[Senate Hearing 117-461]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-461
ROBINSON, DeCAROLIS, AND DANIEL-DAVIS NOMINATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
to
CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF MARIA ROBINSON TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF ENERGY (OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY); JOSEPH DeCAROLIS TO BE ADMINISTRATOR
OF THE ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; AND
LAURA DANIEL-DAVIS TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR (LAND
AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT)
__________
FEBRUARY 8, 2022
__________
[GRAPHIC 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
46-847 WASHINGTON : 2024
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
Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
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
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, a U.S. Senator from Alaska................. 2
WITNESSES
Robinson, Hon. Maria, nominated to be an Assistant Secretary of
Energy (Office of Electricity)................................. 5
DeCarolis, Dr. Joseph, nominated to be Administrator of the
Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy........ 9
Daniel-Davis, Laura, nominated to be an Assistant Secretary of
the Interior (Land and Minerals Management).................... 14
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Daniel-Davis, Laura:
Opening Statement............................................ 14
Written Testimony............................................ 16
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 76
DeCarolis, Dr. Joseph:
Opening Statement............................................ 9
Written Testimony............................................ 11
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 64
Jewell, Sally:
Letter for the Record........................................ 115
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
Opening Statement............................................ 2
Robinson, Hon. Maria:
Opening Statement............................................ 5
Written Testimony............................................ 7
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 50
ROBINSON, DeCAROLIS, AND DANIEL-DAVIS NOMINATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 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 meet today to consider three pending
nominations. The three nominations are: Ms. Laura Daniel-Davis
to be the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for the Land and
Minerals Management, Ms. Maria Robinson to be the Assistant
Secretary of Energy overseeing the Office of Electricity, and
Dr. Joseph DeCarolis to be the Administrator of the Energy
Information Administration. All three of the nominees were
nominated for these same positions last year, but the Senate
did not take final action on them before the end of the
session. Thus, all three of their nominations were returned to
the President at the end of the First Session under the
Standing Rules of the Senate. All three were renominated by the
President and are now back before us.
Ms. Daniel-Davis has been here before. The Committee held a
hearing on her nomination last September. Although the
Committee usually forgoes a second hearing in cases like this,
we have held second hearings before when members have requested
them. We very much appreciate your willingness to return, Ms.
Daniel-Davis, to answer any additional questions members may
have. Unfortunately, the Committee was unable to schedule a
hearing on Ms. Robinson's and Dr. DeCarolis's nominations last
fall, so this is their first hearing. We welcome all three
nominees and thank each of them for being here this morning and
for their willingness to serve in these important positions. So
welcome to each of you and your family members, and I want to
thank all of you for being here.
As I said, Ms. Davis has been through this before. It is no
reflection on her personally that she has been called back for
a second hearing. It is, I believe, a reflection on the
importance of the office to which she has been nominated, the
breadth of her portfolio, and the interest members of this
Committee have in the policies that her office oversees. The
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management oversees
four of the great bureaus and offices of the Department of the
Interior--the Bureau of Land Management, the Office of Surface
Mining, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and the Bureau
of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. Members of the
Committee may disagree with each other and with the
Administration over the land and minerals management policies
pursued by this Administration, as we have with prior
Administrations, but no one should doubt Ms. Daniel-Davis's
knowledge and experience or her commitment to public service.
She served as Chief of Staff to the Deputy Secretary of the
Interior during the Clinton Administration, and as Chief of
Staff to Secretary Salazar and Secretary Jewell during the
Obama Administration. She has been serving as the Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management for
the past year. She had my support last year, and she has my
support this year.
Our next nominee is Maria Robinson, who has been nominated
to head the Department of Energy's Office of Electricity. The
Office of Electricity was established in 2005 to help modernize
the electric grid, enhance grid security and reliability, and
to facilitate recovery from grid disruptions. The Assistant
Secretary for Electricity is responsible for overseeing the
Department's research and development activities aimed at
modernizing and strengthening the electric grid, and for
overseeing the four Power Marketing Administrations. Ms.
Robinson is currently a member of the Massachusetts House of
Representatives, where she has been a leader on clean energy
issues. Before being elected to the Massachusetts legislature,
Ms. Robinson spent 10 years working on wholesale electricity
market regulatory issues and energy efficiency and renewable
energy issues in the private sector. I look forward to hearing
about the views, the experience, and perspective that she would
bring to the Office of Electricity.
Dr. DeCarolis, our final nominee, has been nominated to be
the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration. EIA
collects, analyzes, and publishes the energy data that the
Department of Energy, other federal agencies, and Congress
depend on to shape the nation's energy policies. The
Administrator is responsible for collecting and analyzing
energy information and forecasting future trends, but also for
preserving EIA's political independence and its professional
integrity. Dr. DeCarolis has been a professor at North Carolina
State University for the past 14 years, where he has focused on
developing and applying energy system models.
I want to thank all three for being with us this morning,
and for their willingness to accept these important positions.
At this point, I want to recognize Senator Murkowski, who
is filling in for Senator Barrasso, for her opening statement.
Senator Murkowski.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to
be back at the head of the table with you, and I want to thank
Ranking Member Barrasso, who asked me to cover for him this
morning.
As you mentioned, we are here to consider Ms. Maria
Robinson to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for the Office of
Electricity, Dr. Joseph DeCarolis to be Administrator of the
Energy Information Administration, and Ms. Laura Daniel-Davis
to be Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals
Management. I welcome all three of you to the Committee.
Ms. Robinson, I look forward to hearing how you plan to
help modernize the nation's electric grid, how you plan to help
enhance its security and reliability, and how you will help
facilitate recovery from potential disruptions in energy
supply. I especially will be looking for you to demonstrate
your understanding of my state, which leads the world in
microgrids, but has limited big grids, if you will, but a
genuine need for assistance to help us lower electricity costs.
Dr. DeCarolis, you should know that I am one who cares
about the EIA. As I have chaired this Committee over the years,
I look forward to the review every year. You are an agency, an
entity that we rely on, but we rely on you for non-partisan
information. I appreciate that in your testimony you
highlighted EIA's legal obligation to operate independently of
the Administration's policy positions, and I look forward to
hearing more about your plans for the agency.
Ms. Daniel-Davis, you are nominated for a position that is
of great significance to my home State of Alaska. As the
Chairman has noted, I think all the members on the Committee
have an interest in this position because of the very, very,
very wide portfolio that you have. As you know, in Alaska, we
have more federal land than any other state. Some can see that
as a blessing, others may see it as a curse, but we need the
Department to be our partner, not our landlord. But that
relationship has really taken a turn--I think a turn in the
wrong direction in the year-plus that this Administration has
been in office. The last individual named to this position as
Assistant Secretary was a fellow by the name of Joe Balash, who
was a friend of mine, fellow Alaskan, and when he departed this
role and when that last Administration ended, I would argue
that the Department's policies toward Alaska were finally in a
good place, or certainly a better place than they had been.
Numerous Alaska projects were either approved or headed in the
right direction. Our vastly outdated public land orders were
being lifted. We were no longer being treated as one giant park
or wildlife refuge.
But unfortunately, it did not take very long for this
Administration to knock much of that off track. We have seen
action after action and decision after decision go against
reasonable land access and resource production in Alaska for
oil and gas or mining and for just about everything that we
have and responsibly want to produce, whether it is up in the
NPRA (National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska) or over in the 1002
Area or other parts of the state. And it is a state that
entered the union with an agreement that resource production is
how we would sustain ourselves and reach our potential. It is
pretty tough. It is just pretty tough. It is worse than a
simple broken promise. It is a broken statehood agreement. And
believe me, people in Alaska discuss it just that way. And it
is hard on everyone. The consequences of the Administration's
resource policies are clearer by the day. Commodity prices are
way up, and so is inflation, causing pain for families and
businesses. Our geopolitical leverage is down, which is what
happens when ``keep-it-in-the-ground'' prevails over the use of
our energy as a strategic and a diplomatic asset.
Others are certainly happy to fill our void. That is no
surprise, but they cannot replace the United States as the
world's swing producer, nor is there an excuse for an
Administration that decides to go to OPEC for more oil and gas,
and to Canada and others for minerals, while leaving our best
domestic projects stalled out. We know that an energy
transition is underway, but we also know that it is not going
to be an overnight shift. The country and the world are going
to need our traditional resources for a long time to come, and
meanwhile, demand for minerals from projects like those that
could be located in the Ambler mining district, the demand is
only going up, and dramatically so. We need an Administration
that recognizes those facts and plans their policies
accordingly. We should do everything that we can to advance
clean and renewable technologies, and we need to do more of it
yesterday. But that cannot be paired with the fundamental
incoherence on traditional energy and mining. And so, our job
is to make sure the Secretary of the Interior has a team that
will facilitate the safe, responsible production of our
domestic resources, certainly including Alaska.
So I look forward to the question-and-answer section of
this hearing and the decisions that are being made in or really
against my home state. So I look forward to the discussions,
and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
The rules of the Committee, which apply to all nominees,
require that they be sworn in in connection with their
testimony. So if you all would please stand and raise your
right hand?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
[Witnesses sworn in.]
The Chairman. You may be seated. Before you begin your
statements, I will ask three questions addressed to each
nominee before this Committee.
Number one: Will you be available to appear before the
Committee and other Congressional committees to represent
departmental positions and respond to issues of concern to the
Congress?
[All witnesses respond ``yes.'']
The Chairman. Yes.
Are you aware of any personal holdings, investments, or
interests that can constitute a conflict of interest or create
the appearance of such a conflict should you be confirmed and
assume the office to which you have been nominated by the
President?
[All witnesses respond ``no.'']
The Chairman. No, to all three.
Finally, are you involved or do you have any assets held in
blind trust?
[All witnesses respond ``no.'']
The Chairman. No.
So let us begin with Ms. Robinson. You are recognized to
make your statement. So please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA ROBINSON, NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF ENERGY (OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY)
Ms. Robinson. Thank you very much, Chairman Manchin and
Senator Murkowski. It is wonderful to be here.
Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the Committee, thank
you for inviting me today to testify in front of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. I am honored to be nominated by
President Biden to serve as the Assistant Secretary of Energy
for the Office of Electricity, and I am humbled to have the
opportunity to work with Secretary Granholm in the Department
of Energy. Having myself grown up in a small, former coal
mining town near Scranton, I share the President's concern that
we need to provide reliable, secure, affordable, and clean
energy to Americans while also creating good-paying union jobs.
My background working in both the public and private sector on
electricity issues provides me with a unique perspective and
tools to meet the Department's mission and goals.
Before I begin, I want to acknowledge my family and friends
for their ongoing support throughout my career. My gratitude
knows no bounds for my parents, whose hard work and unending
support provided me with the freedom to pursue my dreams; my
loving husband, who gracefully provides our family with
wonderful stability; and my brilliant 13-year-old daughter, who
keeps me very grounded with reminders that I am a public
servant, and therefore she is technically my boss.
My focus on energy and electricity policy emerged from an
initial technological interest as an undergraduate studying
chemical engineering at MIT, but I found a true passion for
being at the nexus of technology and policy. My time at
Navigant Consulting allowed me to work directly with state and
local governments, utilities, independent power producers, and
major corporations on strategy and implementation of programs
to strengthen generation, transmission, and distribution across
the nation's grid. Through this work, I traveled with
electricians and contractors to distributed energy resource
sites, and received firsthand lessons in the need to update our
grid infrastructure to accommodate higher demand at sources
ranging from Logan Airport to rural water treatment plants. We
continue to see this need for additional deployment working
with states and utilities to build new transmission assets and
upgrade aging grid infrastructure using the funding provided
for in the bipartisan infrastructure law.
In leading a national trade association's wholesale market
policy, and wearing multiple hats in state policy and market
analysis, I had the opportunity to work with state utility
commissioners, state legislatures, air and energy offices,
trade associations, and national groups in the energy sector,
such as NASEO and NARUC as well as directly with utilities--
both investor-owned and public power, and electric co-ops. All
of these constituencies will play a key role in ensuring that
transmission and distribution projects are built in optimal
locations with minimal roadblocks. Part of the work must be
done in research and development--taking existing technologies
and finding ways to scale them for widespread use, such as the
Department's Long Duration Storage Energy Earthshot. During my
time at Advanced Energy Economy, I had the privilege of working
with businesses and utilities who were working in generation,
transmission, software, efficiency, smart grid, and much more,
all of whom will play a critical role in building and operating
a 21st century electric grid.
I believe in America's ability to solve problems through
technological development with smart investments and well-
designed policies. This includes achieving the Biden
Administration's goals of reaching net zero emissions by 2050
and maintaining a reliable, resilient grid that can withstand
the ever-increasing amount of catastrophic weather-induced
events. With new discoveries being made at rapid-fire pace
across the power industry, I want to ensure that we are meeting
the moment with flexible policies that can adapt to new
advancements in technology. This is especially true for
cybersecurity policy that can manage the delicate balance
between security, affordability, and feasibility while
accounting for technological changes in both hardware and
software. I currently sit on the Advanced IT Internet and
Cybersecurity Committee at the state legislative level, and
policymakers across the country are grappling with the reality
that we could see catastrophic failures without the right
precautions. It is incumbent upon the Department to work with
experts in cybersecurity to develop and implement technologies
and policies that make our grid more secure. I know it is a
priority of the Secretary, and if confirmed, would be a
priority of mine, that cybersecurity is considered in all parts
of the work that we do.
Again, I thank you, Chairman Manchin, Senator Murkowski,
and all the members of the Committee that are here today for
your time. Should I be confirmed, I hope that this is the
beginning of a strong partnership between all of your offices
and the Office of Electricity, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Robinson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Robinson.
I am so sorry, if you would like to introduce your family,
we would love to--is your family here with you?
Ms. Robinson. My family is not here. I have two friends and
colleagues here with me today as support.
The Chairman. Okay.
Now we are going to hear from Dr. DeCarolis. Do you have
any of your family members here that you would like to
introduce?
Dr. DeCarolis. Sure. So my wife, Chrissy, my daughter,
Katie, and my son, Nicholas.
The Chairman. Great.
Dr. DeCarolis. We have two of my three kids here today.
The Chairman. Great to have them with us.
Dr. DeCarolis. Thank you.
The Chairman. Please.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOSEPH DeCAROLIS, NOMINATED TO BE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. DeCarolis. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso,
Senator Murkowski, distinguished members of the Committee, it
is an honor and a privilege to appear before you today as the
nominee for Administrator of the Energy Information
Administration. I am grateful to President Biden and Secretary
Granholm for trusting me with this important role. I also want
to thank my family--especially my wife, Christine--for their
support.
I am deeply honored by the opportunity to lead the EIA. EIA
collects, curates, analyzes, and disseminates data pertaining
to all aspects of the U.S. energy system. As the federal
statistical agency within the Department of Energy, the value
of EIA's work is difficult to overstate. If you were to pick at
random a news item or research study focused on the U.S. energy
system, it very likely includes a reference to EIA data. EIA
products underpin our collective understanding of the U.S.
energy system and are a source of sound, unbiased data and
analysis for decisionmakers in both the public and private
sectors. I want to underscore EIA's legal obligation to operate
independently of policy positions taken within the Federal
Government. EIA's independence and impartiality make it a
trusted and reliable source of information on highly complex
energy issues. If confirmed, my highest priority will be to
maintain EIA's well-deserved reputation for impartiality.
My academic career as an engineer and energy systems
modeler aligns well with the analytical mission of EIA. After
double-majoring in physics and environmental science and policy
at Clark University, I obtained a Ph.D. in Engineering and
Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon University. My Ph.D.
research taught me to analyze complex energy issues at the
intersection of engineering, economics, and public policy.
After graduation, I joined the Environmental Protection Agency,
where I developed expertise in energy systems modeling. Over
time it became clear to me that the prevailing approach to
modeling within the international community was flawed. First,
the models were opaque to outsiders. If models were cars, it
was impossible to look under the hood and kick the tires.
Second, modelers needed to do a better job quantifying future
uncertainty and how it might affect the model projections.
Making models public and addressing future uncertainty not only
makes modeling more scientific, but it fulfills a moral
imperative to inform stakeholders, decisionmakers, and the
general public on issues that affect everyone's lives.
Improving the energy modeling process became my overarching
focus when I began my faculty position at NC State University
in 2008, a position I still hold today. Over the last decade, I
have helped to lead the development of next-generation energy
system modeling tools that are open-sourced, transparent, and
designed to deliver policy-relevant insights.
If I have the privilege of being confirmed, I would like to
pursue several priorities that will enhance EIA's ability to
fulfill its mission in the 21st century. These priorities are
grounded in my experience as a consumer of EIA products over
the last 20-plus years, and mirror priorities that are
highlighted in the bipartisan infrastructure law. First, EIA
should strive to make its products more accessible and
transparent. This includes making EIA models open source, and
integrating different data streams into real-time, online
dashboards. Transparency and accessibility engender trust,
foster understanding, and allow stakeholders to make better use
of EIA products. Second, EIA's modeling capabilities should be
expanded to examine a wider range of future scenarios that
include the full spectrum of available fuels and technologies.
The models should be tested under a wider range of assumptions
to better evaluate potential outcomes pertaining to cost,
emissions, reliability, and security. As part of this effort,
EIA also needs to engage in cross-agency coordination on
emerging issues in the energy economy, like the demand for
critical minerals. Third, EIA data and analysis can provide
additional insight into energy trends and the resulting impact
on communities, including the accessibility and reliability of
energy supply and the effect of price changes on energy
poverty.
I am thrilled by the opportunity to lead the Energy
Information Administration. As a country, we face many critical
energy challenges over the next several decades, and EIA will
play a critical role in that ongoing discussion. If confirmed,
I look forward to working with Congress on a nonpartisan basis
to advance our collective understanding of our past, present,
and future energy system. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear here today, and I look forward to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. DeCarolis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor.
Finally, we have Ms. Daniel-Davis, and Ms. Davis, I might
say, we have your previous statement on record. Any additional
comments you want to make, you are more than free to do so.
STATEMENT OF LAURA DANIEL-DAVIS, NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR (LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT)
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning, and good morning Senator Murkowski and members of the
Committee. It is, again, an honor to appear before you today as
President Biden's nominee to be the Assistant Secretary for
Land and Minerals Management at the Department of the Interior,
and I am grateful that my husband, Mark, can appear with me
again today. He is right behind me.
The Chairman. He is hanging right in there, huh?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Daniel-Davis. I will just offer a few remarks.
The Department of the Interior has been one of the most
significant and formative influences on my life. The leadership
positions that I have held there and in other organizations
have given me knowledge of the public lands, the energy
programs--both onshore and offshore--that the Department
manages, and a deep understanding of the Department's
operations and broad mission, which touches so many people's
lives in very real ways every day, and that is true whether we
live in the West or another part of our great country. Over the
course of my career, I have had the privilege of working with
and learning from so many significant mentors, including the
former and current secretaries and former Congressman and
Senator Mark Udall. These lessons were meaningful, and they are
still with me--of the importance of government service, and
that it is the people, not yourself, that you serve; of the
value of collaboration; to ensure that we're leading with
equity and fairness; and that we should strive for a bipartisan
spirit to accomplish goals that are so important to our
country's future.
I deeply value and appreciate the role that the
Department's bureaus serve in accomplishing its mission
activities, including those that fall under the jurisdiction
for the position for which I have been nominated. The Bureau of
Land Management's multiple-use mission makes it uniquely
important for resource development, for recreation, and to
provide economic opportunities to working families as it
manages the vast federal acreage under its jurisdiction.
Offshore, the important work of the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement to responsibly and safely develop energy resources
on the Outer Continental Shelf helps assure our country's
energy independence and is critical to our energy future. And
the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement
provides crucial support to coal communities for reclamation of
former mining lands and economic development opportunities,
making sure that states have the tools to oversee their
transitioning programs. These bureaus will, of course, be
fundamental to the implementation of the bipartisan
infrastructure law, which was supported by many of you and has
passed since I last appeared. We are so appreciative of the
bipartisan support and for the opportunity to work with you to
improve our country's infrastructure and to improve people's
lives.
Just yesterday, Secretary Haaland had the opportunity to
announce additional funding that will be provided this year to
address abandoned mine land reclamation in communities across
the country. I know that you, Mr. Chairman, worked tirelessly
to extend the AML (Abandoned Mine Land) program and to ensure
and secure that the supplemental funding would be available,
and these resources are going to allow communities to do more,
to put more people to work in well-paying, family-supporting
jobs, to accelerate this vital reclamation and restoration
work, and support local economies. Last week, Secretary Haaland
announced the first tranche of formula funding for states to
begin addressing the capping and restoration of orphaned oil
and gas wells, and these resources, too, will provide jobs and
economic support for hundreds of impacted communities--historic
investments to clean up these areas and ensure that we catalyze
economic growth and revitalization and reduce harmful methane
leaks.
My time in Interior has also taught me the fundamental role
that the Department's career employees serve. Their hard work
and expertise help us accomplish so much--well, everything,
really, across the Department's bureaus and programs. If
confirmed, I will work hard to support the bureaus as they
implement their programs and address the important
infrastructure needs of society. I commit to tirelessly working
to better understand how I can best help them be successful in
their missions and for the American public. I look forward to
working in a respectful and collaborative fashion with this
Committee, with states, tribes, and program stakeholders to
address the shared challenges that we face. Thank you again for
having me, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Daniel-Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you. Thanks to all three of you for
your presentations. I will start the questioning, and Ms.
Daniel-Davis, I will start with you.
During the previous Administration, the Department tried to
lease probably as much as they could, as fast as they could,
and under the current Administration, they came in and hit the
pause button. We were supposed to get a report back after we
evaluated our process and our leasing and how we did it. But
then the courts intervened, and Louisiana said you had to start
leasing again. And then two weeks ago, another court, here in
town, found the offshore lease sale you held last November,
which was the largest in history, to be unlawful and struck
down the sale. So we are back to square one now. My question
would be, can you explain the Department's leasing program--
onshore, offshore, and where it stands at this point?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Thank you for that question, Mr.
Chairman. And I think, just confirming that we are in
compliance with the court ruling you referenced, Louisiana v.
Biden, and moving forward with the leasing program onshore and
offshore--I think at a very high level what you are describing
with regard to litigation activities and outcomes really
inspires me to continue to work with the Secretary and with the
teams that we lead to ensure that we are taking the law
seriously, taking processes seriously, taking the time to seek
and reflect upon public input we receive, understanding where
the requests are to site energy activities and any important
conflicts that may be found there, and of course, I will
reflect that what, you know, the concern with these rulings, of
course, is that in many cases they are finding that the process
was not completely followed, and indeed it is sometimes a
shortcut.
The Chairman. Let me follow up.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I think I can follow up with another question
with you. You are familiar with the Mountain Valley Pipeline?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Okay, and what it has been going through? I
think, out of 300-plus miles, there are 24 miles left. That is
it. That is in your bailiwick to a certain extent. It keeps
running into court case after court case after court case. The
product needs to get to market. The market desperately needs
the energy we are producing from the natural gas production in
the Marcellus and Utica Shale, but we are having a hard time.
You know, I keep fearing we are going to end up like Europe,
and in a crunch, and right now, it is hard for me to go to West
Virginia and explain why we are asking other countries to
produce energy for us when we have been energy independent for
so long, and we have been able to hit that milestone, and now,
we are back to where we are depending on other production.
So how quickly will the BLM, which you oversee, correct
their issue in its permits? The reason I say that is, they are
saying that they threw out several environmental reviews for
the pipeline, which stopped the project. They were thrown out,
not through any fault of the applicant, but because a judge
ruled that the agencies did not include enough information in
their reviews. So from my standpoint, these people said they
jumped through every hoop you put there, and then all of a
sudden, a court throws it out because your review process, or
what you told them to do, was not accurate enough.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that is a great
question. I know that this is an issue of importance to you.
The Chairman. The whole East Coast.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Yes, of course.
The Chairman. Yes.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. In our Department, the solicitor's office
and BLM are kind of the leads in looking at these very recent
litigation rulings. I will agree with you that this is the
second time it has been sent back, and deficiencies in the
review of the federal entities have been identified as the
issue. So we are working closely with our solicitor's office.
The Forest Service, as you know, has a role as well in this, as
well as the Fish and Wildlife Service. So it is across my
agency, and one other, and understanding that this was a permit
that was provided really at the tail-end of the previous
Administration, and it is----
The Chairman. I would like to spend more time with you so
we can correct this and basically, agencies should have more
input, knowing what the courts are going to be asking for,
because they are giving us pretty clear direction.
Ms. Robinson, if I could very quickly just follow up with
you, and then my time will be out. I am aware of your past
roles. I am thinking specifically about your role for advanced
energy economy. You are an advocate of renewable energy and
energy efficiency over more traditional generation technologies
like the fossil industry that we have, whether it be coal,
natural gas, things of that sort. I am concerned about the
reliability. I see what Europe is going through. I am all for
clean energy. I am all for doing what we do cleaner. I have
always said this: you cannot eliminate your way to a cleaner
environment, but you can sure innovate your way to it. But if
you are just moving on elimination, we are not going to be able
to have the energy this country needs. That scares me. And I
just want to know where you stand on focusing on advancing the
reliable, and making sure the reliable is at the forefront of
what we do, not just the desires for some that might not carry
the load, as we know.
Ms. Robinson. Thank you, Senator. I will try and talk
quickly, and I appreciate that and appreciate your concern for
reliability. I believe that, for the Office of Electricity,
reliability is the number one concern and will be my number one
concern for maintaining. I think there are lots of things that
we need to do in order to do that, including grid capability
upgrades, which will come through the bipartisan infrastructure
bill. I certainly see a role for firm, dispatchable power well
into the future, and would love to continue having more
conversations with you about that.
The Chairman. Right, and also if you would think about--you
know, we need to get the transmission into the areas where our
clean energy can be deployed.
Ms. Robinson. Correct.
The Chairman. How are you planning on getting through as
far as getting the siting done? I mean, that has been a
challenge. The transmission lines into where the large solar
panels are going to be or where the large wind farms are going
to be are going to be challenging to get to market. Do you all
have a plan, or have you thought about that, how you would be
able to accelerate the transmission to carry the power to the
market?
Ms. Robinson. Certainly, and there is funding in the
bipartisan infrastructure bill that would allow for a greater
buildout. There are, obviously, the siting and permitting
issues, but there are also additional authorities in the
bipartisan infrastructure bill that will allow for greater
collaboration with states and municipalities.
The Chairman. Are you saying that we can share revenue or
pay these states and localities that are not so keen on having
a new transmission line coming through their state?
Ms. Robinson. Senator, I think that is probably a
conversation to be had with FERC and their cost allocation and
sharing, but happy to continue----
The Chairman. I think we need to find a way that we can get
new power to market.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Daniel-Davis, I am going to start with you, and I am
going to try to focus on these issues that have come up since
the last time you were before the Committee, as I had a chance
to go into some detail there. I am going to start by just
acknowledging what you have noted in your opening statement and
offer thanks. I appreciate the announcement last week from the
Department about moving forward with the orphaned well program.
We are going to be getting $32 million in the State of Alaska,
and that is going to help us with this cleanup effort that has
been going on for a long time, but also help with the jobs. So
we appreciate that.
I am pleased that the Administration is continuing to
support the Willow Project. I have made it very, very clear to
anybody who is willing to listen, from the President on down,
that Willow is absolutely key when we think about Alaska's
production capacity going forward. But I also recognize that as
we are moving forward, we have some very, very, very tight
windows, some narrow construction windows for this year. I
would like your commitment that the Department will finish a
supplemental EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) that
addresses the court's concerns by the end of this first
quarter.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Thank you, Senator, for the question, and
we are pleased to move forward--even last week, I am sure you
saw, with the informal scoping period with regard to informing
our preparation of the supplemental EIS. I believe that our
schedule has us ready to have a draft out in the public for
comment during the second quarter.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I am going to urge you, as I have
others, that again, dragging this or extending too long results
in real consequences on the ground because, again, we do not
have 365 days a year within which to move forward with these
projects. So I am just going to urge the Department to act as
expeditiously as possible on this. Initially, I think folks
were looking at that first quarter. So it is very frustrating
to hear that it could slip into the second. So I am just going
to urge again, expediency, efficiency, and a real recognition
as to the urgency there.
Let me switch now to the Ambler Access Project, because I
have a lot of Alaskans that are in town this week. They are
going to be knocking on doors at the Department. They are
speaking here. But this is a project that we have been engaged
with for some time. As you know, it was initiated back in 2015,
while you were at the Department with the Obama Administration.
It is supported by many local Alaska-Native communities, the
Northwest Arctic Borough, the NANA Regional Corporation. There
has been a very, very lengthy record of public meetings,
hearings, and consultations. And yet a 90-day public comment
period was extended to a total of 330 days. The FEIS joint
record of decision cost taxpayers nearly $5 million to
complete, and now, the Department is requesting a 60-day stay,
and then another 30-day stay to allow for additional
consultation. I am going through my homework from last night--
this is a packet that was sent to me by ADA, who is involved in
this project, just outlining the various consultation that has
gone on recently. The additional thing that was in my home
packet was a letter from our Governor, again, asking the Deputy
Secretary to please move forward, recognizing the level of
consultation that has been underway.
So I guess the question that Alaskans are asking me is, if
they need more consultation, what have they been doing with
this consultation period in this 60-day stay? So can you share
with me who the Department actually consulted with during this
period? There is a lot of record out there from ADA that shows
me who has been involved with consultation. I don't know if you
have a similar document that you can share, but they are saying
if all this consultation has gone on, why is an additional 30-
day stay now required?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. I appreciate that question. This is a
project on which we have heard from a lot of different
organizations with regard to the consultation activity, and I
understand what you are saying, Senator, about the, you know,
the record that you are looking at. I think what we have heard
directly from some tribes, and I don't have a list in front of
me, but I would be pleased to go back and consult with the
Department, but what we have heard is----
Senator Murkowski. I think it would be important for us to
just understand because, again, we are looking around and
asking the question of who has not yet been consulted given the
very voluminous record that has been created to date. So the
question--when you say you need additional time for
consultation--who?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Again, undertaking formal consultation,
again, we heard that some tribes did not believe that they had
been properly and formally consulted in the development of the
record. Moreover, we heard about significant subsistence
concerns, and those are the conversations and the consultations
that have been ongoing. I want to hasten to add that we are, of
course, open to meeting and have been meeting, I think the
Deputy Secretary, in particular, with a number of the other
organizations that you mentioned.
Senator Murkowski [presiding]. Apparently, my time is
expired, and Senator Heinrich, you are up.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
Ms. Daniel-Davis, last month in New Mexico, there was a
reprehensible criminal attack on petroglyphs on public land at
La Cieneguilla site near Santa Fe. Someone defaced images that
had been left there by ancient puebloans centuries, if not
millennia, ago. The damage that was done, to some degree, some
of it may be irreversible. It may never be able to be undone,
but we can work to make sure that people who desecrate sacred
spaces on public lands are held accountable to prevent those
kinds of attacks in the future. So I wanted to ask, in
particular, what is BLM doing to investigate this particular
crime, and then, how seriously is the BLM taking the protection
of cultural sites on the Caja del Rio Plateau writ large?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Thanks, Senator, and this criminal
desecration is unacceptable and unbelievably sad, and it is a
top priority for the Bureau of Land Management to figure out
what happened and to bring the criminals to justice. The BLM
agents and rangers are working directly with the FBI and with
the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office on this matter. There has
been a lot of outreach to local groups to see if there is any
information about who might have been in that area when this
happened, and, moreover, you know, the Taos BLM Office has
recently hired a new law enforcement ranger to increase patrols
here and elsewhere. I do think that the support in the FY22
budget--and I know you are all working very hard on that--to
support the BLM and the rebuilding of the BLM can only help in
terms of these law enforcement challenges out on a very wide
and important landscape.
Senator Heinrich. What portion of the BLM's budget goes to
law enforcement?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Senator, that is a great question, and I
don't know the answer off the top of my head but I am going
to----
Senator Heinrich. Let's find that out.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Yes, sir.
Senator Heinrich. Because my experience is, having been an
outfitter guide, it is not enough. It is rare to see law
enforcement out on the ground on public lands, and that problem
goes beyond the BLM. It applies to the Forest Service and the
Park Service as well, but I think, in particular, Interior.
New Mexico is home to two of the newest national monuments,
the Rio Grande del Norte Monument in Taos County, which you are
intimately familiar with, and the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks
National Monument near Las Cruces. However, even though it has
been nearly a decade since these were designated, neither
monument has ever had a finalized monument management plan.
What is the status of the planning process for both of these,
and when can the Taos and Las Cruces communities expect those
plans to be finished?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Senator, the BLM is very focused on the
planning process for both of these. I think it is not as far
along as any of us would want, and I know that they are working
to determine what a timeline is that will allow them to, you
know, tackle this and get it done. Again, I just have to
reflect that the previous reorganization of the BLM, in which
they lost over 300 employees, and the need to sort of build
back and has certainly had an impact on this, but I really want
to assure you, Senator, it is a high priority. BLM is very
proud of these areas and wants to be sure that they have a
functioning plan.
Senator Heinrich. Ms. Robinson, I want to ask you about our
high-voltage grid, our transmission grid, in particular. You
know, much of it is based on technology--I should say, maybe,
equipment rather than technology--that is 70 years' old. What
can DOE and the Congress do to incentivize more rapid
implementation of some of the grid technologies that we are
seeing implemented very successfully around the world that can
give us more transmission capacity in the short run, in
addition to building new transmission? So things like power-
flow controls, dynamic line rating with real-time sensors and
management, and reconductoring of existing transmission. It
seems like the financial models that many of our utilities work
on do not incentivize those technologies because they are not
big, expensive projects that can be rate-based. How can we get
those technologies out onto the grid faster?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you so much, Senator, and I share your
concern about getting those smart-grid technologies out onto
the grid. You may have seen that PNNL just released a great
report about transactive power, which is using a lot of those
same technologies, and the potential $50 billion in savings to
consumers if we are able to do that across the entire nation's
grid. So certainly, that creates a wonderful starting point as
well as INL's grid testbed to put those to test right away. I
am looking forward to working through the smart grid
integration program, and the funding through the bipartisan
infrastructure bill as well to continue quick deployment of all
these technologies, but certainly there are a ton of
efficiencies that we can utilize now to get an increasing
amount of capacity on our existing infrastructure.
Senator Heinrich. Yes, I would just leave you with the idea
that we do not need more pilot projects. These things have been
tested and tested and tested. We need a better grid. So I hope
you are up to the task.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Next on the Republican side is Senator Lee, but I am not
sure if he is on. Are you online Senator?
[No response.]
Senator Murkowski. If Senator Lee is not, then Senator
Lankford is next up, and your timing is brilliant.
Senator Lankford. I don't know if my timing is brilliant or
not because I am obviously stepping in right in the middle of
the first question line. So you all, thank you. Thanks for
going through the process. It is not a fun process to be able
to go through, and some of you have been through this for quite
a while. So I appreciate your engagement to be able to serve
the country on it.
I do have several questions just about how do we deal with
energy long term, and how do we resolve some of this. So let me
begin with Ms. Robinson.
Let me just pick a day. January the 16th of this year, New
England, 24 percent of their power was coming from home heating
oil. Now, I think we would agree that natural gas is cleaner
than home heating oil, but you have been very strong in your
opposition to natural gas pipelines coming through, and then
push continually for renewables to try to be a long-term
substitute. If I take that same day, January the 16th of this
year, 24 percent of the power in New England was from home
heating oil, eight percent of that was actually coming from
renewables on that same day, and if I take just what you talked
about with solar and wind, that is about 30 percent of that
eight percent. So it is a really tiny fraction that is actually
coming there.
So what I am trying to figure out is just directionally, I
understand where directionally you are looking to be able to go
somewhere else on this, but the reality of what we are actually
facing right now, we literally have, at times, Russian tankers
coming to be able to bring in natural gas to New England
instead of getting American because we cannot get pipelines to
that area, and the people in New England are facing higher
prices, and you have been very outspoken in support of that. So
I am just trying to get the balance of where we are going on
some of these things.
Ms. Robinson. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
Senator Lankford. Sure.
Ms. Robinson. And I appreciate the concern about prices. I
am a Massachusetts Representative, and I get phone calls about
the price of energy----
Senator Lankford. I would assume.
Ms. Robinson [continuing]. All the time from folks. So one
of the things that I want to be very sensitive about in coming
into this role, if confirmed, is to consider what regional
organizations and states want to see long term. I have worked
for a long time in state policy. I am currently on the state
legislature, and I want to be considerate of the fact that the
long-term goals of New England are moving in the general
direction, as you said, toward decarbonization. Now, if you
look at the interconnection queue in ISO New England, where I
am sure you got that delightful graph----
Senator Lankford. Sure.
Ms. Robinson [continuing]. With the 24 percent of oil. The
vast majority of oncoming projects in the interconnection queue
are renewable projects, but they have been stalled for a long
period of time, in large part due to lack of integrated, long-
term transmission planning across the entire country, which is
something that the Department intends on doing as part of the
Building a Better Grid Initiative that was announced a couple
weeks ago. And that is going to make a big difference to allow
some of these projects that have been stuck in the queue for a
long time because we do want American-made energy here.
Senator Lankford. So is that the assumption then, that wind
and solar power will be created somewhere else in the country
and then just brought to New England?
Ms. Robinson. So these are projects that are actually
located in New England that are waiting to be interconnected. A
ton of solar, in particular, is waiting to be interconnected
into the queue. That is located across the six New England
states. So, in addition to the larger planning, of course,
where we are looking at very wind-heavy states such as yours,
of course.
Senator Lankford. Right.
Ms. Robinson. Where we want to make sure that we are moving
those resources to larger sources of demand moving forward,
such as cities. There is going to be a really strong element of
planning, and part of that is making the grid a lot smarter
through this and so it can understand where it needs all the
interchanges.
Senator Lankford. So your assumption is in future days
then, New England will have more solar power, but where there
has been a significant amount of pushback on offshore wind to
say we don't want to see offshore wind here, we will do it in
Oklahoma, and then just bring power to it so New England does
not have to look at it. We do.
Ms. Robinson. Thank you for bringing up some of those
regional differences as well, and I would say that offshore
wind is, if you ask Governor Baker, if you ask Governor McKee,
offshore wind is a big part of the long-term plans for New
England. Obviously, it is facing some hurdles throughout that
process, but it is not just relying on offshore wind. It is
also looking at other firm, dispatchable power sources such as
energy storage, which, I think is also going to be a major
component of any sort of grid resource----
Senator Lankford. Right. Do you expect energy storage to be
on board to be able to handle a city's capacity with mixing
with renewables in the next 25 years? Can you run Boston with
energy storage and wind and solar in 25 years, do you think?
Ms. Robinson. Senator, I think we are seeing a larger
transition toward clean energy in large part, not just in the
generation sector, but we are also seeing it on the demand
side, going back to demand response being a significant part of
this work, but also resources like electric vehicles, which are
shown to provide grid benefits--vehicle-to-grid work--and
adding additional storage as that market continues to grow.
Senator Lankford. I appreciate it. I apologize, I have run
out of time on this. This is a larger conversation, obviously.
I have questions for all three of you. I am not going to have
time for it, to be able to go through. My bigger issue is just
the practicality of what is actually going on on the ground
right now. If I take that, just that one day I was mentioning
before, over 50 percent of the energy of New England was in
natural gas and oil that day and eight percent renewables. In
the next 25 years, we are not going to have 50 percent of the
renewables based on where we are going at this point and what
is happening on the grid. And I am just trying to figure out
what happens now for consumers, and how do we actually deal
with prices as we continue to be able to look towards the
future and where we are, and I want to make sure that we are
balancing both on this, whether that be leasing issues, where
we do not have a leasing plan now for five years for offshore
and do not know what is going to happen on prices on that
because there does not seem to be a plan or whether it is day-
to-day operations.
So thank you. I apologize for going a minute over.
The Chairman [presiding]. Senator Cortez Masto, by WebEx.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me just say to the nominees, congratulations, and thank
you for your willingness to serve.
Ms. Laura Daniel-Davis, let me start with you. I am going
to talk a little bit about a challenge and an issue that we
deal with in Nevada every day, and let me couch this by saying
that over 80 percent of the lands in Nevada are owned by the
Federal Government, and 60 percent of that is BLM-managed. Then
we also have the Nevada National Security Site, in which the
Department of Energy plays a key role. And so, I know that the
U.S. imports more than half of its annual consumption of 31 of
the 35 critical minerals, and the U.S. is completely dependent
on imports to supply its demand for 14 of them. These are
materials that are necessary, really, for electronic devices,
for national defense applications, and for renewable energy
technologies. The Biden Administration, through the Department
of Energy, has already been heavily investing in initiatives to
increase the domestic critical mineral production, and
likewise, has been heavily investing in renewable energy
deployment, as we are talking about today.
However, our public lands are key to facilitating this
need. I also know, at the same time, the Biden Administration
has launched the ``America the Beautiful'' initiative to place
a substantial amount of land and water into conservation.
Again, our public lands will be at the forefront of this
effort, too. To many, it sounds as if these two interests are
in direct opposition to each other. However, to me, it sounds
like a challenge we can meet if we bring together the right
people to take a holistic look at our needs and our resources
and plan accordingly. I think that our lands provide for us,
but we also need to take proper care of them in return. There
is a balance here that we can find. I also want to mention that
Nevada has incredible mining, and it is known as a mining state
as well.
So Ms. Daniel-Davis, let me ask you, do you agree that you
can find that balance, and that these initiatives can co-exist
with one another? How do you intend to reconcile these
interests and work with differing stakeholders to make that
balance to secure our public lands and make sure they are
managed in a proper way? At the same time, as we lean into this
innovation economy and this clean energy economy, how do we
manage both of those?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Senator, thanks so much for the question,
and I absolutely agree that this is a balance that can be
managed. Of course, multiple use is the heart of the Bureau of
Land Management, and certainly, the President supports
responsible development of critical minerals. The Secretary and
I do, as well. Renewable deployment, as you know, is also very
active in Nevada, and you have some of the most amazing
conservation lands. So as a process matter, I think the BLM
does a good job of this in Nevada, of being sure that they are
having conversations early and often with all of the
stakeholders--interests, government officials, tribes, only in
that way and sort of, you know, doing the sit-down with maps
and understanding where the resources are and where folks'
interests are, are you able to kind of deconflict areas, you
know, protect wildlife habitat, for example, but also ensure
that you are able to move forward in a balanced fashion with,
you know, all of the activity that you mentioned, which we
support. And you are right, Nevada has all of it. So you really
have a bird's-eye view of it.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Ms. Robinson, let me talk a little bit about cybersecurity.
In your written testimony, you touched on your experiences on
the Advanced IT, Internet, and Cybersecurity Committee, in
which you work with other policymakers across the country to
combat 21st century challenges and cyber threats to our
electric grid. And you went on to state, and I quote, ``It is
incumbent upon the Department to work with experts in
cybersecurity to develop and implement technologies and
policies that make our grid more secure.'' So, if confirmed,
can you speak to some of the cyber aspects that you would
prioritize, specifically as it relates to interagency and
intergovernmental collaboration and coordination to keep our
energy system secure and reliable?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you so much, Senator. I appreciate the
focus on cybersecurity. I think it is something we are all very
concerned about, but talk about in a somewhat vague fashion
from time to time. I participated in a number of zero-day
tabletop exercises, and I think we need to continue to utilize
those resources in order to better plan for potential attacks
on the grid, recognizing that they can happen either on the OT
or the IT side of things, and they obviously have very
different outcomes and processes. You know, whether we are
talking about utilities themselves and some of the resources
that they own and operate, or even to some degree
subcontractors, like you saw with the Colonial Pipeline issues,
we need to ensure that all sorts of contractors and utilities
that work on the grid are implementing some basic cybersecurity
hygiene, whether it is just two-factor authentication or
regular password changing, recognizing that we want to avoid as
many zero-day opportunities for hackers as possible.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I notice my time is up.
Dr. DeCarolis, I did not get a chance to ask you a question. I
will submit the rest of my questions for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. We have Mr. Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Daniel-Davis, the draft EIS from the Cook Inlet lease
sale includes a ``no-action'' alternative. So the Department of
the Interior's analysis--its new analysis--proposes to withhold
leases, which I think is something that we can see leading to
decreased supplies of oil and gas and, in turn, an increase in
energy prices, which will decrease demand, and result in lower
emissions. Does the Administration plan always to choose the
lowest emission proposal from their analysis?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Thank you very much, Senator, for that
question, and I don't--this is an EIS, and a review of it is in
process so decisions have not been made. There are alternatives
before the Department which the BOEM has taken comment on and
is evaluating, so.
Senator Lee. Right, but the question is just, is that the
plan? Is there a plan in place to always choose the lowest
emission proposal?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So I think that, in all things, we are
going to follow the law and undertake the process and develop
fully the alternatives associated with any EIS, and there is no
pre-decisional activity that we undertake at the Department.
Senator Lee. Okay. So you are aware of no policy that says
we are always going to go with the lowest emission alternative?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. No.
Senator Lee. Okay.
Has the agency considered a maximum that it would be
willing to see energy prices reach before it would forgo a no-
action alternative, or is that even a consideration?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. I think what is really important to
remember is that production has continued on public lands,
onshore and offshore, it has stayed steady. Revenue has
continued to be generated as well as there are over 9,000
permits available on BLM lands and over 70 percent of OCS land
is not being developed. So I think that there is a lot of space
there for production and development to continue over time.
Senator Lee. The Bureau of Land Management recently updated
its webpage, and in so doing, it indicated that it is going to
slap a levy, it is going to impose an 18.75 percent royalty on
oil and gas leases. Now, this is an increase in royalty of
about 50 percent. That is heavy. That is a heavy spike. I find
this curious given everything else that is going on.
What can you tell me about why the Department's increasing
oil and gas royalties and placing a moratorium on leasing, even
while the Administration is scrambling to try to relieve prices
at the pump by calling for oil to be released from the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, for OPEC to increase production,
and suggesting that oil companies simply are not drilling as
much as they should be--how is that consistent?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. The leasing process is underway and
continues onshore and offshore, and with regard to the posting
you are referencing, you may have missed that BLM indicated
publicly that that had been a draft--one of many variables
under consideration, that it is not--decisions have not been
made. I think, you know, since I have been here last, we did
issue a----
Senator Lee. But decisions have not been made on what?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. With regard to how to move forward with
leasing and what the variables will be associated with the BLM
lease sales. And again, since I was last here, we issued our
report at the end of November. You may have had the opportunity
to review it, and it indicates recommendations associated with,
you know, ensuring a fair return to the taxpayer, and
discouraging speculation and, you know, ensuring that we are
assessing climate impacts. So I think it is unsurprising that
you might see a draft, again, which was a draft and was, you
know, posted in error, that would be looking at precisely those
kinds of issues.
Senator Lee. Okay, well, it was posted nonetheless, and a
lot of people, you can understand, would be concerned about
that when it comes through an official source.
Now, the oil and gas leasing report is something that I
believe you helped to produce, and it is 18 pages long,
including the cover sheet, but it somehow took 11 months to
prepare. There appears to be, as far as I could tell, no real
original analysis in it. It sort of resembles a copy, cut, and
paste job on some talking points that has been parroted for
years. Can you tell us how the oil and gas report factors into
the President's promise, to quote, ``ban new oil and gas
permitting on public lands and waters?'' And that is a direct
quote.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So the oil and gas report that we worked
on and prepared and then, you know, released at the end of
November, I agree with you, it is not an original work and in
fact, we were pleased, actually, to be able to look at
literally decades of information that has been developed by the
General Accounting Office by our own Inspector General at
Interior. We held a public forum. We had repeated meetings with
folks across the spectrum, from industry to the conservation
community to indigenous communities. We held formal tribal
consultation. So again, I think that, and what we ended up
doing was providing some recommendations associated with the
leasing program that we think, you know, if those are
undertaken, will be a more fair program and reflective of the
issues that we put forward.
Senator Lee. I appreciate that. I don't think you have
answered my question. My question was whether it factors in the
President's promise to ban new oil and gas permitting on public
lands.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So, I mean, I guess I'll just say again,
the leasing process is underway, onshore and offshore, and the
report, as developed and released, provides specific
recommendations associated with a leasing program.
Senator Lee. So that would suggest he does not do this, he
is backing away from it?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So I am not in a position to speak for
the President. I can just tell you what we are doing at the
Department of the Interior. And again, that report was
developed to provide specific recommendations for a program to
ensure that it provided a better return to the taxpayer, was
less speculative, particularly onshore, and took climate
impacts into account and ensure that we were doing proper
public review of any leasing activity on public lands and
waters.
Senator Lee. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations to all of you on your nominations and your
willingness to serve. I ask the following two initial questions
of every nominee in any of the committees on which I sit. You
can answer en masse.
So the first question. Since you became a legal adult, have
you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed
any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual
nature?
[All witnesses respond ``no.'']
Senator Hirono. No, for all of you.
Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement
related to this kind of conduct?
[All witnesses respond ``no.'']
Senator Hirono. Thank you.
I was listening very carefully to the increase in royalties
from our oil and gas leases, and those have been traditionally
very, very low. I, for one, am glad that you are increasing the
royalty amounts. That is a comment for Ms. Daniel-Davis. So all
I can say is, good.
For Ms. Robinson, thank you for mentioning your really
smart 13-year-old daughter. I feel like she is going to be
running the world soon. Just make sure that public service is
really important to her, too, as it is to you.
If confirmed, you will be responsible for overseeing the
historic investments to modernize the power grid. Modernization
of grids is, I think, an important issue for every single
state, including, of course, the State of Hawaii, which has
seven separate grids, one for each island. It is a challenge
for us to modernize the grid. But in the bipartisan
infrastructure bill, the law provides $11 billion for states,
tribes, and utilities to improve the resilience of the grid
against cyberattacks and extreme weather from climate change.
It provides $3 billion for small-grid grants, which make it
easier for homes and businesses to use their own solar and
storage systems. How would you ensure that the funds are spent
well and on time so people see the benefits of affordable,
reliable, and clean power? This is probably more of an
investment in grid modernization than ever before, and we need
to make sure that it is spent well. So how would you go about
making sure of that?
Ms. Robinson. Sure, thank you so much, Senator, and Hawaii
has been such a leader on all of the energy issues, somewhat
out of necessity, I suppose, over the past decades, and
recognizing that, much like Alaska, you are not necessarily as
invested in the high-voltage DC the way that other parts of the
country are. So increased investment in microgrids is going to
be incredibly important as we are moving forward. And,
similarly, I might note, that the Department just made an
announcement around work in Puerto Rico, working with HUD, DHS,
and FEMA to develop a number of different tools that I think
are applicable for both Hawaii and Alaska as well, including a
great emergency management tool that will look at weather
events and how to prevent outages on the grid, should they move
forward. So I do look forward to working with you on that.
With regards to the bipartisan infrastructure bill, you
know, I am not privy to internal deliberations over at the
Department of Energy now, but I know that that is a major focus
of the Secretary, to ensure that the Department is working very
closely with states, tribes, regions, and municipalities, many
of whom have long-term plans that they would love to see
funded, but haven't had an opportunity to fund in the past. So
I look forward to working with you and the other members of the
Committee on getting those funds out the door.
Senator Hirono. These are going to be very complex kinds of
issues and challenges because you are answering questions about
why others with such a small amount of reliance on alternative
energy--I think, in New England and Maine, and I just note that
in November, voters in Maine rejected a $1 billion transmission
project to bring hydropower from Quebec into New England, and
that line could have reduced their reliance on fossil fuels and
provided power in New England. So these are very complicated
issues. And for Hawaii, you know, we are not connected as are
the 48 states, and so the idea of using power generated from
one of our islands and having a transmission capacity to send
that power to another island is highly--well, there are
technical issues, but, you know, there are all those kinds of
community concerns about that kind of situation.
Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind?
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Hirono. For Dr. DeCarolis, you noted that you will
be the federal statistical entity that we can rely on
independently. But my understanding is that your agency has not
been terribly accurate in terms of how it is determining what
the cost of solar energy may be, et cetera, et cetera. So I
hope that you will be making the accurate assumptions and
inputting the kinds of information that you need to provide us
with much more accurate information--I am not blaming you, you
are not there yet--more accurate information for the
communities. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Cassidy.
Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
Ms. Daniel-Davis, I will be directing my questions to you,
and with the kind of prologue that we now have the highest
inflation in 40 years. If we included the cost of energy, the
inflation rate would not be seven percent, it would be
approaching ten percent. Russia has leverage in the EU. We have
higher energy prices here because this Administration has kind
of led an effort to limit production and development of North
American resources. That we can say unequivocally. Indeed, we
have Democratic Senators who want to leave the EU high and dry
and vulnerable to the Russians because they do not like the
fact that natural gas is $3.79 per BCF (billion cubic feet),
when that is the envy of the world. We have gone from within a
year being energy independent to groveling before OPEC to ask
them to increase world supply because our gasoline prices have
gone up so much. That is the so-far legacy of this
Administration.
Now, my question, if you will, and it is a little long--the
U.S. District Court ordered a preliminary injunction on the
leasing pause and ordered federal oil and gas lease sales to
proceed on June 15th, 2021. The DOI held Lease Sale 257 on
November 17th to comply. But then on January 27th of this year,
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
invalidated this, requiring DOI to reassess the environmental
impacts of Lease Sale 257.
Now, has the Department of the Interior started the process
to comply with the January 27th court order so that Lease Sale
257 can be validated and leases awarded to offshore operators,
and what is the DOI's timeline for compliance with the court
order, and how soon can they meet the requirements so the
leases can be awarded? And please keep your answer short.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Thank you, Senator, and of course, we are
looking at the decision. It is not yet two weeks old and it
did----
Senator Cassidy. I am sure this was anticipated, so it
would be a little naive to say that oh, it came out of the
blue.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So the remand and vacatur of the lease
sale is sort of where we're at, and what that requires is the
Department, you know, working together with our solicitor's
office, of course, and having a lot of internal conversation
about the process to cure the defects identified by this court.
Senator Cassidy. And so when do you intend to and when do
we anticipate that being--one, do you intend to, and when do we
expect it to be accomplished?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So, again, I think we are at the
beginning, and I understand that this is a very important
question, and it is important to us----
Senator Cassidy. So currently there is no timeline?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. There is no timeline for that.
Senator Cassidy. Okay, that tells me a lot. I am sorry to
be--I don't mean to be rude, but I mean, I just have a lot of
questions, and I am a little frustrated, as you might guess, as
are the workers in my state who will not have jobs because of
this deliberate foot dragging by the Administration.
The Department of the Interior--second question--must issue
a notice of sale for lease for the Lease Sale 259 on March the
2nd, 2022, in order to comply with the June 15th ruling, and
provide, by the way, the U.S. with much-needed benefits
associated with federal oil and gas leasing. Is DOI working on
the notice of sale for Lease Sale 259, and when do you expect
to issue this notice assuming that you are? Is DOI expediting
Lease Sale 259 to comply with the June 15th order and to hold
it before the expiration of the 2017-2022 Outer Continental
Shelf Lease Plan?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So I am not going to be in a position to
talk about deliberative activities and get ahead of the
Secretary. I can assure you that we are in compliance with the
court--the June ruling--and are moving forward with the lease
program onshore and offshore.
Senator Cassidy. Now, compliance now speaks of now. Is that
to say that three weeks from now you will still be in
compliance, which is to say that the lease sale will be held by
March 2nd?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So I said I am really not in a position
to get ahead of the Secretary's decisionmaking on a----
Senator Cassidy. So you mean the Secretary may decide not
to do this. She may decide to defy the district court. That is
what I am hearing from you.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So Secretary Haaland has wide discretion
in managing this program----
Senator Cassidy. Even if a court is ordering her to do so?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. I am not signaling anything about the
Secretary's decisionmaking other than we are in a deliberative
posture, and I am not going to get ahead of her here.
Senator Cassidy. Let me ask another. The 2016 Obama
Administration study conducted by BOEM concluded that America's
greenhouse gas emissions will be little affected by leasing
decisions on BOEM's offshore leasing program, and indeed, could
result, if we do not lease, in an increase because the
emissions associated with importing foreign oil are greater
than domestic production. Now, by the way, I represent those
workers who will be on those rigs, so it is also about jobs
here versus jobs elsewhere in the world. So as DOI does more
effective moratorium, are they taking into account that it
actually lowers greenhouse gas emissions to produce it
domestically and creates American jobs and strengthens our
economy as opposed to the Russian economy or another economy in
which they greater pollute? Are those part of the
deliberations?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So I do want to clarify that production
has continued onshore and offshore so those jobs and revenues--
--
Senator Cassidy. We are speaking about new leases, of
course. We are speaking about new leases.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood, and
I am familiar with the 2016 report and analysis that you
reference, and I appreciate what you are saying about it with
regard to the analysis that was developed back in 2016.
Senator Cassidy. Ms. Daniel-Davis, I suspect that some of
these decisions are being made higher than you. But the only
leverage I have right now is to oppose your nomination. And
until these answers are given, and it may be March 2nd in which
we know, I will speak on behalf of my workers and my economy
and the world environment to deliver a message that we don't
like where this Administration is going. And it's nothing
personal. It is entirely for our country and our workers.
I yield.
Senator Murkowski [presiding]. Senator Cantwell is next on
the list. Is she virtual? No.
Then Senator King, please proceed.
Senator King. Thank you, Chair.
Ms. Daniel-Davis, Dr. Feldgus testified last October that
the Department was eager to work with Senator Cassidy and I and
Senator Whitehouse on the issue of revenue sharing for offshore
wind. Eager may have been an overstatement, because we have not
heard much on that. Will you commit to me here and now that you
will work actively with us on the issue of revenue sharing for
offshore wind, which we all believe is a future important part
of our energy picture?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Senator, thank you, and I do commit, if
confirmed, I would be pleased to work with you on this really
important issue. Thank you.
Senator King. Thank you.
Ms. Robinson, I have worked a good deal of my professional
life in the area of renewables, and I have been a strong
advocate for renewables here in the Senate. However, Senator
Lankford made an important point, and the question is not
getting to renewables, the question is timing. By the way, I
commend to you an iPhone app called ISO to Go. And if you do
not have it, you probably ought to get it. It tells you on a
five-minute basis what is going on in the New England energy
grid, where the power is coming from, and what the prices are.
For example, five minutes ago, natural gas was 57 percent of
the electricity in New England. Nuclear was 26 percent.
Renewables, nine percent, and coal, three percent. I emphasize
coal because one of the reasons we have problems in access to
natural gas in New England is not gas supply, it is pipelines.
And so the question is really timing, and what do we do to
supply energy at a reasonable price and on a reliable basis to
the people of New England that are now almost 60 percent
dependent upon natural gas if we do not allow additional
pipeline capacity to be developed in the expectation of a
growth of renewables? But it is certainly going to take a
decade or more. Senator Lankford suggested 25 years. It is
going to take a significant amount of time to develop the
storage capacity and the generation capacity to make up that
gap.
So I am not--I just want your thoughts, perhaps more
succinct than my question, on how we get from here to there.
Ms. Robinson. Thank you so much, Senator. And I do have the
ISO To Go app. I also have the PJM one, and some of the other
RTOs have great apps, and I encourage everyone watching this to
download those, I suppose.
So I think the timing is a very important question, and
certainly there is larger concern on domestic prices for fuel
costs, sort of, broadly, and then specifically in the New
England region. And I will note at this moment in time----
Senator King. Well, also, there are also important
environmental questions. If we do not have enough natural gas
and we are burning coal to make up the difference, that is an
environmental disaster.
Ms. Robinson. So I think it is important to note that
natural gas pipeline capacity in New England is completely
constrained. It is being utilized as much as possible, but I do
point to some of the more fast-moving policies that are
happening in New England specifically. I will speak a little
bit more to Massachusetts because that is my bailiwick, but a
lot of the issues relating to New England are that New England
relies on natural gas not just for electricity supply, but for
heating and cooling and as, you know, Governor Baker has a
whole task force oriented around moving to different varieties
of heating and cooling needs, particularly focused on heat
pumps. And as that transition happens, as well as greater
implementation of demand response and other work there, that is
going to help alleviate some of the price concerns and
constraints in the immediate----
Senator King. I am certainly with you on smart grid,
microgrids, and demand response and all of those, but I can
tell you that one of the parts of the plan for developing a
cleaner energy system involves a significant expansion of
transmission capacity. And the problem that I am concerned
about is the permitting and the timing of developing that
additional transmission capacity. If you think it is hard to
put a pipeline underground through a community, try a high-
tension line. And as Senator Hirono pointed out, two-thirds of
the people of Maine recently rejected additional transmission
capacity for Hydro-Quebec. So your office has principally been
in the research realm, but you are going to be into deployment
and implementation, and I think you are going to find that this
is a significant challenge. I urge you to take the challenge of
developing additional transmission as a very, very important
part of your new position.
Ms. Robinson. Thank you very much, Senator, and I certainly
do, and recognize that it is a challenge, but one that I am
excited to take on.
Senator King. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you, Senator. So nice to
hear from you.
Senator King. Sir.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Hyde-Smith.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And my question is for Ms. Daniel-Davis. Here we are again
talking about a five-year plan and lease sales within the Gulf
of Mexico. I have never seen such slow-walking in my life, to
the detriment of my home State of Mississippi. Referring again
to a report prepared during the Obama Administration--and I
know you served under the Obama Administration--that looked at
greenhouse emissions from offshore operations under various
leasing scenarios. Under the no-leasing scenario, the report
concluded that net greenhouse gas emissions would actually
increase, as the country would simply turn to imported oil
produced in areas with less environmental controls to meet oil
demand.
Ms. Daniel-Davis, what are your views on pausing lease
sales and slowing permitting given that this actually hurts the
Administration's goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
forcing the nation to turn away from cleaner, U.S.-produced
oil?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Thank you, Senator, and I want to
reiterate that leasing is ongoing, onshore and offshore. Of
course, the court ruling on Lease Sale 257 has been referenced
here, and as far as permitting, that too has been ongoing,
onshore and offshore.
Senator Hyde-Smith. So what is your answer? And can you
tell me by forcing the nation to turn away cleaner oil that is
produced, what are your views on that?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So I think I am sort of thinking about
the role that I have at the Department and my awareness around
onshore and offshore production and that it has continued and,
you know, stayed at a level that is historic, which means the
revenues coming off royalties have been produced, people have
kept working. In fact, I think there has been an uptick in
activity as we are coming out of the pandemic. So that is
really my orientation, is sort of thinking about the role I
have at the Department, and the work that I am doing with the
bureaus on moving forward with the oil and gas leasing program.
Senator Hyde-Smith. So you think that it is appropriate and
that you are going in the right direction there? That is your
opinion?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Well, I do feel that we are moving
forward with the leasing program onshore and offshore and that,
you know, again, production has continued. Permitting has
continued. There are over 9,000 permits available on the
onshore public lands that could be utilized.
Senator Hyde-Smith. And we have witnessed the Biden
Administration pleading with Russia and OPEC for oil and
natural gas instead of increasing domestic supply, and we
continue to dig ourselves into a huge hole by tapping into the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We know that oil and natural gas
will be part of the U.S. energy portfolio for decades to come.
So why is the Administration so determined on constricting
domestic production and forcing us to rely on adversaries for
our emergency stockpile? Please make that make sense to me.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So Secretary Haaland, I know, when she
appeared before the Committee certainly, you know, confirmed
what you said--that oil and gas will be a part of America's
energy signature for a while as we move toward a more clean
energy economy, and I just--with sort of production ongoing and
so many permits available to drill onshore and offshore,
production where we have leasing areas of up to 70 percent
available that are not being produced right now, I feel like we
are in a position where there is a lot of production activity
that can continue.
Senator Hyde-Smith. And will DOI timely fulfill its
statutory obligation to have a new five-year program in place
in a timely manner so there is no gap between the existing plan
and the commencement of a new one?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So BOEM is absolutely working forward on
the next five-year plan. As you know, I think, probably better
than anyone, OSCLA is a very prescriptive law, and they are
following the process carefully so that we get some good
outcomes.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Do you have any idea of when we can
expect it to be finalized?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So again, you know, BOEM is working
carefully on the required analysis. We were in the position
when we came in of--I think you are probably aware the previous
Administration had put forward a plan that included a number of
sensitive leasing areas proposed, you know, Pacific, Atlantic,
Florida, and then they had not really taken any action for
about three years. So there is a lot for BOEM to sift through,
and we of course have overlay of, you know, litigation and
rulings which actually also inform the analysis and look-in
that they are doing. So I don't have a timeline for you here
today, but they are absolutely working forward on it.
Senator Hyde-Smith. But, I mean, six months? Twelve months?
Eighteen months? No idea?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So again, this sort of falls into the
deliberative posture with regard to the Department and the
Secretary's authorities and decisionmaking, and I am just not
in a position to get ahead of decisions that she would be
making with regard to this program.
Senator Hyde-Smith. Okay, I think I am out of time now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all
for your time today and your time in public service. Ms.
Daniel-Davis, nice to see you again. And Dr. DeCarolis--with a
name like Hickenlooper, I am allowed to stumble on other
people's names. Thank you all for being here.
Dr. DeCarolis, I strongly support the vision you laid out,
both in your testimony and when we talked earlier about a more
accessible and transparent EIA, particularly for long-term
outlooks. As we discussed, I am kind of a nut for data and for
making sure that we have information. And we discussed a few
things. I am just going to go down and let you say something on
these just to make sure that--I think I know where we are, but
I just want to make sure. So if you can just tell how you might
pursue each of these measures, if confirmed, as Administrator.
First, the breaking out of renewable outlooks by generation
type.
Dr. DeCarolis. Yes, absolutely. The current annual energy
outlook basically lumps all renewables together, and in the
latest outlook from 2021, renewables, in the reference case,
are over 30 percent and sort of an equal share between--I
should say, wind and solar together are about 30 percent, and I
think it makes sense to break those out and some of the high-
level graphics so people can see where the energy is coming
from.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, perfect.
What about including renewables in the EIA's annual
retrospective review of its annual energy outlook?
Dr. DeCarolis. Yes, thank you for that question, Senator. I
agree that as a modeler it is really important that we reflect
on the analysis that we conduct. EIA already performs a
retrospective analysis of the annual energy outlook. It is
focused exclusively on fossil fuels, and it should continue to
do that analysis, but I would also like to see a retrospective
analysis of renewables deployment added to that so we
understand where we are headed.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes. I couldn't agree more. Making
models and the input data fully transparent?
Dr. DeCarolis. Yes, absolutely. I think that is really
important to the modeling endeavor.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, so that the whole energy
modeling community can have access.
Dr. DeCarolis. Yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. Quantifying and communicating
uncertainties associated with the forecasts?
Dr. DeCarolis. Yes, absolutely. You know, one of the things
I focused a lot on in my career is the role that future
uncertainty can play in what we understand about where the
energy system is headed. And so, I think we need to run the
models under lots of different scenarios in order to get
insights that are more robust.
Senator Hickenlooper. Right, we agree. As we discussed,
there are so many uncertainties that we just have to keep
exploring and making sure that we have a better range.
And lastly, directly comparing EIA's total expected shale
extraction and its long-term outlooks to relevant EIA and USGS
estimates of proven, unproven, and technically recoverable
reserves?
Dr. DeCarolis. Yes, absolutely. I mean, I want to use the
best available data that we have and that would include looking
at shale reserves and making sure that we are using the most
accurate data available.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Perfect.
Ms. Robinson, last year Colorado passed bipartisan
legislation requiring all of its transmission utilities to join
an organized wholesale market by 2030. And as we move forward,
or as Colorado moves forward in exploring and developing
organized wholesale electricity markets, I think they would
benefit from working with the Office of Electricity, given the
Office's tools and expertise, as I understand them, regarding
grid, economic functions, emission modeling, those things. If
confirmed, do you anticipate being able to work closely with
our office to support Colorado as they seek to expand organized
wholesale electricity markets, not just in Colorado, but
throughout the Western United States?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you so much for bringing that up,
Senator. This is an area that I am particularly excited to work
on, which is state technical assistance, and in particular, on
the Western RTO. It is an area that I worked on in a previous
position as well, and I know that Nevada has similar policies
in place to move it toward joining an organized wholesale
market as well as Colorado. So really, I think, we recognize
that states are maybe not as well funded to do that type of
analysis that needs to happen in order to make these important
decisions. And so I would be excited to work with all of you in
these states that are considering joining an RTO or developing
a wholesale market with the Office of Electricity's resources.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great. And I think it is exactly as
you said, I think that most states do not have the--not just
the experience doing this, but they do not have the computer
modeling and a system set up to do it as easily as you can. You
have the tools.
And I guess I am out of time, so Ms. Daniel-Davis, you are
off the hook, but I will submit questions so you can answer at
your leisure to the record. Thank you all. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thanks, Chairman Manchin.
Ms. Daniel-Davis, the last time your nomination was before
us was in September, I believe. That was nine months since the
Biden Administration illegally paused oil and gas leasing on
public lands. It was also three months after a federal judge
ruled that the Department of the Interior had to resume
leasing. It is February. No oil and gas lease sales have been
conducted in Montana. It is an unlawful action. It is hurting
local communities. It is killing jobs. In fact, the court found
that the leasing ban would cause irreparable injury to the
states, including Montana. The law is clear. The Department
must hold quarterly lease sales in each state where lands are
available. That is the law. Yet in Montana, all four quarterly
lease sales were canceled last year, and a date has yet to be
publicly set for this year.
My question is, when does the Department intend to hold all
the illegally paused lease sales that it missed in 2021?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So Senator, BLM is moving forward, I
think you know, with the leasing process. When I was here in
September, we were able to talk about the scoping that they
were in the middle of. They also, of course, moved forward with
some draft environmental assessments, had the opportunity to
extend the comment period, which was requested by both industry
and the conservation community, and did so, and is in the
process of analyzing 20,000-plus comments that came in the
door. And I think I would just reflect that the process--
following the process, following the law, taking into
consideration all of the issues in a, you know, in sort of a
careful way, is incredibly important given the litigation that
we have seen around this program, and that is both onshore and
offshore, and be sure that we are addressing what we are
hearing from the courts with regard to deficiencies in the
program as well as, you know, BLM, certainly taking into
consideration the recommendations that were put forward.
Senator Daines. Well, this is not something that we
invented recently. We have been doing quarterly lease sales for
a long time. So while I appreciate the comments on process,
having spent a lot of time in the private sector, I am most
interested in results. So my question is, will you guarantee
that a lease sale will happen in Montana this quarter? There
has been plenty of time.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So Senator, I am a fan of process so----
Senator Daines. Wait, I am a big process fan too. I am a
chemical engineer. I love process.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Sure, sure.
Senator Daines. Process is a means to an end to deliver a
result. So the question is, will there be a lease sale in
Montana this quarter?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So again, BLM is looking at and analyzing
the comments. They are moving along. I am not--I don't think it
would make sense for me to get ahead of a deliberative process.
I am interested in having consistency and certainty associated
with this program.
Senator Daines. A judge said that what has been happening
was illegal. It was not following the law. And my concern is
the actions by the Department show a blatant disregard for the
law. Not only was the initial ban illegal, what we are seeing
here is a slow-walk. It is a slow-walk of the lease sale
process since the federal injunction back in June. The
Department does not have a desire to follow the law.
My question then, if confirmed, how can we be confident
that you will follow the law?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So Senator, I want to assert
unequivocally that I will always follow the law, and I do think
that being sure, in a program that has received so much
litigation and lease sales being remanded repeatedly, I think
it is important for BLM to take the time that it needs to take
to get the process right. That is the way to provide certainty
and consistency for this program, and not have operators
concerned that these lease sales are going to be turned back
and open questions about what the next steps are.
Senator Daines. Well, I think there is slow-walking going
on here, and there has been plenty of time to get this right.
It is not something we have never done before in doing the
lease sales.
Let me move on to another area here, which is the 30 by 30
initiative. It has come to my attention that several of my
colleagues have urged Secretary Haaland to unilaterally
designate more wilderness study areas in order to bypass
Congress and increase acreage of public land that is managed as
wilderness under the guise of the 30 by 30 initiative. The
letter states that the intent is to bypass Congress to increase
acres managed for wilderness.
Ms. Daniel-Davis, putting aside the fact that there are
millions of acres of existing wilderness study areas that have
been studied and recommended unsuitable for wilderness--and I
am not opposed to wilderness. I have passed wilderness bills
here--led them. But these are unsuitable for wilderness as
deemed by the process that Congress laid out that is not being
followed. They are still awaiting Congressional action. Do you
believe the Department has the authority to unilaterally
designate more wilderness study areas?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. I appreciate that question. I am familiar
with the letter that you reference. And I think as far as
``America the Beautiful'' and the things the Department is
looking at, of course, we are in the middle of a lot of public
outreach. It is meant to be a bottom-up process that takes into
consideration the----
Senator Daines. But does the Department have the authority
unilaterally to designate more? That is a direct question.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Yes, I think I am not in a position to
answer that, and I will have to get back to you.
Senator Daines. Okay, well, it is over years and years of
precedent here. It has been Congress's authority to designate
WSAs, not the Department's. So I would appreciate a response
back on that.
Thank you.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Of course.
The Chairman. Senator Kelly.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this very important hearing.
Ms. Daniel-Davis, good morning, and thank you everybody for
being here today. Welcome back to the Committee. I would like
to talk a little bit about our critical minerals supply chain.
I have spent a lot of time working to address the semiconductor
chip shortage, and last week the House passed our bipartisan
plan to invest $52 billion into semiconductor research and
manufacturing over the next five years. And now, I am working
with my colleagues to get this plan to the President's desk.
The chip shortage that we are facing is serious. It is
impacting costs and the economy in real time, and it is a
national security problem because most of the microchips that
are used in this country come from abroad, including
adversaries like China. The same can be said about rare earth
elements. These materials are used in advanced technology,
including semiconductors, high-powered magnets, fighter jets,
medical devices, electric vehicles, wind turbines, and
batteries. The United States once led in rare earths, but now
80 percent of our rare earth imports come from China.
So Ms. Daniel-Davis, I raise this issue because Senator
Cotton and I introduced legislation that would direct the
Defense Department and the Interior Department to begin the
process of establishing strategic stockpiles of rare earth
elements. This is not a solution chasing a problem. China
disrupted rare earth exports to Japan in 2010 over an East
China Sea dispute. And more recently, China threatened
shipments to the United States during tensions around trade. We
need a reserve that could meet our national defense needs in
the event of a supply disruption. So Ms. Daniel-Davis, would
you agree that more must be done to improve the rare earth
supply chain?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Senator, thanks so much for that
question, and I want to affirm that the Department, directed by
the President, we are committed to responsible development of
critical minerals and rare earth minerals and understand the
importance of their use across the economy, as you have noted.
So I do think that we are working together with an all-of-
government approach to ensure that--you know, we are one part
of it, but we have a lot of partners across the government,
including DOE, to ensure that we are undertaking this work in
an effective and efficient manner.
Senator Kelly. Could you give me some examples of what the
Interior Department could do to help develop this strategic
reserve?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So I am going to admit here that I don't
have a lot of familiarity with, you know, approach of
development of a reserve. I can tell you that what we are
looking at in terms of responsible development of critical
minerals and rare earth minerals on public lands. The law that
governs it, the 1872 Mining Law, is a bit archaic. So at a
minimum we are trying to be sure that we understand what is out
there, where the resources are, and where the best
opportunities are for sort of lesser conflict areas where we
can work together, you know, with interests on the ground, you
know, states included, to be sure that we are undertaking
development in the right way and in an efficient manner.
Senator Kelly. So if confirmed, would you be willing to
work with my office to help us come up with this plan to
develop this strategic reserve of rare earths?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Senator, I would be pleased to, and I
would be pleased to learn more about the reserve concept as
well.
Senator Kelly. All right. Thank you.
And Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Senator Murkowski [presiding]. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so
much. I thank Ms. Robinson for her willingness to serve, and
all the nominees.
I wanted to ask you about--obviously we are here and you
were mentioning in your opening statement about cybersecurity
and the need to better fortify the communication layer of the
grid. Our colleague here, Senator Manchin, put forward some
language that did just that by building out more fiber
opportunity on the grid. Fiber not only provides a way to
affordably transmit massive amounts of data, it can do so in a
physically secure manner. And fiber encased in aluminum strung
40 feet in the air, surrounded by high-voltage transmission, is
a pretty good security layer for physical attacks, unlike some
of our other communication infrastructure that has been
targeted over the last year or two. This kind of network can
provide a closed-loop system. So it is definitely a more secure
communication layer than what is currently serving us, and more
broadband can empower generators and grid operators with close-
to-real-time data and visibility needed to negotiate and
integrate more distributed resources. It gives the data they
need to respond to outages and adapt to extreme weather
conditions, which are definitely costing all of us at the local
level and certainly at the federal level. Some of these
systems, with the proper monitoring, even can detect wildfires.
And as we have seen, this has been a devastating issue in the
past.
So lighting up dark fiber and building out OPGW along the
nation's transmission grid could move data needed to modernize
our energy system and make our grid more secure. Do you agree
that expanding the communications capacity along the grid's
existing rights-of-way could provide a significant co-benefit
for cybersecurity and grid modernization and provide high-speed
internet to tens of millions of Americans that currently cannot
afford to connect to broadband?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you so much, Senator, and I know this
is a larger conversation, and certainly the Office of
Electricity has done, I am pretty sure, a recent report on dark
fiber, and it will continue to perform a lot of research around
that. I want to point specifically to the smart grid
infrastructure fund, which was just given several billion
dollars, in addition, through the bipartisan infrastructure
bill, and one piece of that does include expansion of broadband
in order to support smart grid infrastructure. And I could see
there being a real benefit there and an opportunity, and I
would love to continue the discussion with your office to see
if there is a way to make that happen.
Senator Cantwell. Okay. Do you think that covers
investments like cost sharing and building out the fiber?
Ms. Robinson. I think that it--assuming that there is a
grid aspect associated with it, I obviously don't want to step
on the toes of our friends over at the Department of Commerce
who oversee broadband communications, but where it does overlap
with smart grid communications and grid communications, writ
large.
Senator Cantwell. Do you think there are other ways to spur
deployment of grid fiber per site by providing incentives
through FERC or when transmission gets built? Do you think
there are other ways to do this? Because I just look at what we
have been through on the cyber side of the equation, and a lot
of resources are spent. It is amazing how much time our various
colleagues on various committees spend on this, particularly
Armed Services. I think they spend a ton of time thinking about
this, but in reality, we are talking about fortifying the grid.
So do you think there are other ways to build out that
communication labor with fibers or other ways to incent?
Ms. Robinson. I think that there probably are. Obviously, I
won't speak for FERC and how they would do that sort of cost
allocation work. Another area that I admit I am excited about
is being able to do more pilot programs with the Department of
Defense in figuring out what those cybersecurity benefits could
be and figuring out how to best determine the cost-benefit
ratio as well, which I think will be important if we are going
to figure out how the cost allocation works.
Senator Cantwell. On that point, our region led the
nation's smart grid demo in 2012, and PNNL--the Pacific
Northwest National Labs--just recently released a report
showing that if this technology were used across the country,
we could cut peak loads by up to 15 percent and deliver $50
billion in economic benefits to customers. Innovations like
this are critical for us moving forward. How would you work
with innovation technologies like that to get them better
integrated into the grid?
Ms. Robinson. So the PNNL study that just came out is on
reactive power. It is a seminal study. I think it really
shows--using Texas as an example, of course--but looks at all
of the different ways in which we could optimize the grid in
order to provide $5 billion in benefits to consumers, which, I
think we all agree, is a positive thing, as well as tackling a
lot of the other issues, be it cybersecurity or emissions, that
we are facing at this moment in time. I will say a partnership
between PNNL and INL, I think, could be a big component,
recognizing the grid testbed that is available over at INL to
put, not just the theoretical modeling--no offense--to test,
and actually do some of that work on the ground at Idaho. So I
would love to talk with you more about ways that we can make
that work.
Senator Cantwell. I like that suggestion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you.
And we are going to start a second round very quickly
because we have votes coming up right now.
But Ms. Robinson, I would like to start a second round with
making sure that you are aware that Congress made a very
significant investment in modernizing the electric grid in the
bipartisan infrastructure bill we just passed. For example, we
updated what DOE designates as the National Energy Interest
Electric Transmission Corridors, where transmission expansion
is most needed. We also included $3 billion to deploy
technologies that can make the grid smarter, more flexible, and
more resilient, and we have a new anchor tenant authority to
combine with a revolving loan program for the grid. And I
understand you might not be able to speak on current
implementation plans, but what I am asking you is, how would
you prioritize using these federal dollars to get us the grid
we really need without just paying for the investment with a
grant program? And can you speak about the value of
transmission and the value of the grid system? And who is
receiving that money?
Ms. Robinson. Sure.
The Chairman. People think that, basically, it flows free
across these wires and all that.
Ms. Robinson. It very much does not flow free, Senator.
The Chairman. Is it more profitable than making the power?
Ms. Robinson. So when it comes to transmission, we are
talking not just about increasing generation opportunities,
right? It is also about redundancy and ensuring that
reliability is increased, which I think is a component that we
may not talk about quite as much as we talk about increased
access to new resources.
The Chairman. I think really, the question I was--I'm
sorry--do you believe that the utilities have enough revenue
coming across those lines to pay back the loan program at no
interest to the Federal Government to try to help them to
deploy into areas, such as where renewables are going to be
expanded?
Ms. Robinson. I think FERC has more of the authority over
some of that cost allocation work. What I can see potentially
are not necessarily just no-interest loans, as you mentioned,
but there are opportunities to do matching. I think it is a
really good opportunity not to just work--I think when we talk
about utilities we talk about investment-owned utilities a lot
of the time. But this is a really great opportunity, you know,
to work with co-ops and municipal utilities as well.
The Chairman. I am just asking, should we be giving the
utilities a grant--federal dollars for free--to build
transmission, or should they borrow and have access to loans?
What makes sense?
Ms. Robinson. I don't have access to all of the analysis
that is available on that right now.
The Chairman. Okay.
Ms. Robinson. But I understand your concern about----
The Chairman. Well, my concern is they are going to get
free money. If there is enough money--I know how valuable the
transmission is, and they should be paying back the Federal
Treasury and the taxpayers if we loan them the money to build
out transmission.
With that, I will go to Senator Murkowski for her second
round.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I will be
very brief.
Ms. Daniel-Davis, I will share with you, I have been
disappointed with some of your answers here today. I think for
some pretty direct and clear questions with regard to the five-
year lease sale in terms of timing and whether you are going to
keep the commitment, we really received nothing there, which is
concerning. I am disappointed in your response on the federal
oil and gas report, and then when asked multiple times about
the analysis that was used in the Cook Inlet Lease Sale 258 and
the relationship with the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions,
recognizing that the no-action alternative clearly says that
prices are going to be higher due to the lower energy supply
relative to the proposed action. And for those of us in states
where it is pretty high-cost, to be able to suggest that the
Department would even consider looking at an alternative where
it will result in increased energy prices for folks, and to
have kind of the view of this as something that we are
considering. And I understand that no decision has been made in
terms of which alternative, but know that there is great
concern as we are talking about things like reliability, that
affordability is absolutely essential and key as well.
Two very quick things here that I want to make sure are on
your radar screen. We have been working for years now to try to
resolve a situation between the BLM and several small Alaskan
miners that we tried to address within the Dingell Act; it
deals with a small miner waiver and claim maintenance fee. I
really need your commitment to work with us on this one. The
Chugach land study, this is, again, a requirement out of the
Dingell Act to look at lands that are suitable for exchange
with the Chugach Alaska Corporation. Back in January we got a
response from Director Stone-Manning saying she expects the
study within the next several weeks. I don't know where the
status is on that, but I have Alaskans in town this week that
are wondering, and I do not want to be able to say imminent,
because for them, it does not mean anything.
And I will just end with a statement on public land orders.
You know, I have asked multiple times--multiple times--
certainly in the last hearing that we had with you, for some
relevant authority or statute that allows a senior advisor to
the Secretary to exercise delegated authority to withhold the
public land orders that were previously signed by the
Department of the Interior. As you know, this has been a
longstanding issue with me. We passed my bill, the Alaska Land
Transfer Acceleration Act, back in 2003. In 2006, BLM says all
d-1 withdrawals should be revoked. In 2008, we saw four of
those RMPs completed, but no action taken to revoke these
withdrawals. We made some good headway with the Trump
Administration, but we are again sitting here with no action,
basically two years now of delay on the PLOs and no real action
with regards to the regional management plans. So my
disappointment continues with some of these issues that are key
to our state's ability to be able to engage in resource
production, whether it is big or small.
I am going to end with just a comment to Dr. DeCarolis
because you have gotten off easy today, I think.
[Laughter.]
Senator Murkowski. But you started in your testimony by
indicating that you believe that the agency--the EIA--should be
independent and impartial, and as long as you stick to that, we
are going to be okay.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I know we have votes, and we are
way late.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you to the witnesses.
The Chairman. Between the two of you--Senator Cassidy, I
know you have been waiting for a second round. Do you have a
quick question you want to ask?
Senator Cassidy. Ms. Daniel-Davis, I am concerned about the
lease sales and how that went down in terms of the
environmental groups. Mr. Chairman, you told some of us that
you are concerned about the lack of leasing being undertaken by
the Department. I also want to point out something with respect
to Lease Sale 257 and the legal challenge.
Ms. Daniel-Davis, on August 31st at 3:23 p.m., you
electronically signed the record of decision for Lease Sale
257. Correct?
Now, less than four hours later--the record of decision was
signed--and less than four hours later, three environmental
groups filed a 52-page complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia. You sign it, four hours later, a 52-
page complaint is filed. Now, I am not an attorney. But for the
plaintiffs to have reviewed the record of decision, drafted,
finalized, and filed, and then do 52 pages thoroughly reviewed
and agreed to with citations and signed, seems a little bit--
wow, they may have had some indication this was coming. The
Louisiana Attorney General's office has also given us
information regarding the timing of this filing on the part of
the plaintiffs.
Ms. Daniel-Davis, did you coordinate with anyone from
outside the Department, including the plaintiffs with respect
to the record of decision for Lease Sale 257?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So I did not. And Senator, I just want to
point out one of the features of the decision that the judge
made on 257 a couple weeks ago was that our Administration
relied on the record developed for that record of decision by
the previous Administration. So it is something that had been
out there in the public realm for months at that point. So I
just think that is an important point that I wanted to make.
Senator Cassidy. That is an important point. I accept that
as an important point. Nonetheless, do you know of anybody
within the Department, aside from yourself or the
Administration, who coordinated with or shared information with
the plaintiffs or any other interested party regarding the
publication of the record of decision for the Lease Sale 257?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. I am not aware of anything, sir. No.
Senator Cassidy. Okay. With that, I yield. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Daniel-Davis, as gas prices continue to rise, shouldn't
we be doing more to make U.S. production more competitive,
including holding lease sales on federal lands?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. Senator, I appreciate that question, and
we are moving forward with the lease sale process both onshore
and offshore.
Senator Hoeven. When you say moving forward, does that mean
having auctions and getting this going, not just continuing to
delay?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So I think I want to just reiterate the
importance of appropriate process with regard to lease sales. I
think we saw what happened in Lease Sale 257 and the defects
identified by the judge. Also, onshore there has been quite a
bit of litigation activity with similar concerns and others
raised, and I am very, very interested in BLM undertaking a
complete process and a full review and following the law. I
would rather them get it right and provide some consistency and
certainty to operators and others in this program.
Senator Hoeven. Well, do you think it is acceptable that
these policies are discouraging or delaying U.S. production,
increasing our reliance on energy from places like Russia and
Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries? The average price of
gasoline now is up to $3.50 a gallon, high inflation, is that
acceptable?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. The data that I have reviewed, and again,
this is only about onshore and offshore production on federal
public lands and waters, doesn't actually suggest that
production has slowed or been curtailed. In fact, in some
cases, it has risen as we are coming out of the pandemic.
Senator Hoeven. Well, in my State of North Dakota, our
lease sales are being held up on federal lands. Our production
is down from 1.5 million barrels a day down to about 1.1
million barrels a day. So that would contradict what you just
said. Not to mention the price of gasoline being up more than a
dollar over the last year. How do those two correlate? Energy
production in our country is down, not up. We are importing
more oil from Russia--from Russia--not less.
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So again, I am aware--and I am only
responsible for public lands and waters--that, in fact,
production has continued at sort of the regular pace that has
been historically seen, in terms of--and again, there are over
9,000 permits available to drill on onshore public lands.
Seventy percent of the OCS lands that are leased are not
currently in production. So again, when I look at what is in my
area of responsibility, I do see that that production is moving
forward. Royalty revenue is continuing to produce, and permits
are continuing to be approved.
Senator Hoeven. Sure, because it takes time for you to hold
those lease sales and actually get that into production. So you
can argue that you are not seeing that decline. You are
creating the decline though. You do not acknowledge that?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. I just want to reiterate that the leasing
program is moving forward, and again, I am very interested in
working with BLM and BOEM on a process that doesn't lead to
defects being identified by judges and really sort of putting
at risk the certainty that we want to see in that program for
operators and others who count on that revenue. So that is sort
of my orientation to the question you are asking.
Senator Hoeven. Could you get us some timelines in terms of
when we are actually going to see more lease sales? Do you have
any kind of timelines or Gantt charts rather than just saying,
well, we are moving forward, but we are doing all these
reviews? Can you get us some timelines?
Ms. Daniel-Davis. So again, I think much of the ongoing
activity is deliberative in nature, and I am happy to go back
to the Department and figure out how we can get you the
information that you need.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven. And then, Ms. Robinson, do you agree that
reliability is a critical issue and that coal continues to be
an important part of baseload power?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you, Senator. I agree with you 100
percent that reliability is a major concern, and certainly, we
are seeing that with more weather events happening as well that
it's both reliability and resilience. And certainly, there is
going to be a role for firm dispatchable power, whether it is
coal, whether it is natural gas, hydropower, hydrogen,
geothermal storage, or so on and so forth, and when it comes to
the Office of Electricity, the Office of Electricity is source
neutral. And so, looking forward to ensuring that there's
reliable electricity from whatever source.
Senator Hoeven. How about natural gas and having adequate
pipeline capacity to move it around the country?
Ms. Robinson. Certainly there are conversations to be had
about natural gas capacity, having conversations about what is
going on specifically in New England, where I think there are
probably some more constraints than we see in other locations,
and how it impacts consumers. So I am happy to continue that
conversation with you moving forward, if confirmed.
Senator Hoeven. And Dr. DeCarolis, thank you for visiting
on the phone, I appreciate it very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
First of all, I want to say this to all three of you. Thank
you so much for coming in, and we appreciate it very much.
Dr. DeCarolis, you have not had a chance, because you know
there is a lot more interest, as you can tell, in how we get
the power to your house and how we make the power. We want you,
and we have all the confidence in you--and I think that you can
see that--the confidence this Committee had in you to make sure
we get the accurate information to make the decisions we have
to make. We rely on that, and I think your job is probably one
of the most important jobs because we rely on the information
you give us.
Do you have anything you would like to say while we are
closing?
Dr. DeCarolis. I just wanted to say thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and I really appreciate the opportunity to serve.
The Chairman. You are going to do great, all of you are.
Let me say to Ms. Daniel-Davis, I think what we are trying to
say is that we know the previous Administration acted very
swiftly and quickly, and sometimes maybe too hastily, and we
saw some problems. We have identified those problems. What we
were concerned about is they were not fixed or the applicants
were not helped to fix them before they went to court, and we
knew it. It is pretty much like we knew what the court outcome
was going to be, but we let it happen. We are not blaming you.
We understand there are other powers that be, and we are honing
in on that pretty hard. What we all want to do is work with you
to identify any problems there might be in future leasing and
things that are going on right now that you thought the way--if
I was the applicant, and you were telling me this would be
fine, I think you should do it this way, and you know it is not
fine, and you know the courts will react differently, then come
and help me and say, Joe, I think you need to change, you need
to change your application or basically improve it. I think
that is where everybody was coming from. I am going to wrap
that up.
So let me just say this. Again, we appreciate all of your
attendance today, and your willingness to serve. I think that
is most important. Members are going to have until 6:00 p.m.
tomorrow to submit additional questions for the record.
And with that, the Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]