technology is
actually showing that you can achieve significant reductions in
sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and mercury as you are
applying these technologies, not so much on NOX, but
it is an area for potential bipartisan work to make sure those
technologies are both capturing carbon as well as other
pollutants.
We are incredibly excited about Chairman Manchin's
leadership on abandoned mines and orphaned wells, also working
closely with folks like Senator Cramer, Senator Lujan, so many
others, Senator Hoeven, Senator Heinrich, on cleaning up our
mines and wells. The funding levels are fantastic. Proposing
them at the same level of the American Jobs Plan is a great
start. We strongly support Senator Manchin's call for AML
reauthorization, an incredibly important program because, as
the Chairman said, $11 billion, as big of a number that is, it
is not going to clear the backlog. We have much more there. The
$4.7 billion proposed for orphaned wells--again, a great
start--but we have tens of billions of dollars in need there.
We would also encourage the Committee to look at hardrock
cleanup costs, as well as abandoned uranium mines. That backlog
is just getting bigger and bigger. We need to look at 1872 as
part of the conversation, but this is a huge opportunity to
make a down payment and, frankly, put people to work in the
places where we need them most right now. I would also
encourage the Committee to complement this conversation with
conversations around 1872--the General Mining Act, as well as
oil and gas binding requirements, so we are not in the same
mess 20 years from now as additional wells and mines go offline
and require cleanup, so we do not wind up in the same place
again.
The third place is on the forestry piece and kind of
picking up on my friend Chris's comments, it is fantastic that
the forestry language is in here, the fire language, the
ecological restoration. It is not nearly enough. You know, we
estimate we need an almost $60 billion investment in our
forests over the next five years, at least $33 billion of that
should go to the Forest Service. And we also need a lot more
resources for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). We estimate
more than $6 billion of need for the Bureau of Land Management.
A lot of the fires that are starting right now are not starting
in our forests, they are starting in our grasses. It is our
buffalo grasses. It is our cheatgrasses. These invasive grasses
that are growing like crazy when it is wet and then all of a
sudden when the drought comes, you know, all of a sudden, they
are tinder for everything. A huge opportunity to put people to
work and frankly, protect a lot of other assets and
communities.
Two last quick ones on critical minerals. We are really
excited that we are having a serious conversation. The idea of
having a supply chain that is controlled by the Chinese or in
the Congo or other places is unacceptable. We want to do it
safely. You want to make sure that we are recycling more and we
appreciate Senator King's leadership on recycling. We think
there is a big opportunity there. We also think there are some
places we should protect. And again, there is some language
around 1872.
And also, we are just very supportive of the language
around transmission and carbon pipelines. Some of those
innovative parts of this package are in the transmission space.
We strongly encourage you to keep them. We appreciate Senator
Heinrich's leadership and Senator Cantwell's leadership about
the things around regionalism, around regional planning, loan
authority. Bolstering the authority is absolutely important
work. And finally, with my last few seconds, we would encourage
this Committee to continue working with other committees on
things like the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Clean Energy
Standard, working lands, and the Clean Energy Tax Credits.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my one
second.
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Mara follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. You did good, Collin.
Mr. Mills.
Mr. Mills. Hard act to follow. Good morning.
The Chairman. He got seven minutes into 4:59.
[Laughter.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF MARK P. MILLS,
SENIOR FELLOW, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE
Mr. Mills. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, this
hearing is focused on draft legislation regarding the
infrastructure implications of shifting the nation's energy
supply toward lower carbon systems. So I think it is prudent to
consider the full range of options, especially those that could
be implemented rapidly and cost effectively, but first, permit
me to offer a global context because this is, after all, a
global issue.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has laid its roadmap
to net zero and proposes a 1,200 percent increase in the global
production from wind and solar in just 20 years. It took the
global oil industry, for context, 50 years to expand that much
in energy-equivalent terms. So it is the net-zero roadmap that
everyone is chasing that expects a twofold faster growth rate
in physical infrastructures of energy machines and one that
will require using 1,000 percent more materials to build. The
latter is the physical reality of building wind and solar
technology. It is, to paraphrase, not ``a feature, not a bug,''
it is both a feature and a bug. This is the kind of scale and
velocity for infrastructure expansion that is truly
breathtaking, and frankly, I have to go on record as saying I
do not think it is actually possible. But in the spirit of
seeking means to reduce global hydrocarbon use, one might
consider five energy options that do not appear to be on the
currently favored roadmap.
So first--greater, faster, and more certain reductions in
carbon dioxide emissions would happen if the U.S. ensured
liquid natural gas exports increased as much in the future as
has already happened. If it were not for the epic increase in
global natural gas supply and the drop in prices that occurred
at the same time, the world today would be burning about two
billion tons more coal per year. That dynamic was driven in
large part by American production, where in Pennsylvania, Ohio,
and West Virginia, for the record, collectively accounted for
nearly two-thirds of that domestic expansion. America's
Appalachian region is one of the world's biggest producers of
natural gas and could be far bigger yet. No incentives are
needed to get America's gas producers to supply more. The key
to facilitating more exports rests in the infrastructures of
pipelines and ports where Congress certainly can play a
constructive role.
A second, obvious low-carbon energy option would be to
accelerate next generation nuclear energy deployment, which is
profoundly superior in physical infrastructure terms. The
energy in a pound of nuclear fuel matches 60,000 pounds of oil
or 100,000 pounds of coal or one million pounds of Tesla-class
batteries. The impediments to grid-scale nuclear power have
been well-
documented, as this Committee well knows. There are exciting
options now in the form of mini-reactors that could power even
small cities to small towns. The key to unlocking this
technology is commercial validation and production scaling. We
could consider converting a large share of the Federal
Government's electric supply to microgrids powered by mini-
reactors, possibly focused on military bases. A program could
be modeled on the military's competitive procurement process,
wherein one or two winners are awarded multi-billion dollar,
multi-year production contracts.
A third option for reducing oil use is simple, even if it
is unpopular--encourage greater use of next generation internal
combustion engines. The world will have hundreds of millions of
conventional cars for decades to come, even in the most
optimistic electric vehicle scenarios. The advanced combustion
engines could yield more oil savings over the coming decade
than the expansion of electric vehicles. New, superefficient
designs for internal combustion engines already exist. Some
have as few moving parts as an electric motor. Federal
assistance could be useful here, particularly the DOE's
advanced manufacturing program.
A fourth action to consider is the domain where I have
earlier testified. Because the increase in the use of wind,
solar, and batteries increases the imports of critical minerals
and materials--this is a critical area, and decades of
bipartisan proposals have all reached the same obvious
conclusion--decreasing import dependencies requires increasing
domestic mining. Any path to net zero passes directly through
critical infrastructures of mining and minerals processing.
Finally, a fifth policy action we should consider--it does
not seem to be on the table at a fulsome level--is pursuit of
lower carbon energy technologies will require capabilities and
technologies that are often deemed critical, but do not exist.
This is something both the IEA and Microsoft, for example, have
acknowledged. Truly radical innovations and advances will need
new science that can only be addressed through foundational
discoveries in physics and chemistry and biology. This, again,
is a domain where Congress can play a role.
In summary, given the $100 billion and change of spending
being contemplated in the legislation under consideration, the
scale and the long lead times inherent in civilization's energy
infrastructures require a long-term vision and I think it calls
for caution to avoid launching short-term initiatives that not
only would fail to achieve stated goals, but could damage the
U.S. economy and geopolitical stature.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mills follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mills, and thank all of you.
Now we will start with questions.
My first question will go to Dr. Hogan. Dr. Hogan, the
International Energy Agency has recently found that one of the
most cost-effective options available to reduce emissions while
maintaining reliability is to ensure continued long-term
operation of nuclear power plants. As you know, one reactor has
been shut down in New York, four are on the chopping block in
Illinois, and we have a goal by 2035 of being net zero. Is that
possible without nuclear staying online? Do you think the only
way to meet that is going to be reducing fossil altogether or
finding technologies that will help make it cleaner?
Dr. Hogan. Thank you. The Department of Energy is very
supportive of maintaining the existing fleet of nuclear power
plants for many of the reasons that you just mentioned.
Maintaining that fleet has been part of the nuclear energy
program mission for many years. We certainly are interested in
the additional provisions that you provided in this
infrastructure draft.
The Chairman. It would help with the financing to keep them
competitive so they will stay open?
Dr. Hogan. Exactly.
The Chairman. Can you save the four in Illinois? Because
they put a moratorium on closing. Can you save the four nuclear
plants in Illinois?
Dr. Hogan. We can certainly look at anything we can do
based on the ability that you give us to take a look.
The Chairman. Sure. I have sent the President a letter
basically asking him to intervene on this moratorium on closing
any more. And also, on your answer on the fossil fuels--
elimination or basically innovation?
Dr. Hogan. We are all about innovation and certainly we
know there are a number of ways to reduce the environmental
impacts of fossil fuels that also you are calling out important
investments in, in this discussion draft, that we find very
promising.
The Chairman. Ms. Trujillo, the Department of the Interior
estimates that the cost to complete the AML Reclamation work is
$10.6 billion. According to recent reports at Ohio River Valley
Institute, there could be as much as $18 to $20 billion in
unfunded Reclamation across the U.S., and roughly 84 percent of
remaining damage is concentrated in Appalachian states, which
is not a surprise--West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky,
Alabama, Virginia, and Tennessee. Can you explain the
discrepancy in these figures--what you all come up with, 10
versus 18--with the Ohio Valley River Institute? Why is there
such discrepancy?
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Senator Manchin. I would have to
consult with some experts on the exact rationale, but I know
there are a number of different inputs that are coming in. We
are receiving information from states, from other agencies, and
trying to work to incorporate that information. What we know is
the number is very large and we have to take action to try to
address the concerns.
The Chairman. At the beginning of the 21st century, most of
our energy for fossil came from that region and that is why we
have so many properties that need to be attended to.
To Dr. Holtz-Eakin, it is clear clean energy technologies
will require more mineral resources, but some projections
falsely claim that we will run out of these critical minerals,
let alone the challenges of being able to get a permit to even
get what we need out of the ground. So that foreign supply
chain is what we are depending on right now and we are willing
to change our whole transportation mode based on foreign supply
chains. What are your thoughts on that and how do you expect us
to be able to meet market demands? I am understanding the
demand is going to grow by over 70 times in the very near
future.
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. I think what we heard is that the
expectations--the enormous demands for electric vehicles, for
solar panels, for all sorts of things that require critical
minerals--the only way to do that and not rely on the Congo and
China is to have domestic supplies. And that means public
policies that permit those to be safely mined in the U.S. and
processed in the United States and we are behind the curve on
doing that.
The Chairman. How do you look at other energy sources such
as hydrogen--green hydrogen and blue hydrogen--that basically
would provide us with carbon-free energy? Should we be going
down that path too, which does not require foreign supply
chains?
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. I do not see any reason why we should be
picking among fuel sources and energy sources. We should be
trying to develop those which are cost effective and must meet
market tests and which deliver energy in a reliable fashion.
The Chairman. And that can be supplied basically by U.S.--
--
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes.
The Chairman [continuing]. Supply chains, foreign supply
chains.
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes, I think----
The Chairman. Does anybody else want to comment on that?
Dr. Holtz-Eakin [continuing]. I think the general--what I
would emphasize is, U.S. energy policy has been most successful
when it has been good economic policy, when it has provided
adequate market incentives and we should continue to do that.
The Chairman. Mr. Mills.
Mr. Mills. The challenge with hydrogen as an energy source
is obvious. It is a carrier, like electricity. It has to be
produced from something. Proposals to make hydrogen by using--
let's say wind turbines and solar arrays--increase the foreign
mineral dependency, they don't decrease it. If you make
hydrogen from natural gas, which is how almost all of it is
produced today, you eliminate foreign mineral dependencies.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Collin, real quick.
Mr. O'Mara. The only thing I would add is that right now we
recycle less than one percent of rare-earth minerals. And the
numbers are equally bad for the critical mineral list that the,
in the last Administration, this Administration, put together.
We talked a lot about lithium recycling. We need to be talking
about all of it because if we do that together, we can actually
meet a lot of our domestic needs.
The Chairman. So you are saying, basically with recycling
we can put those back into productive use again?
Mr. O'Mara. Yes, I mean, some elements degrade and some do
not.
The Chairman. Sure, sure.
Mr. O'Mara. We are still only recycling a third to half of
copper, right? So we need to be much better as a country at
this.
The Chairman. We know about recycling. Thank you very much.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Holtz-Eakin, I want to follow up with what you just
said--good energy policy is when it is good economic policy.
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Yes.
Senator Barrasso. So I have a couple short questions within
the legislation before us today.
Will funding energy-efficiency programs at say, 10 or 20
times their annual appropriated levels, will that help or hurt
the U.S. economy?
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. That will hurt.
Senator Barrasso. Do you want to explain exactly why that
would be?
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. I am deeply concerned about this notion of
scaling up by multiples of 20 times and 30 times programs. We
have seen this before, notably in the Recovery Act, where we
did, for example, on a broadband program. We got terrible
results, wasted a lot of taxpayer money, and efficiency
standards are a cost that--we do it for their benefits, but if
we do not get the benefits, then we have just imposed a cost on
the economy.
Senator Barrasso. So will buying electric transmission
capacity, which the private sector is already prepared to
purchase, will that help or hurt our U.S. economy?
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. That will hurt. It makes no sense to
displace what the private sector is already doing.
Senator Barrasso. How about closing roads and hiking trails
and therefore eliminating public access to our national
forests? Will that help or hurt the U.S. economy?
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Hurt.
Senator Barrasso. How about expanding Davis-Bacon? Will
that help or hurt?
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. That will hurt.
Senator Barrasso. So Mr. Mills, the draft bill includes
very little permitting reform. In your view, how urgent it is
that Congress include meaningful permitting reform in the
infrastructure bill? And I am going to ask you, Dr. Holtz-
Eakin, if you would prepare.
Mr. Mills. I think it is critical, and we can come back to
the energy minerals and critical minerals issues, which are
gratefully coming to the top of consideration. The average
permitting time in the United States to open a mine is
something on the order of 20 to 30 years. It is half that in
the world on average and it is half that again in many
jurisdictions. It is entirely a permitting issue and a
regulatory issue. It is not because we do not have the
resources or the technology.
Senator Barrasso. And Dr. Holtz-Eakin.
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. I think it is very important, but we have
some real insight into this from Congress's most recent surface
transportation bill, where it got some information gathering
requirements, and if you look at the monitor, the dashboard for
that, it shows that the paperwork associated with the
infrastructure financed by that bill--the paperwork takes about
30 million hours annually and costs $2 billion to comply with.
So there is a real permitting problem that needs to be
addressed.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Mills, unlike roads and bridges, most
energy infrastructure in the United States is privately owned
and privately funded. In fact, even most of the publicly owned
energy infrastructure is financed through bonds sold to private
investors. Would passing this bill with close to $100 billion
in direct federal spending, would that chase private investment
out of the energy sector?
Mr. Mills. Well, I think the short answer is yes. When the
government does direct spending on projects, they do chase
private investment out. That is well documented. The broader
question is, how does the government spend money constructively
to encourage private-sector spending to get leverage? That is
the proverbial devil in the details, but as we go to one end of
the spectrum, we do something, to put it in unkind terms, you
run the risk of Sovietizing our infrastructures.
Senator Barrasso. Dr. Holtz-Eakin.
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. That is my concern as well. One of the
things you get is not just the adequate level of spending from
the private sector, you get better project selection because
you are picking the most productive and most sufficient
investments.
Senator Barrasso. Let me follow with the--in terms of as
Congress is considering how to pay for the infrastructure
bill--would the U.S. economy be better off if we used some of
the unspent COVID stimulus funds rather than spend additional
new money?
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. That would turn non-investment spending
into investment spending, which is exactly what you need for
growth.
Senator Barrasso. So the infrastructure, following up, the
infrastructure proposal before us today--nearly $100 billion in
direct spending. In the past, you have explained how expensive
infrastructure bills, which are designed to stimulate the
economy, often end up creating economic headwinds instead.
Could you expand on that for the Committee?
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. My concern is that when you attach
stimulus to infrastructure investments you get the incentives
wrong. That incentive is get the money out the door as fast as
possible, that leads to excessive demand in the near-term and
inflationary pressures. We are seeing that right now from the
recovery program--American Rescue Program--among other things.
You also tend to run past the project selection criteria and
invest it poorly and that, as a result, has long-run headwinds
in your productivity growth and the combination is something
that I think this Committee and the Congress can avoid this
time. There is plenty of stimulus out there. There is no need
to worry about that. What we need to worry about is the quality
of our investments in long-term productivity and the climate
objectives of the nation.
Senator Barrasso. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think it is helpful to take a step back and ask, you
know, why are we here? We are here because I have wildfires
raging early and hard in New Mexico and I thought it was hot,
because we have been in triple digits for a few weeks, but NASA
satellites confirmed on June 20th that surface temperatures in
Siberia, North of the Arctic Circle, were 118 degrees. Our
forests cannot maintain themselves if we keep baking the planet
like this.
I want to thank you for the investments in this legislation
in transmission, in hydrogen, in weatherization, and orphaned
wells and in mine cleanup. I would suggest we need for the mine
cleanup money to apply to hardrock as well. I think we need to
look hard at a clean energy standard to meet the scale of time
that is necessary in this transition.
I want to talk for a second about hardrock. We all
acknowledge the need for critical minerals in these new
technologies, but I will say, our hardrock mining legislation
framework was written in 1872, and we will produce a lot more
critical minerals if we actually have safeguards for local
water supplies, if we have robust public involvement, and if we
cleanup the hundreds of thousands of abandoned hardrock mines
that litter the West. I first met former Governor John
Hickenlooper on the phone because the Animas River and San Juan
River were running yellow because we did not cleanup that mess
and it makes it hard to get communities to embrace a mine if
you have not reformed that fundamental law. So 1872 Mining Act
reform should be a prerequisite to give communities the
confidence to actually mine these materials.
Mr. O'Mara, I wish I could talk as fast as you. You
indicated the need for an additional $6.5 billion for forest
restoration, hazardous fuels management on BLM lands, another
six for rangeland management, water resources, resilience and
research on BLM and tribal lands. Talk to us about the
necessity of these efforts in order to break the current fire
cycle, which is releasing carbon, and talk a little bit about
the relationship to a potential 21st century CCC program that
can help us scale-up fast enough to actually turn this around.
Mr. O'Mara. Yes, thank you, Senator Heinrich and even on
your previous comment, those abandoned mines could be a very
rich source of the minerals that we need. So I mean, the work
that yourself----
Senator Heinrich. Absolutely.
Mr. O'Mara [continuing]. And Senator Murkowski have been
doing, it is incredibly important to harvest what is still in
those mines.
Look, I mean, very honestly, right?--we, for decades, have
not invested in our Bureau of Land Management lands, and the
decades of disinvestment have led to invasive species on the
vegetation side just running wild. We have 100 million acres
right now of cheatgrass that is basically just tinder. And so,
we have a wet spring. We have all the vegetation growing. We
have a dry summer, huge heat, all that becomes tinder. And you
know, whether it is the Great Basin or other places, it is not
just public lands, it is private lands too, and there is some
work we have to do on private grasslands, but grasslands and
tribal lands are--the rate of fire growth is some of the
fastest in the country. And so we talk about fire as a forest
problem, but we have to talk about tribal lands and grasslands.
And that is why having both investments on the wildfire side is
important, but also making sure investing in the restoration,
because it is also one of the best ways to prevent drought--by
having better storage, naturally, in the system, or more
storage in the headwaters as a way to restore these systems and
help downstream states like New Mexico.
Senator Heinrich. And I would add that cheatgrass is not
exactly forage for anything, right? It is not for livestock. It
is not for wildlife.
Dr. Hogan, if we were to simply, you know, we talk a lot
about innovation on this Committee, but I like to talk about
implementation on this Committee. And if we were to simply
electrify everything that we can today, all of the things that
we could swap out in our homes and businesses where we have
superior technology today--replacing gas furnaces, stoves,
water heaters with electric heat pumps, with induction stoves,
with air-source heat pump water heaters--what kind of an
emissions impact would we see if we did that throughout our
economy?
Dr. Hogan. I mean, certainly there are a number of great
electric technologies out there and we see them being adopted
in different parts of the country at different rates. As we
clean the grid where you can get to--with electrification and a
cleaner grid from a CO2 standpoint--you can get
close to a zero-carbon world from the energy that you use in
the built infrastructure.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
With that, we have Senator Lankford.
Senator Lankford. Chairman, thank you. Chairman, I also
want to thank you that you included the Title XVII loan program
changes that I have encouraged as part of the draft that is in
this. Dr. Hogan, you also mentioned the importance of those
program changes in some of your written statements. I
appreciate that as well. We have to get back to actually
handling our critical minerals, as all of you, I think, have
mentioned at some point, to figure out how we are going to
actually get to them.
Mr. Mills, I want to follow up on a statement that you just
made though. You made the statement that it takes 20 to 30
years to open a mine at this point. Can you go into greater
depth on that?
Mr. Mills. Well, yes, I will confess that I look at an
extraordinarily large body of research done by many agencies,
both federal and state, on the challenge of opening mines in
America and I would--to some of the comments, the hazards of
opening mines. Mining is difficult. I worked for a mining
company in Canada early in my career. I have been at mine
sites. I may be the only one in the room that has gone to the
bottom of a 5,000-foot vertical hardrock shaft. I like mining.
I know mining is hard. I know communities are challenged by the
physical infrastructure. I would say that the fact that the
U.S. has seen the barriers in all the senses--not just public
barriers, regulatory barriers, state--has chased mining out of
the country, fundamentally.
I do not see any evidence that we are going to be able to
change that in any of the proposals, anywhere, I think. I am
delighted that we are now paying attention to it. It is
critical. We are enormously dependent on imports of critical
minerals for all purposes. The path of chasing wind, solar, and
batteries will have an astonishing increase in mineral
dependency imports and the speed with which we increase the
demand for these minerals is far faster, it is astronomically
faster than any proposals to do anything that is being
discussed right now to open up U.S. mines. We will increase
imports and the balance of trade deficit and depend on nations
we do not like very much for a lot of minerals. That is just
locked into these plans.
Senator Lankford. So the United States figured out pretty
quickly during the beginning of the pandemic, when the
Communist Chinese government decided to hang on to PPE--that
was American companies that were producing in China that were
destined to be able to come to the United States--that from the
earliest days, the earliest moments of the pandemic, we could
not get PPE from American companies manufacturing in China. We
learned pretty quickly that if they want it, they are going to
keep it and they are going to turn that on and off. They have
used leverage already for rare earth minerals, rare earth
elements, and critical minerals with Japan and others to be
able to use leverage against them to be able to ship that out.
You made a statement saying that if we transition to net-
zero emissions, we would need to increase minerals mining by
700 to 4,000 percent.
Mr. Mills. Yes, that is correct. It is not my data. That is
the IEA's data. Other studies--UN studies, IRENA studies--have
all looked to these issues. The physical demand for not just
rare earths, but for common minerals, like copper and nickel
are astronomically large. I completely endorse the need for
creative, innovative ways to recycle these minerals. We under-
recycle many relatively easy-to-recycle minerals, like copper,
but the irony here is the rate of velocity of increase and
demand for the net-zero path would overwhelm. If we recycled
100 percent of the copper and nickel and manganese and cobalt
that we now use, it would not come close to supplying the needs
for the growth paths that are being put in place.
Senator Lankford. So the TransWest electric transmission
lines, I have referenced in this Committee before, moving power
from the Northwest into Wyoming. That process of permitting
started in 2007. They have yet to break ground on it and that
is an electric transmission line. So I come back to this issue
to say I really believe that in this legislation anything we
talk about on increasing our capacity to go net zero, we have
to deal with the permitting issues. If we cannot build a
transmission line in 15 years and we cannot build or start a
mine in 20 years, how long does it take right now to be able to
permit one nuclear power plant? What is the number? Does anyone
know right now if you are going to permit a nuclear power
facility?
Mr. Mills. Certainly measure it more than a decade. There
is no one who has managed to beat that record.
Senator Lankford. Dr. Hogan, do you have a good guess on if
someone wants to start a nuclear power plant, how long it takes
before they can actually break ground right now in permitting?
Dr. Hogan. I am not going to hazard a guess, but I do think
we have a next generation of nuclear plants for which the
permitting issues will be more straightforward.
Senator Lankford. So it may be eight years rather than ten?
Again, we will need a guess because we are trying to figure
out--if we are planning for a net zero by 2035 or 2050 and it
takes us 15 years to be able to put transmission lines up, 20
years to be able to do that, we are in the process of heading
straight toward total dependency on China and we cannot
actually get all this online.
Again, I am not an opponent to any of this. We have to
figure out what are realistic timelines on how we are going to
handle the permitting and how to be able to solve that or all
this is good theory and we will still be discussing it in 2060.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Now we have Senator Cortez Masto. Oh, she is not there. We
have Senator King.
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find myself in the
uncomfortable position of agreeing almost entirely with Senator
Lankford.
[Laughter.]
Senator King. When I was Governor, I did a lot of work on
environmental permitting in Maine, and what I said was I want
the highest environmental standards and the most timely and
predictable permitting process. And quite often, the problem is
the process, it is not necessarily the standards. So I agree
that I think that is something that we need to attend to. One
thing that we did in Maine that perhaps we should be talking
about here is one-stop shopping. You go to one agency that
handles all the permitting and they coordinate the activities
of the other agencies. So I do think that this is something
that we need to discuss because we are going to have to--as we
move away from fossil fuels, which, by the way, is a kind of
mining, to a different kind of mining--we are going to have to
deal with this problem. We cannot wish it away and we cannot
just say, ``Oh, we are going to build lots of windmills''--
which I used to do, by the way--or solar panels, but we have to
think about where these minerals are going to come from and as
Senator Lankford pointed out, the pandemic taught us we should
not be dependent upon our pacing adversary or potential
adversary to supply minerals that are critical to the
development of our economy.
So I think that is an important point.
Mr. French, I want to change the subject entirely. We had
your boss--I am not sure she is your boss--the head of the
Forest Service, Ms. Christiansen, was here earlier this week.
Mr. French. She's my boss.
Senator King. So okay.
Well, some significant data came out in that hearing. In
1988, we harvested 13 billion board feet off of federal land in
this country. Today, it is three billion. She testified that
that dramatic cut in the harvesting of timber in our federal
lands has contributed substantially to the fire problem. Do you
agree with that?
Mr. French. What I would say is----
Senator King. Remember, she's your boss.
[Laughter.]
Mr. French. She and I talk about this and work on this all
the time. The issue is that to reduce wildland fire risk, we
have to remove understories and small-diameter trees from areas
that have no value.
Senator King. Which, in Maine, we call pre-commercial
thinning.
Mr. French. Absolutely. We have to pay for that most of the
time.
Senator King. But that involves working the forests in a
productive way in order to--if you have greater harvesting, you
have more pre-commercial thinning because that makes the timber
more valuable and that lowers the fuel load on the floor of the
forest. Is that correct?
Mr. French. In some places, yes.
Senator King. But will you confirm that this dramatic drop
from 13 billion to three has contributed to the fire risk,
along with, of course, climate change, drought, heat and all of
those elements.
Mr. French. Senator, it has been a contributing factor in
some places, but not everywhere. So if you look in and around,
let's say southern California, in some of those forests there
that are non-commercial type areas, it is a very different
scenario.
Senator King. Well, and the grasslands that you testified,
that is a separate issue, I understand, but I think this is--we
cannot ignore though--this is one of these things, we cannot
ignore the fact that we are not clearing out the understory and
then we are going to have fires.
Let me move on for a minute. Dr. Hogan, I found myself,
again, in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Mr.
Mills. Research is critical and I hope that in all of this
practical application, we do not neglect the importance of
basic research. For example, I believe one of the greatest
barriers to a carbon-free future is storage. It may be
batteries. It may be molten salt. It may be other technologies,
but if we can beat the storage problem to deal with the
intermittency of solar and wind, that is a big deal and
research is where that needs to take place. So is that a
commitment of your Department?
Dr. Hogan. It is a tremendous commitment of our Department.
We totally agree with you.
Senator King. On the mining, I just want to touch quickly.
I agree, I think recycling, Mr. O'Mara, we have to do a lot
better job with that. We can mine our dumps instead of digging
holes in the ground. There is a tremendous resource there.
One problem, one place I do disagree with Mr. Mills is on,
well, I just want to raise a red flag about LNG (liquefied
natural gas) exports. Two problems that I am concerned about.
One is effect on domestic prices. We cannot repeal the supply
and demand, even this Committee cannot do that. And as supply
is distributed across the globe, it is taken away from
domestic, and I am just gravely worried about effect on
domestic prices. Australia did a huge export step and their
domestic prices went through the roof. So that is a concern.
Number two is, it's true, and I have always been an
advocate of natural gas as a transition fuel, that it does burn
cleaner than coal, oil, and other fossil fuel alternatives. The
problem is, when you count the methane attributed to the
extraction of natural gas, natural gas actually comes out right
equal with coal. And so, if we do not deal with the methane
issue that is connected with the transportation and mining of
natural gas, we are not going to gain anything environmentally.
That is a critical part of a clean-energy future, or
particularly a short-term clean-energy future as we move to
natural gas, but if that natural gas has the methane-implicit
content, we are not going to gain anything in terms of effect
on the atmosphere because, as we all know, methane is about 80
times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. So this has
to be something that we pay attention to.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall. Yes, well, thank you, Mr. Chairman,
again, for holding this hearing. Certainly, there is lots of
agreement here on our goals. Our goals of leaving this world
cleaner, healthier, safer. The goal of using more affordable,
cleaner energy. The goal of taking traditional energies and
making them cleaner. That is the great news, is that we agree
on these goals and then the question is ``How do we best get
there?'' And I was interested by Dr. Eakin's comments about
raising productivity as we take American taxpayer dollars and
invest money, especially in infrastructure, we want to know,
does it raise productivity? And I certainly never studied the
economy growing up or in school or much since then, but as I
understand, GDP increases when we increase efficiencies.
And if we are not going to increase the efficiency, we need
to figure out what is the cost for making the environment
cleaner, right? What is the return of that investment? As you
look through the plan before us, were there any red flags that
you were really concerned that the investment was not raising
productivity and there was not much of an environmental
impact--a return on investment, so to speak?
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. Well certainly, in the Administration's
American Jobs Plan, there are large amounts of resources
committed to things that are unlikely to raise productivity--
schools, you know, spending $300 or $400 billion on schools is
not going to raise the productivity of the American worker.
$400 billion on Medicaid expenses----
Senator King. Are you serious?
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. It will not.
Senator King. Education?
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. No, no, I didn't say education. I said
just the school buildings. The education is crucial and I would
concur with you on that because we are failing America's youth.
We have 25 percent to a third of fourth and eighth graders who
cannot read at grade, and that's been true for 10 straight
years. So do not label me as someone who doesn't think
education is important, but we're not doing anything about
that.
Senator King. Sorry, Senator.
Senator Marshall. I think----
The Chairman. We will add that to your time, sir.
Senator Marshall [continuing]. More specifically as we
invest in energy, were there some concerns here that it was not
a good return on investment?
Dr. Holtz-Eakin. My major concern is that moving from a
model where you rely on private investment in energy----
Senator Marshall. It is more efficient.
Dr. Holtz-Eakin [continuing]. You get some natural
efficiencies because risk capital is used in the process and if
you override that, you are unlikely to pick projects as
successfully. That is less efficient.
Senator Marshall. Okay.
My next question is for Mr. French. Again, I am not a
forest person. We do not grow many trees in Kansas, but
whenever I turn on the news all the forest fires are in the
western half of the country. The Southeast certainly has forest
as well and I guess--why are there hardly any major forest
fires in southeastern United States, but there are always more
in the western half?
Mr. French. Thank you, Senator.
Different ecosystems, but there is a lot of fire in the
Southeast. We have been able to maintain those through a lot of
prescribed fire and through management. And so, when you look
at the crisis we have right now, we need to both continue to
maintain those in the southern United States and we need to
thin and reduce the fuel loadings in those fire-adapted forests
in the West to get them into a state that we can maintain them,
like we are in the South.
Senator Marshall. I mean, again, I guess my frustration is
this is not rocket science.
Mr. French. No.
Senator Marshall. Though what you are describing is
something that the practice, so you are saying the practices in
the Southeast have been successful because they have
implemented them. There is no secret to what they are doing
there. Why haven't we been implementing these in the past?
Mr. French. It is different. The topography is different.
The resources haven't met the need and the systems are
different. The topography is different. They do burn
differently. We have been excluding fires for 110 years from
those places and we have not had prescribed fire or mechanical
treatments in those places so that now when we have fires, they
are burning at levels we just haven't seen before.
Senator Marshall. And I guess I will go back to the why. I
mean, I feel like we cannot see the forest for the trees,
really. We are trying to conserve something, but in the end
without using the prescribed fire, it costs us more in the long
run. Why have we just ignored this obvious solution?
Mr. French. You know, quite frankly, Senator, we haven't
had the resources to carry out that work at the scale needed.
Senator Marshall. Okay, thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. So this is the kind of lively panel
that I was waiting for and I am going to try to resist the
temptation to fan any flames.
First, Mr. Chair, I wanted to thank you for all the work on
the infrastructure, as you walk out the door.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hickenlooper. Well, he is doing the real work,
certainly there, the highest priority.
Let me start with Dr. Hogan, asking you a question here on
the NREL, National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, and the NREL
has a Seam study. I am sure you have seen that they are
building more transmission between largely disconnected parts
of the grid. This would pay for itself, up to three times, and
in so doing would provide immense benefit to those states that
are energy-rich in renewable energy, but do not have the
population centers to utilize that. Do you agree that building
more high-voltage transmission would unlock significant
resource potential? And we have heard a lot about permitting
and I think that is a valid point--at a time when we have gone,
we got a COVID vaccine permitted in record time. We had a
vaccine that was out, ready to go in 300 days. Perhaps this is
the time to have a bipartisan push on permitting improvement.
What is your sense?
Dr. Hogan. Well, thank you and yes, the country would
benefit from more high-voltage transmission lines for the
reasons that you point out and are well put forth in the NREL
Seam study. I think, you know, there are a number of
opportunities to move, as you say, energy from places that are
energy-rich to urban populations and to go across areas where
there is not too much activity going on. And you are absolutely
right that being really thoughtful about the permitting and
other-people parts of these conversations is really important.
I think that is really one of the sets of objectives behind the
American Jobs Plan proposal for a new grid development
deployment authority at the Department of Energy, one where we
could have the Department of Energy be a much stronger
coordinating force on a lot of these issues as well as having
access to some creative financing tools that can help
leverage--not replace--private sector investment in
transmission.
So again, a big part of that is in the infrastructure
discussion draft, but we would also love to talk about some
additional improvements there.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think you would find a lot of
support in the Senate for that.
Ms. Trujillo, I wanted to ask, as you know, western water
resource development management is somewhat unique. We have
projects that serve agriculture, population centers, you know,
things large and small, outdoor recreation economy. The $5
billion set aside in the discussion draft is a good start, but
I will add that many western water providers in Colorado are
urging that we do more. Do we need to prioritize additional
infrastructure in terms of water storage?
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you very much, Senator.
The issues in the West are very concerning. We are dealing
with drought on a daily basis and the provisions in the bill
are a good start. They support many of the ongoing programs
that we have in place to be able to address drought. We think
we can include more programs such as Indian water rights
settlements, rural water provisions, and dam safety. There is
an all-hands-on-deck approach right now to our water supply
issues.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great, thank you.
Mr. French, when you testified last week before the
Committee you spoke at some length about the protections that
could be afforded to Colorado lands through the CORE Act. And
this week, I would like to shift focus from lands that need
protecting to the lands that the Forest Service is trying to
help recover from wildfires. And I thought maybe you could
speak a moment about the backlog of projects with respect to
forest fire recovery, not just in Colorado, but across the
West.
Mr. French. Yes, thank you for the question, Senator. There
are at least 63 million acres of our National Forest System
right now that are in need of a backlog of treatments that are
in extreme condition to produce wildfire. Our scientists show
that if you want to reduce 80 percent of the risk to
communities, there is about 20 percent of those acres that we
need to treat. Those are the most critical spaces for us to be
in, and in order to do that we have to scale up our work by at
least two to four times what we are doing right now. That is
the backlog that we have to get up.
Senator Hickenlooper. Right, it is prodigious. Great, thank
you all very much. I have other questions I will submit in
writing. I yield to the Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Us Westerners love these conversations, don't we, Governor?
Senator Hickenlooper. We do.
Senator Daines. Alright. Cleaner, reliable water is
fundamental to human life. The Montana delegation has worked
for over a decade to adjust the cost share for the St. Mary's-
Milk River project so that much-needed reconstruction can take
place, and any rural water package must ensure that folks in
the Hi-Line of Montana get the help they need. This water
system is over 100 years old and it is one of the worst cost
shares in the nation, which is what led to the collapse of a
drop structure this past summer, you see behind me.
[The photograph mentioned follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Daines. It was a catastrophic failure and it
created huge problems for us. We rallied together and were able
to get a fix put in place here and repaired by the end of the
year, but it was tough.
If Congress does not move quickly to pass my bill, we could
find ourselves in the same situation yet again. Ms. Trujillo,
can you speak to the infrastructure needs on the St. Mary's-
Milk River system and the risks posed by further inaction?
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Senator Daines. I turned my mic on
the minute I saw that photo and I knew the question was coming
this way, so I appreciate your attention and prioritization of
that issue. We are also very concerned. We worked well in the
context of the prior emergency and we are looking forward to
providing testimony next week in the House on the provisions.
Senator Daines. Thank you and then, thanks again, how we
came together truly----
Ms. Trujillo. Yes.
Senator Daines [continuing]. State, federal, local--just it
was a great example of working together and getting a good
result after the failure.
Let us talk for a moment about forest management. While I
am glad that this bill, in relationship to the infrastructure,
funds much-needed forest work, I believe strongly we have not
had the paradigm shift that Chief Christiansen spoke about, in
fact, when she was here. We need to include some common-sense
management reforms. Region 1's litigation rate is higher than
ever. Here is a startling statistic: 93 percent of these
lawsuits are forest or fuel and vegetation management projects.
They are projects that could actually reduce the wildfire risk.
I just got off a phone call before I came to this hearing about
Montanans very concerned about what is going on with the
outlook on this fire season, which has already begun. Half the
project area on the map behind me burned in wildfire while the
project languished in the courts.
[The map mentioned by Senator Daines follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Daines. Because of the threat of litigation,
agencies are discouraged from streamlining NEPA, based on past
projects they know will not have significant environmental
impact. A substantial time and cost savings could be achieved
by litigation protections and streamlining these processes.
Sixty-three million acres are at high risk of wildfire at the
moment. We have to do just that, instead of just throwing more
money at this problem.
Mr. French, will this $5.5 billion be more effectively
utilized if paired with my litigation protections and
streamlining provisions such as the efforts we were doing here
to eliminate unnecessary consultation paperwork caused by the
now infamous Cottonwood decision and to simplify environmental
review for these collaboratively developed projects?
Mr. French. Thank you, Senator.
You know, if you look at our wildland fuel reduction
projects and our broad-scale restoration projects, two-thirds
of the effort and time that goes into those is usually through
the environmental analysis, compliance, and design. An average
project is going to take, at the quickest, eight months to a
year and generally it is two years to two and a half years to
get us through the environmental compliance side of things
before we can actually start to implement, with litigation that
could stretch on for years after that. And yes, we have seen in
many cases where, you know, projects that we had planned to
reduce fire are overcome by fire before we can implement them
as we go through those phases.
I think any sort of collaborative, concerted effort that
can help us do science-based, environmentally sound and public-
supported approaches to do this work more efficiently and
effectively, would make any investment like this better.
Senator Daines. It is so true, and these are collaborative
projects. These are projects that just make so much sense for
the vast majority of Montanans, and we have the very small,
small group here that litigate these that are out of touch with
where most Montanans are. In fact, Mr. Chairman, just last week
in this Committee, I heard calls for management reforms on both
sides of the aisle, and Chairman Manchin, thanks for your
support in this area. I hope to keep working with you on the
forest management provisions in this bill.
As I wrap up, I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I was very
encouraged by the language that you added that requires agency
review of critical mineral permitting. It is a big deal. I do
believe, as the Chairman does, we need to take more robust
steps to increase domestic critical mineral production in the
United States. We are far too reliant on foreign countries for
the minerals that drive our economy, especially since nearly
all of them can be found and mined in the United States. It
should not take decades to permit a mine, Mr. Chairman. So
thanks for your support on that.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to
the panelists.
Ms. Trujillo, let me start with you. I so appreciate
Senator Hickenlooper's comments. As we are all aware, there is
a historic drought happening in the West right now. The
Colorado River Basin is facing its worst hydrology on record,
which could lead to its first-ever shortage declaration this
year. I so appreciate your comments. It is all-hands-on-deck
right now. Please let us know what the Administration needs
from us as well to address this issue.
I just want to put something on your radar. Right now, I am
working on the bill to establish a new competitive grant
program under the Bureau of Reclamation for large-scale water
recycling and reuse projects. The bill would also include
measures that would provide greater clarity and expand
eligibility under existing drought programs for eligible
entities to receive federal financial assistance for drought
planning and drought mitigation purposes. I look forward to
working with you on that. So thank you.
Let me jump back to a conversation around critical minerals
and battery recycling and manufacturing grants. Given all the
exciting new technologies I see regularly in Nevada, I have
been pushing what I call in my state, ``the Innovation State
Initiative.'' This has allowed me, in Nevada, to promote the
companies and technologies that, in some cases, have helped my
state weather the current economic and health challenges posed
by COVID-19. But one of those new, exciting areas is battery
recycling--of all sizes--and that is why I am proud to be
supporting Senator King's Battery and Critical Mineral
Recycling Act, and I agree with Mr. O'Mara's written testimony
that the entirety of that bill should be seriously considered
for this package as well.
I am also working to put together a bipartisan effort on
battery manufacturing grants, especially recycling, so we can
be investing in a domestic supply chain and workforce that help
us compete globally today and tomorrow. I have seen firsthand
in Nevada where recycling is not only a future economic driver,
but a necessity as we have more and more of the vehicle
batteries on our roads and coming off of them and I am aware of
industries in Alaska, Montana, Idaho--all over--who could
benefit from DOE grant funds to establish more retrofit
facilities for this purpose.
So let me start with Dr. Hogan and Mr. O'Mara. What are the
broader implications of making investments in our domestic
manufacturing capacity and would you agree that we need to be
making strides in this space for global competitiveness and
national security reasons?
Dr. Hogan, I will start with you.
Dr. Hogan. Yes, we agree that the supply chain that goes
with our batteries is a critical place for us to be taking
important steps so that that build-out is happening in this
country. As you pointed out, it is a growth opportunity for
states like Nevada, but really the whole country, as we move
toward a variety of battery technologies for electric vehicles
and for the grid. So we absolutely agree that this is an
important priority.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Mr. O'Mara, I want your
weigh-in on this, but let's talk also about the critical
minerals for these batteries as we talk about recycling, right?
Lithium, lithium mining, we are looking at in Nevada right now,
but cobalt--where is most of the cobalt being mined right now?
Do either one of you know? Does anybody know? Mr. O'Mara?
Mr. O'Mara. Congo.
Senator Cortez Masto. Yes. And that is the challenge that
we have in this country. And so, if we are really going to
identify these critical minerals, bring that supply chain back
from the extraction, through the production, through that whole
process, we have to look at the mining piece of it as well. And
so, Mr. O'Mara, if you could address this, I would appreciate
it.
Mr. O'Mara. Yes, and I think Senator Lankford said it well
earlier, I mean, like we have seen the problems when we do not
have control over our supply chains and you know, I'll be
damned if we are going to spend the next 30 years buying
everything from China, or offshore wind turbines from Germany,
or electric vehicles from Japan, when we could do that all
here. And there is an environmental piece of this. I mean,
there has been NIMBYism around a lot of this. We have to be
smarter. There have also been GAO analyses that show that
incomplete permits are slowing down the process in some cases
as much as government inefficiency. But I think combining the
work that you are trying to do with the work that Senator
Manchin has been trying to do around advanced manufacturing and
thinking about everything in between is the best way to create
good-paying jobs in every part of the country if we do it
right.
Senator Cortez Masto. That is right. And I know I have just
a few minutes left, let me just touch on the rangeland fires
because I also appreciate this conversation as well. In Nevada,
most of our fires are rangeland fires. We have cheatgrass
everywhere and we have been talking about trying to address
this. This is an invasive species. For all of the reasons that
I have heard earlier, it is just not conducive or effective
here in Nevada.
So the goal here is how to make sure that our federal
agencies have the resources they need and the information they
need to really address this invasive species and address what
we see are the rangeland fires. Listen, we have forest fires,
yes, but rangeland fires that I have seen in Nevada are some of
the largest that we have ever seen and they have an impact on
individuals, on the economy, along with the climate as well. So
Mr. O'Mara, if you would touch on that very briefly, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. O'Mara. Yes, and just building on Dr. Holtz-Eakin's
point, this is an area where, if you do not make investments,
the downside on the economy slowing down our GDP is massive.
This is like collective defense. If we have to invest in our
natural infrastructure as a way to reduce the risk to
community, to life, to property, to businesses, then we need to
do it at scale. The challenge is that it is always an
afterthought. It is always treated as discretionary spending,
but I would argue this is as important to our economic future
as anything else we are talking about right now.
Senator Cortez Masto. I agree. Thank you. Thank you to the
panelists.
Senator Barrasso. I have some second-round questions. Okay,
thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Assistant Secretary Trujillo, water is the lifeblood of the
West. It is critical that Congress fund water--western water
infrastructure programs. As written, the bill before us today
directs about $5 billion to the Bureau of Reclamation for water
infrastructure. Does the bill impose any restrictions on how
the Bureau can spend this money or does the bill give the
Bureau broad discretion?
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
The bill as drafted, as I understand it, is a discussion
draft, so it is an initial proposal that does give us broad
authority in many of the categories that we already have on the
books. So I presume we would use our existing authorities and
the existing processes we have.
Senator Barrasso. So can you speak about the importance of
reauthorizing the expiring provisions of the WIIN Act to
address issues such as building more water storage?
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Senator.
The WIIN Act has several different provisions and they are
in various states of application and some of them are expiring,
some of them are continuing, and we are in the process of
reviewing all of those with Congress as they may be
reauthorized or may not.
Senator Barrasso. So would you agree that the
infrastructure package should include reauthorizing these that
are expiring?
Ms. Trujillo. Some of the provisions would be appropriate
for a reauthorization.
Senator Barrasso. Thanks.
Mr. Mills, the bill before us today seeks to ``Ensure that
the United States has a viable battery materials processing
industry to supply North American battery supply chain, expand
the capabilities of the United States in advanced battery
manufacturing, and enhance national security by reducing our
reliance on China for critical materials and technologies.''
Is a federal grant program, no matter how large, sufficient
to achieve these goals?
Mr. Mills. Senator, the short answer is no. And this is
where I would like to say, I feel it is a point of privilege--
not uncomfortable, but comfortable--in being in the same camp,
it appears, as Senator King, with respect to regulations and
the relevance here. I think it is possible to--I am not in the
position to clarify--be anti-regulation. In fact, most
businesses will tell you--particularly miners--they embrace
regulations. They want consistency. They understand the goals.
They embrace the goals. It is the process. And it is out of
control and it is damaging America.
And I do not oppose more wind turbines or more electric
cars. I think we will have lots more of them. We should have
lots more of them. The challenge is the process of that and we
won't get to our goals that are being laid out in many of these
plans by using American resources and labor, it'll be importing
a lot more material. And I don't see a path out here yet. I
want to just repeat again, I embrace the concepts of smart
regulation with clear deadlines and a participation and a
process that allows the private market to invest here. Private
markets have made the decision to invest elsewhere and they're
doing it epically in very challenged areas, in Africa and in
South America.
Senator Barrasso. So do we need to add language to the
draft bill to meaningfully increase American mining?
Mr. Mills. I like the word ``meaningfully.'' I agree
entirely, yes, sir.
Senator Barrasso. So the bill before us today includes a $5
billion program that appears, in my opinion, to be designed to
bail out the State of California and its failing electric grid.
Now, I would note that the State of California has an
unprecedented budget surplus of $75 billion. Will the new
federal grant program for the benefit of the State of
California and its electric utilities actually keep the lights
on in California?
Mr. Mills. I doubt it, Senator. But I guess I would make
the point that I am not clear why the American taxpayer should
fund California's--won't call them mistakes--they are
experiments. We have this--our states have grand experiments
that are underway in many respects in the energy markets. This
is a good thing. I am not sure why we should fund it with
taxpayer money.
Senator Barrasso. In your testimony, you identify the most
cost-effective ways for the U.S. to help reduce global
greenhouse gas emissions. Your list includes facilitating the
construction of natural gas pipelines, liquefied natural gas
export terminals here in the country. Your list also includes
encouraging the development of more efficient internal
combustion engines. Do you see anything in this bill to
encourage the construction of natural gas pipelines, liquefied
natural gas terminals, or more efficient internal combustion
engines?
Mr. Mills. Well, first off, I confess I may have missed it
if it is there, but it wasn't in evidence to me and I just want
to emphasize that the cost-efficiency metric of looking for
ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, I think, should be
paramount.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Heinrich [presiding]. Senator Kelly, you are next.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I commend Senator Manchin and any additional
members of this Committee for embarking on this process to
develop a bipartisan infrastructure proposal. The draft bill
recognizes the urgent need to respond to the crushing drought,
rolling brownouts, and wildfires engulfing the West. Mr.
Chairman, I will state at the outset that I look forward to
working with the Committee to build out the $5 billion western
water infrastructure provision. Most of the dams, reservoirs,
and irrigation canals that store and transport water to farms
and cities in western states are more than 50 years old and
they are failing and they are wasting water, a resource that we
do not have enough of. Funding should be prioritized for the
completion of authorized water storage projects, deferred
maintenance for dams, and the recently established aging
infrastructure account at the Bureau of Reclamation. Rural
water--Title XVI water recycling and desalination programs are
also a must. Conservation programs and WaterSMART grants to
promote water efficiency, including lining canals must not be
overlooked either.
I also appreciate the inclusion of a proposal that I
authored to promote grid resiliency through the use of demand
response technology. Extreme heat waves and polar blasts in
some places can lead to surging demand for electricity that
exceeds supply. The widespread deployment of network-smart
appliances and batteries can help states keep their lights on
during these peak periods. We saw the success of this in
Arizona just last summer when smart-thermostat programs were
able to reduce the strain on the grid by significantly dropping
the load. Big success story.
And finally, the draft bill recognizes that our national
forests are infrastructure too. Forest watersheds funnel
snowmelt into our rivers and lakes, but megafires, which are
raging at this very moment--we have the worst fire season on
record--they have a devastating and long-term impact on rural
communities and water supplies.
So my first question is for Ms. Trujillo, and it is about
water. The Interior Department is expected to declare its first
ever water shortage on the Colorado River very soon, and
Reclamation is part of an interstate agreement called the
Drought Contingency Plan that involves adding 100,000 acre-feet
of water to Lake Mead to avoid even steeper water curtailments.
So Ms. Trujillo, what infrastructure will Reclamation need to
meet this obligation?
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you very much, Senator Kelly.
It is no surprise that we are very much focused on trying
to address the issues in the Colorado River Basin. The
infrastructure needs we have can include well modernization,
funding for system conservation projects, funding for support
for tribal system conservation programs, and additional relief
that will help build to what the other parties are working on
as well.
Senator Kelly. Does any part of that include additional
funding for dams to increase capacity?
Ms. Trujillo. Yes, Senator, there will be additional
funding for increased storage. We also have funding for
recycling projects and Senator Cortez Masto referenced an
innovative project that involves large-scale recycling that can
be beneficial to Colorado River Basin States and local
communities in the area.
Senator Kelly. And on the WIIN Act, would you agree that
the WIIN Act, which expires this year, helps Reclamation manage
against drought?
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Senator Kelly.
The WIIN Act has several different provisions and some of
them are definitely helpful with respect to our drought
response efforts.
Senator Kelly. Thank you.
Dr. Hogan, in the remainder of time, I know we do not have
a lot of time left, but what is the Department's position on my
provision to expand demand response programs to all federal
buildings and in DOE energy efficiency grants to states?
Dr. Hogan. We are very supportive of using the demand
response tool as a cost-effective way to contribute to the
energy grid. We all know that the last kilowatt that is
provided can be an expensive kilowatt, and this is a way to get
there more cheaply. We also believe that sending energy
efficiency related dollars that are good investments in energy
efficiency are a good way to lower costs and put dollars that
would otherwise be used to pay bills to better purposes.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Dr. Hogan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Hogan, Dr. Fatih Birol, head of the International
Energy Agency, has told this Committee that carbon capture and
utilization technology is, ``The most important technology that
exists today.'' Do you agree that carbon capture and storage is
vitally important in meeting our climate goals?
Dr. Hogan. Yes, we have had a long program in carbon
capture and utilization and storage and expect to continue to
be working aggressively on that to reduce its costs throughout
that entire chain.
Senator Hoeven. Yes, and isn't it important that we, in
essence, crack the code on it, because it is not just about
what we do here in America, it is around the world, right?
There are other parts of the country that are--or the world--
that are emitting a lot of CO2 and if we do not
develop that technology to make it commercially viable, then we
are not really addressing the problem from a global standpoint,
are we?
Dr. Hogan. We agree that this is an important technology
that will have a growth market associated with it and we want
the United States to be there on the leading edge with being
able to benefit from this technology in many ways,
economically, as well as what it can do for carbon.
Senator Hoeven. Isn't it also true that it is not just
about fossil fuels, but that it also relates to things like,
for example, biofuels, where we strip the CO2 and
sequester. We are working on that in my state as well as for
our manufacturing industry.
Dr. Hogan. Absolutely.
Senator Hoeven. Does DOE stand ready to assist energy
producers and manufacturers in meeting their goals to retrofit
their operations because of the investment required?
Dr. Hogan. Yes, we would be ready to provide any
assistance, given the authority and resources to do it.
Senator Hoeven. So it is safe to say you are committed to
making it happen?
Dr. Hogan. Absolutely.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Doctor.
Ms. Trujillo, so the proposal being discussed today, which
has many good aspects to it, would appropriate $5 billion in
FY22 through FY26 for western water infrastructure, and I know
the Ranking Member thinks that most of that should go to his
state, but the Acting Chairman and I and some others are hoping
that we will get a little bit of it as well. So tell me, what
type of projects would be eligible for that proposed funding in
the draft legislation?
Senator Heinrich. I would note for the record that Ms.
Trujillo is from the state that really needs it.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, all. Thank you, sincerely, all the
members of the Committee for recognizing the severity of the
drought and the importance of trying to address the drought
concerns. We work on it every day. The provisions in the draft
are for discussion and they provide additional funding to many
of the programs that we already have on the books. So we would
utilize our existing authorities and our existing criteria to
use those programs.
Senator Hoeven. Well, that is what I kind of want to drill
in on a little bit is, how to determine the allocation, because
I think it is going to be very, I mean, it is a very good
provision. It is going to be very much sought after. So how do
you kind of make that decision in terms of what projects you
fund and in what priority order?
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Senator. The answer kind of
depends on which program we are talking about. There are
criteria that are in place for each of the various authorities.
In the rural water context, for example, Reclamation utilizes
criteria to determine which programs should receive which
funding depending on how far along they are, depending on the
urgency of the needs. There are several different factors that
we would be working with.
Senator Hoeven. Okay, very good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
I am going to do a quick second round and then I know
Senator King has a second-round question as well.
Assistant Secretary Trujillo, talk a little bit about the
role that climate change is having on your ability to manage
water west-wide?
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
The reality is we are seeing higher temperatures, which in
and of itself creates a dynamic situation for drier soils and
more evaporation. So our runoff numbers aren't what they used
to be, frankly. In addition, we see more variable snowpacks. We
see rain instead of snow in some cases, which causes many
complex challenges for what we used to see in terms of our
reservoir supplies. So there's a number of ways that the
changing climate makes our world more difficult.
Senator Heinrich. Does any of it make your world--your
daily water management--easier?
Ms. Trujillo. Well, it keeps me up at night, for sure, but
I think the reality is we have to be creative with all of the
tools that we have available.
Senator Heinrich. Talk about that, like, talk a little bit
about the whole suite of tools that we should be investing in
now that are maybe different than just, I mean, if you do not
have water--more storage does not get you more storage--if you
do not have the fundamental water. So you talked a little bit
about recycling, you know, the people I know are now looking at
underground storage. We have done a little bit of that in New
Mexico. I have seen it in California as well. What is the whole
suite of tools that we should be embracing given the world that
we live in today?
Ms. Trujillo. Thank you very much. I was going to bring up
the example of our home state, in Albuquerque, where we have
conjunctive management of our surface water and groundwater so
what we see this year--the surface water is very, very low so
the city has converted to utilizing its groundwater resources.
And that may be an example--I was speaking with Senator
Cantwell earlier--that may be an example of something to expand
in other areas.
Water recycling capabilities need to be expanded and we can
promote that through these large-scale projects or small-scale
projects. The ability to try to utilize as many tools as we
have available is what we need to do, ultimately promoting more
efficient use and more conservation.
Senator Heinrich. Mr. French, I want to ask a related
question. How much should we be paying our entry-level
firefighters? Clearly, it is not 11. It is not 13. What should
we be paying them?
Mr. French. Well, I think clearly enough to support a
family and to compensate the risk that they take on behalf of
the entire American public.
Senator Heinrich. And enough to attract someone that would
want to do this job in the first place.
Mr. French. Yes, I mean, at the end of the day we are
training firefighters at an entry level then losing them to
other firefighting organizations because they are paying double
or triple the amount by the time we have trained them.
Senator Heinrich. What is the delta between what you are
paying and what Cal Fire, say, is?
Mr. French. Almost three times at times.
Senator Heinrich. Yes. I have two minutes left on the
clock. Mr. Ranking Member, is it okay if I yield my last minute
forty-five to Senator King?
Senator Barrasso. Or as much time as he would like.
Senator Heinrich. There we go. Fantastic. Take it away,
Angus.
Senator King. Thank you.
I just want to compliment the Ranking Member and Senator
Manchin and the staff for putting together this panel. This has
been the kind of discussion that we should be having at
Congressional hearings, with a variety of points of view, a
variety of points of expertise. And I think it is been a very
productive session, very helpful to me.
I just wanted to make a final point. A theme underlying our
discussion today has been the role of public investment versus
private investment. And there is no question private investment
is what generally drives our economy. It has created the
richest nation in the history of the world and that is the
major focus.
On the other hand, there is no question that public
investment has a role to play and I wanted to share with you an
insight from some time ago. Here is what it says: ``Time and
experience have verified to a demonstration the public utility
of internal improvements,'' in other words, infrastructure,
``that the poorest and most thinly populated counties would be
greatly benefited by the opening of good roads and in the
clearing of navigable streams within their limits is what no
person will deny.'' That was the very first political brochure
written by Abraham Lincoln at the age of 23, when he ran for
the legislature in Illinois in 1832. And my addition to that
would be, although private investment has driven this economy,
I would argue that the two most important economic development
infrastructure investments of the 20th century were the GI Bill
and the Interstate Highway System, both public investments
which changed the face of the country. I am in a state which,
if the Interstate Highway System had been strictly built on
population or economic return, Interstate 95 would probably
stop at Boston. And yet it has been critical to the economic
development of my state.
So I commend our panel today and I think what we are
striving to do here is to achieve the proper balance between
proper incentives for efficient investment of private capital,
at the same time, providing public investment in the image of
the Interstate Highway System or the GI Bill, which can
contribute in very significant ways to the development of the
country, controlling of climate change, and economic
development that is shared among all of our citizens.
So again, I want to thank our panel and thank our Chair and
Ranking Member for, I think, a very productive hearing.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you and with that, the hearing is
closed.
[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]