[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]