[Senate Hearing 117-296]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]






                            

                                                        S. Hrg. 117-296
 
                     THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST
                      FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 5, 2022

                               __________
                               
                               
       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
                        


                       Printed for the use of the
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
                         ______
              
             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 47-938          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
                Zahava Urecki, Professional Staff Member
             Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
              Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
           Jake McCurdy, Republican Professional Staff Member
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West 
  Virginia.......................................................     1
Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from 
  Wyoming........................................................     3

                                WITNESS

Granholm, Hon. Jennifer, Secretary of Energy.....................     4

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

American Exploration and Production Council:
    Statement for the Record.....................................    60
American Petroleum Institute:
    Letter for the Record addressed to Hon. Jennifer Granholm, 
      U.S. Secretary of Energy...................................    61
    Letter for the Record addressed to Hon. Deb Haaland, U.S. 
      Secretary of the Interior..................................    63
Barrasso, Hon. John:
    Opening Statement............................................     3
    Chart depicting gasoline price increases.....................    25
Granholm, Hon. Jennifer:
    Opening Statement............................................     4
    Written Testimony............................................     6
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................    71
Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
Western Energy Alliance et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................38, 65


                     THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST



                      FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY



                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 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. The Committee will come to order.
    I am pleased to welcome my dear friend, Secretary Jennifer 
Granholm. We go back a ways with her and her family, and I 
appreciate that relationship very much. And we have you back to 
the Committee to discuss President Biden's Fiscal Year 2023 
budget request for the Department of Energy. So I want to thank 
you, Madam Secretary, for being here today.
    The ongoing crisis in Ukraine is severe. Putin has used 
energy as a weapon to leverage power over European democracies 
and intends to do the same globally, using Russia's abundant 
energy resources. So far, the U.S. has taken significant steps 
to counter Putin's aggression, including banning the import of 
Russian oil, petroleum products, LNG, and coal, while also 
authorizing additional LNG export capacity. These are critical 
moves to stop funding Putin's brutal war on the Ukrainian 
people, but there is more that we can and must do. In a time 
when maintaining and strengthening our energy security is top-
of-mind, I look forward to hearing more about how the 
Administration's budget request will help us achieve that goal.
    At the same time, the Department's efforts to advance 
critical clean energy technologies from solar to nuclear energy 
and storage continue to transform the U.S. economy and reduce 
our greenhouse gas emissions, and you have some pretty historic 
new authorities and funding levels with which to do that. This 
Committee's work product, the Energy Act of 2020, established 
new pathways for research and development across the energy 
landscape. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law we passed late 
last year was a critical step to enable us to be a leader in 
innovative energy technology and supplying our partners with 
our abundant resources. The infrastructure law provides an all-
of-the-above investment in innovation, not elimination, 
including funding for carbon capture utilization and storage, 
hydrogen, critical minerals, transmission, energy efficiencies, 
clean energy manufacturing, and so much more. The Department of 
Energy is overseeing the implementation of $62 billion of this 
funding.
    Secretary Granholm, as you saw when you visited West 
Virginia in March, there is so much excitement around programs 
like the hydrogen hubs and the many other programs in the 
infrastructure law that will have an enormous impact not only 
on my State of West Virginia, but also on a lot of states 
throughout the country. We wanted to ensure you have all the 
tools and personnel you need to get that money out the door 
efficiently and effectively, and I look forward to hearing 
about the progress the Department has made in implementing this 
historic legislation. I was glad to see several West Virginia 
priorities included in the Department's budget request. The 
request includes $502 million for the Weatherization Assistance 
Program, which helps low-income families make lasting energy 
efficiency improvements to their homes, and I can tell you, 
everyone on this Committee will benefit by that--freeing up 
finite resources for other essentials like food and medicine. I 
am pleased to see an increase in funding for the Weatherization 
Readiness Fund, which was funded for the first time last year, 
and will help low-income families make the repairs to their 
homes that are necessary to qualify for weatherization dollars. 
The request also supports the National Energy Technology 
Laboratory, headquartered in Morgantown, West Virginia, 
although, I think this is an area of underinvestment, as you 
could well imagine.
    We are so proud of the work that Brian Anderson--Dr. 
Anderson--and his team do to keep us on the cutting edge of 
energy innovation, especially technologies that will help us 
reduce carbon emissions without sacrificing reliability and 
energy security. We also cannot sacrifice the rural economies 
that have produced our energy for decades. That means leaving 
nobody behind. That is why I have been encouraged to see the 
Administration acknowledge the contribution of these 
hardworking men and women by convening an interagency working 
group on coal and power plant communities. This working group 
needs dedicated funding and a long-term mission to truly make 
an impact on these communities that have given so much to our 
country. This transition will be playing out for decades. 
Creating new opportunities in coal communities means that we 
need to use all of the tools that we have, and government 
investment--if done right--can be one of the most powerful.
    Now, it is no secret that I have serious concerns about our 
nation's debt, and as such, I take my role as both an 
authorizer and appropriator very seriously. I fully believe 
that we can get our fiscal house in order while supporting West 
Virginia and American priorities. I look forward to hearing 
from the Secretary this morning about how we can do just that.
    And with that, I am going to turn it over to Ranking Member 
Barrasso.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

    Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you for holding today's hearing. And thank you, Madam 
Secretary, for testifying today.
    There are few issues to me as important right now as 
energy. And that is the same with the American people. During 
your confirmation hearing last year, I said ``The incoming 
Administration should not devastate our economy by implementing 
policies that undermine energy production.'' And I meant that 
as a warning, but it turned out to be a prediction. The shale 
revolution made America the world's leading oil producer and 
natural gas producer. It also lowered our country's carbon 
emissions, and many saw that as a huge success. But instead of 
embracing America's energy revolution, President Biden is 
fighting it. He has been leading an energy counterrevolution. 
He wants to return us to the days of going hat-in-hand to the 
OPEC cartel. American families are now bearing the 
consequences, and our adversaries are in the driver's seat.
    Madam Secretary, in an interview on Bloomberg last year, 
you were asked what your plan was to increase oil production. 
You responded, ``That is hilarious.'' You may find high energy 
prices a laughing matter. Maybe the President does as well. He 
seemed to laugh about it Saturday night at the White House 
Correspondence Dinner. I can assure you, American families are 
struggling, are suffering, and they do not view these high gas 
prices as a laughing matter. The price of gas at the pump is up 
seventy percent since the week Joe Biden was inaugurated. Two-
thirds of that increase came before Russia invaded Ukraine. 
Residential natural gas prices are up 24 percent from January 
2021 to January 2022. Inflation is at a forty-year high. Too 
many families, this past winter, faced the choice of whether to 
heat their homes or put food on the table. The White House 
should be encouraging American energy production.
    The business section today, New York Times, front page, big 
picture--``increasing costs, next, electricity.'' But instead 
of focusing on that, this Administration is waging a war on 
America's energy producers. The Administration has done all it 
can to block new oil and gas production on federal lands, 
including banning new oil and gas lease sales. The court ruling 
lifted the moratorium. The President's response was to slash 
the acreage available by 80 percent and make it even more 
expensive to produce American energy on that land. The Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission even tried to impose rules that 
would make it nearly impossible to site new natural gas 
pipelines. Last month, the White House repealed rules to ensure 
environmental reviews are completed in a timely manner. U.S. 
oil production is 1.3 million barrels a day below the pre-
pandemic peak. We are even further below the increase in 
production projected a couple of years ago. In addition to 
helping the American people, this lost production would have 
undermined Russia--could have done both, helped the American 
people, undermine Russia. But killing the Keystone Pipeline on 
day number one of the President--and that was before your 
nomination, before the hearings here for you Madam Secretary--
the President killed the Keystone Pipeline, banning new federal 
leases, undermining Alaskan oil production, and blocking energy 
infrastructure. All of these things have empowered our 
adversaries.
    Well, the President reluctantly ended domestic purchases of 
Russian oil. Remember, he begged Russia to produce more oil 
when he was in Glasgow, Scotland for the climate meeting. The 
President still hasn't stopped the purchase of Russian uranium. 
America has enough uranium to replace these imports. The 
Administration is doing nothing to boost production here at 
home. Desperate gimmicks like releasing oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve or a gasoline tax holiday will not solve our 
supply shortage. The solution is more American energy. Yet, 
that is something the Administration will not allow. We must 
make our country energy-dominant again. Increasing U.S. oil and 
natural gas production would make our people more prosperous. 
It would make our nation and our allies safer.
    Now, the President has claimed that he is not doing 
anything to limit domestic energy production. Simply not true. 
Look at President Biden's policies. Look at production numbers. 
Look at the international marketplace. Look at the statements 
of his own appointees. According to Gina McCarthy, the White 
House National Climate Advisor--now this is after the President 
gave a speech, talked about energy. She went and apparently had 
to clean up after the President because she said ``President 
Biden remains absolutely committed to not moving forward with 
additional drilling on public lands,'' after a statement by the 
President. So, apparently, we see a lot of cleanup going on at 
the White House.
    Madam Secretary, it is long past time for the Biden 
Administration to have an energy strategy that includes 
American energy.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    And now, I would like to turn to our witness this morning, 
Secretary Jennifer Granholm, to deliver her opening remarks. 
Thank you, Secretary, for being here.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JENNIFER GRANHOLM, SECRETARY OF 
                             ENERGY

    Secretary Granholm. Chairman Manchin and Ranking Member 
Barrasso and members of the Committee, it is an honor to appear 
before you today to discuss President Biden's 2023 budget 
request for the Department of Energy. I am extremely proud to 
lead the Department as the 16th Secretary of Energy, and I am 
very grateful for the support that you have given DOE, 
including through the 2022 Omnibus legislation and the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    Under the Biden Administration, DOE is committed to 
increasing energy security and affordability and resilience. We 
are committed to securing the clean energy supply chains that 
are needed to reduce our reliance on unabated fossil fuels and 
increase our energy independence, like the $3 billion from the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for battery manufacturing that we 
announced on Monday. We are also committed to strengthening 
America's competitiveness by accelerating scientific discovery 
and innovation. These commitments are reflected in our budget, 
and a look around the world shows that this is the right focus 
with the right priorities for this moment in history.
    Right now, we face a trio of crises--climate change, which 
cost the United States $148 billion last year alone in cleaning 
up after extreme weather damages, then, COVID-19, and now 
Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which is costing American 
families right now, as they see prices rising from gas stations 
to grocery stores. Let me be clear, the Department of Energy is 
using every tool available to increase oil supply. In late 
March, President Biden did authorize the release of one million 
barrels per day from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the 
next six months--180 million barrels total--coordinating with 
our international allies and partners who committed to release 
another 60 million barrels to increase global supply. I 
appreciate your leadership and support of the President's ban 
on Russian energy imports. We are also working to offer relief 
to American families for home fuel costs, including through 
$3.5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program, 
provided in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
    But ultimately, these crises tell us that energy security 
and independence and affordability all depend on a shift, yes, 
toward American-made clean energy. It is why we are working 
with our international allies to advance alternative energy 
sources and boost clean energy manufacturing. It is why we are 
grateful that Congress, through the 2020 Energy Act and the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, has invested in building clean 
energy technologies here at home with American parts and 
American labor. I am grateful to the members of the Committee 
for the faith that they have placed in our Department to 
oversee many of these investments, and in the new offices and 
clean energy goals that come with them. The $62 billion from 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is a historic investment in 
projects that will serve our nation for decades, but it is not, 
on its own, sufficient to address the nation's energy 
challenge. And that is why our request includes base-year 
funding for efforts to complement the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law and maximize its impact to lower costs and provide 
reliable, secure American power.
    The request also supports our Office of Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy, our Office of Science, our 17 national 
labs, which sharpen our nation's innovative capacity and 
competitive edge, and our budget, of course, includes funding 
for DOE missions that keep our country safe--from environmental 
management to nuclear security. I am proud of DOE's work with 
our extraordinary employees to confront our nation's most 
pressing challenges. I reaffirm DOE's commitment to implement 
Congressional actions from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, 
the Energy Act, to those still to come, including the 
bipartisan Innovation Act, and the President's full agenda for 
building a better America. So thank you for the opportunity to 
be here, and I am happy to answer any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Granholm follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary. We are going to start 
our questions now and I will start the first round here.
    You are undertaking the largest reorganization since DOE's 
inception at the same time that you are managing DOE's largest 
influx of funding. So it is a double investment. So if you 
could help us understand why these organizational changes were 
necessary, how you all came about the changes that you are 
making, and did the reorganization have any impact on the 
budget increase for the DOE this year, which means were you 
just trying to match up to the money that was coming in and 
what are the hiring implications of the infusion of funds, are 
you running into----
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    The Chairman [continuing]. Some challenges there? Can you 
just give us a little overview of that?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. Thank you for the question.
    So, historically, as you all know, the Department of Energy 
has been a place for research, development, and some small 
demonstration. What the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law does is 
complete that spectrum and allows us to deploy and do large-
scale demonstrations in technologies that the research and 
development side has been working on. So it basically takes DOE 
from the lab to the street. What we want to do is to make sure 
that this budget really causes that Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law investment to be effective. And you know, that 
Infrastructure Law funding, that $62 billion, is over five 
years, so we are making sure in the DOE budget on research and 
development that we are able to complement it. So for example, 
making sure that we have the continuous research on hydrogen, 
even as we are going to do demonstration projects and hydrogen 
hubs, we have to continue to do the investment in the research 
and development and learn from what is happening on the street 
so that it can be reported back to the labs and improved upon. 
That is true with all of the technologies that you have 
authorized and funded in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. So 
that is one thing.
    We have to make sure that it is implemented well. And so, 
we have identified positions that we must beef up on the inside 
of the Department of Energy. For example, we have not done 
large-scale demonstrations. We do not have those who are expert 
in managing federal projects who can--other than NNSA and 
environmental management--but we need to make sure that we have 
the skill sets necessary to implement and oversee the funding 
that will be competitively bid out and worked through the 
private sector. So, both on the spectrum of the new wings, I 
mean, we basically had one wing of the airplane which was on 
research and development and now it is balanced out with large-
scale demonstration and deployment with the funding that this 
Committee has supported and certainly that the Congress has 
provided.
    The Chairman. I have two more questions, but very quickly. 
One, I had a chance to go to Provence, France to see the 
thermonuclear experimental reactor, ITER, and anybody who has 
ever had a chance, you ought to go. It is the most unbelievable 
thing I have ever seen in my life, what they are doing--and 
this is multinational --I mean, we had 37 countries involved 
and we have nine percent investment. We get 100 percent of the 
technology that comes from it with the nine percent, but all 
countries, not only France, but also China, Russia, everyone is 
involved.
    I just want to make sure that we are paying and we have 
that built into the budget that we are going to be paying our 
percentage as far as for full funding for the portion of ITER--
I think it is about $250?
    Secretary Granholm. $240.
    The Chairman. $240, Okay.
    Secretary Granholm. $240 million.
    The Chairman. We are good there?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, we are committed to doing that. 
And by the way, in order to support that, we build out the 
supply chain here and we send it there. So it is an obvious 
opportunity for us to create and build out that supply chain in 
the United States.
    The Chairman. What it does, it is incredible. What they are 
attempting to do is replicate the fusion process of the sun for 
the production of massive amounts of energy. This one, it is 
commercial scale. It is about 500 megawatts. The temperature in 
the core will be 150 million degrees Fahrenheit for the energy 
plasma. I just recommend, if you get a chance, just stop. It is 
worth seeing.
    Finally, I wanted to ask you about the invasion of Ukraine. 
Approving the expanded exports of the four U.S. LNG facilities 
is extremely important for us. However, I am concerned about 
whether there is sufficient long-term certainty for the natural 
gas producers and exporters to ramp up. They depend on long-
term contracts, and as you know, we are going to go way beyond 
2030. But the thing I am saying is, are we connecting and 
working with our foreign allies? Are they going to be able to 
match up with the LNG terminals to receive this influx that we 
are sending in that direction to try to give them the 
stability?
    And next, are we all making sure that we can convert that 
to hydrogen and ammonia as the new, cleaner technologies come 
on? So, the same infrastructure, we build the gas lines here. 
They are dual purposed. We build the LNG terminals. They can 
handle hydrogen and ammonia with LNG?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, part of the budget actually 
supports that through our Fossil Energy and Carbon Management 
Office to make sure that the LNG exports can be hydrogen-ready, 
and we are studying the materials, et cetera--the steels that 
are necessary to make that happen. On the first point, of the 
increased supply for liquefied natural gas, over 75 percent has 
gone to Europe. As you know, it is on a global market. The 
market prices for natural gas in Europe today are over----
    The Chairman. 30?
    Secretary Granholm. I think they are 32.
    The Chairman. I think they stand between 29 and 33.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, 32. That obviously causes supply--
long-term, we have 30 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural 
gas permitted, both through DOE and through FERC, that is 
waiting for the investment in the infrastructure to----
    The Chairman. My only thing is making sure that the 
infrastructure we are putting in place now, whether it be the 
pipelines, whether it be the transportation, whether it be the 
LNG terminals, are going to be able to be utilized in a 
multipurpose, so, with hydrogen going to be coming on strong.
    Secretary Granholm. Right.
    The Chairman. With the type of coating it takes for our 
pipelines that we need to build and complete and all the other 
things so we can move, and green ammonia is going to be great.
    With that, I am sorry I went over time.
    Senator Barrasso.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Secretary, last month Gina McCarthy, the White House 
National Climate Advisor, stated, ``President Biden remains 
absolutely committed to not moving forward with additional 
drilling on public lands.'' So please give me a yes or no. Is 
the President committed, as Gina McCarthy states, to no 
additional drilling on public lands?
    Secretary Granholm. I believe the Department of the 
Interior just released a plan which would allow for additional 
drilling on public lands.
    Senator Barrasso. Does the President agree with his Climate 
Advisor? That is what I am asking. Does he confirm what the 
Climate Advisor has said, or does he contradict what the 
Climate Advisor is saying?
    Secretary Granholm. The President has called for increased 
supply, and he has authorized and supported the Department of 
the Interior for additional leasing, for additional supply, on 
federal lands. And he has called for the oil and gas industry 
to increase supply----
    Senator Barrasso. Then perhaps his Climate Advisor----
    Secretary Granholm [continuing]. On private and public 
lands.
    Senator Barrasso. Perhaps the Climate Advisor then should 
not go and contradict the President after a statement that he 
makes.
    One week after President Biden was inaugurated, the retail 
price of a gallon of gasoline averaged $2.48.
    [Chart depicting gasoline price increases follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Senator Barrasso. The week before Russia invaded Ukraine, 
the retail price of a gallon of gas was $3.62. It is a 
difference of a $1.14. By the week of May 2nd, the retail price 
of gasoline rose another 67 cents. So we start at $2.48. 
Biden's increase--$1.14. You add Putin on top of that with the 
Russian invasion, another 67 cents. People in Wyoming were 
paying over $4 a gallon this past weekend.
    So the vast majority of the increase in the retail price of 
gasoline happened before Russia invaded Ukraine. It is a Biden 
price hike. We need more domestic production to lower the 
prices. Six months ago today, you famously laughed when asked 
what the Administration could do to increase domestic 
production, and prices have only increased since then after 
that point. What are you doing to increase domestic production 
and lower prices for American families?
    Secretary Granholm. We are calling upon more increased 
production. Let me be clear that the price increase in gasoline 
coming out of COVID was because the oil and gas industry had 
shut down production because of reduced demand during COVID. 
So, yes, there was some increase because the supply was not 
keeping up with demand as the economy opened up. However, let 
us be very clear that it is the contraction from the loss of 
Russian oil on the market, which is rightful, because the 
United States and other countries have refused to finance this 
war, but it has removed supply from the market, which is why 
the President has called for an increase in our domestic oil 
and gas production. The Energy Information Agency has said that 
we will see an increase of about a million barrels per day. 
However, Russian oil off the market has taken about a million 
and a half to two million barrels off the market, and then the 
European Union action will also take an additional amount off 
the market. We are asking the oil and gas industry to increase 
supply.
    To your point that you made in your opening statement, it 
is not government policy that is preventing the oil and gas 
industry from increasing supply. The Dallas Fed in March did a 
survey of the oil and gas executives, and they said--94 percent 
of them--said that the slowdown was due to reasons other than 
government policy, and the biggest reason they gave is because 
Wall Street is preventing them from increasing capital 
investment in wells because they prefer fiscal discipline, 
which would mean that they want to see more shareholder 
buybacks, but we want the oil and gas industry to increase 
production. Some are. We would like to see more of it so that 
we can address the issue of people's pocketbooks. The President 
is very concerned about the price right now because, of course, 
70 percent of inflation is because of the price of fuel.
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out that 
in spite of what we have just heard from the Secretary, this 
Administration has been actively discouraging and browbeating 
lending institutions to not loan money for this sort of thing, 
because they say gas is going to be gone in 10 years, so go 
invest in a 30-year project. We have had John Kerry, on behalf 
of the Administration, going out and attacking lending 
institutions. Then we have the FERC in here who were preventing 
pipelines from being built to move energy. So it is very hard 
to produce energy when this Administration has continued to put 
their finger down against it.
    I just want to move on to uranium sanctions. As we have 
discussed on the phone, we need to stop funding Russia's war in 
Ukraine. Spin reported that even Germany, which depends on 
Russian energy, is backing a European Union ban on Russian 
uranium. President Biden can ban U.S. imports of Russian 
uranium today. Will President Biden ban imports of Russian 
uranium?
    Secretary Granholm. I will let the President make that 
statement, but I can say that this is a point on which I think 
we have a lot of agreement, which is we should not be sending 
any money to Russia for any American energy or for any other 
reason. You are aware, I think, but I think we discussed this a 
little bit on the phone, that we have stood up inside of DOE, 
under Dr. Huff, a tiger team, to develop a full uranium 
strategy. We want to make sure, for example, that we are able 
to supply both HALEU as well as low-enriched uranium to our 
civilian nuclear fleet. And if we move away from Russia right 
away, we want to make sure we have the ability to continue to 
keep the fleet afloat. So they are developing a full-on uranium 
strategy that is going through the interagency process, and we 
look forward to briefing you on that.
    Senator Barrasso. Mr. Chairman, in a sense of 
bipartisanship, I am looking forward to voting to confirm Dr. 
Huff today----
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you for that. Thank you to this 
Committee.
    Senator Barrasso [continuing]. And I would encourage all of 
the members of this Committee to vote also in the affirmative, 
and I am looking forward to speaking on behalf of her 
nomination today because I think she is terrific and is going 
to be a very welcome addition. Thank you.
    Secretary Granholm. That is great. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Last night, Madam Secretary, we moved to go to conference 
on the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. And one of the 
provisions in the Senate bill is providing DOE with $17 billion 
in increase in authorization over five years. Do you support 
increasing funding for cutting-edge R&D at our national labs 
and increasing the capacity in many areas to the types of 
research that we need to do in conjunction with what we are 
doing with the National Science Foundation?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, ma'am. We certainly need to 
continue to invest in our cutting-edge research through the 17 
national labs.
    Senator Cantwell. Okay.
    One of our priorities as a nation is cleaning up the 
Hanford Reservation. It is one of the most contaminated sites 
in the Western Hemisphere, and I am disappointed that the 
President's budget request is lower than the current spending 
level. And I believe when you were here before us, you provided 
information about what you were willing to support to make sure 
that you were meeting the Tri-Party Agreement, the agreement 
that makes sure that our funding levels meet the milestones on 
cleanup. So what is the Tri-Party Agreement compliance number 
for Fiscal Year 2023?
    Secretary Granholm. The number for 2022 was $3.3 billion. 
The number for 2023 will be above that. Obviously, we want to 
complete the framework discussions with you on the budget and 
we know that the number that we have requested at $2.5 billion, 
which is a big number, it is the biggest number of EM, but we 
know that this is a framework and we want to work with you on 
it.
    Senator Cantwell. So you are saying it does not meet that 
milestone, at least last year's milestone, and we need to keep 
working on that number?
    Secretary Granholm. Correct.
    Senator Cantwell. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    Now, I know you have been busy on many fronts as it relates 
to what is going on in Ukraine and had to pull out of a visit 
to the Hanford site.
    Secretary Granholm. So sorry.
    Senator Cantwell. But we want to welcome you, the Chairman, 
the Ranking Member, any time, to please visit the Hanford 
site----
    Secretary Granholm. I will.
    Senator Cantwell [continuing]. And to visit the national 
labs that are there as well because there is so much work going 
on at our national labs, particularly in the area of 
cybersecurity. Their expertise is amazing, and I feel like we 
need to continue to do more to make sure that our electricity 
grid is protected. As we see from what is happening on the 
international front, we need to keep taking every step possible 
to make sure that we have the next generation of technologies 
to help us.
    I also wanted to ask you about continuing to look at ways 
to scale commercialization of technologies for long-haul 
trucks, for example. Is there a way to construct incentives to 
speed the adoption of transportation electrification? We are 
seeing companies like PACCAR and others dealing with the chip 
shortage, but they are helping to make a product more 
affordable either in lightweight materials, but also in making 
sure that we have something that-is a tech-neutral 
manufacturing incentive. So do you agree that there are 
opportunities for us to move more quickly in this area?
    Secretary Granholm. Absolutely. And I hope that Congress 
considers that very soon. The time is fleeting. And that is not 
just on battery or vehicle manufacturing, but on the whole 
suite of energy generation.
    Senator Cantwell. Okay. Also, you provided a video. We were 
just out at the grid launchpad groundbreaking and we hope that 
you will come to look at that in the future.
    Secretary Granholm. I will.
    Senator Cantwell. The launchpad, we think, is the scalable 
level of battery technology storage that we need to have. So I 
want to make sure that we are continuing to support those kinds 
of efforts at the Department of Energy.
    Secretary Granholm. One thousand percent, both on 
transportation storage as well as grid storage. Both have to 
happen. The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office is 
doing the research on that. The labs are working. I mean, 
obviously, PNNL is the classic example of a lab that is being 
on the forefront on grid storage. Other labs are doing that as 
well, but they all work together. And of course, the funding 
that the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided, both on 
vehicle as well as grid storage, is going to be critical in 
moving us forward. Thank you so much for that investment 
because it will allow the technology that is being researched 
at PNNL, and grid storage to be taken to commercial scale 
outside of the labs.
    Senator Cantwell. Great, thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Lankford.
    Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Thanks for being here in the dialogue on this.
    So as I look at the Energy Information Agency and some of 
their facts and data that they put out in the past year, they 
anticipate over the next 30 years an increasing demand for oil, 
gas, coal, renewables. They predict that nuclear is going to go 
down, actually, globally over the next couple years, but there 
are a lot of issues that are there. So my question is, they are 
projecting an increased demand globally for oil, gas, and coal. 
What is America's part in that? And you talked about the 
permitting, the liquefied natural gas, and increasing that 
ability to be able to get that out. What else are we going to 
do to help meet that demand because clearly, we do not want 
Russia to be able to meet that demand and others. What are you 
actively putting in place, knowing that the prediction is over 
the next 30 years that we are going to need increasing supply 
worldwide?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, clearly worldwide and in the 
United States. I mean, the demand for electrification and for 
more energy, generally, is going up.
    Senator Lankford. Right.
    Secretary Granholm. As certainly, the developing world 
gains more access to advanced technologies, et cetera.
    This is really an opportunity for the U.S. to lead, not 
just inside the U.S., but the world, and we have done that. 
Certainly, we are the number one exporter of liquefied natural 
gas, the number one--all of that. But we can also do the same 
thing with nuclear technology--advanced nuclear technology--and 
we have partnerships with countries, particularly Eastern Bloc 
and some others around the world who are really interested in 
developing that. The same is true with advanced technologies 
related to hydrogen.
    Senator Lankford. Right. All those are pretty far on the 
horizon. For instance, we were having a conversation about who 
we are going to vote for today, and I will be voting for as 
well, dealing with nuclear energy later on today. When she was 
sitting in the same chair and we were talking about this, and I 
asked when is the next nuclear power plant going to be 
permitted in the United States, the hope was by the end of the 
decade. Now, I appreciate your honest answer on that, but when 
we talk about trying to add more nuclear in this and more other 
advanced--whether it be hydrogen, whatever it might be--we are 
decades away, as we anticipate for the next 30 years or so. And 
I guess what I am trying to figure out is, this is a 
complicated formula. We all know where we are headed long-term, 
but we all know it is not next year, next year, the next year. 
It is a slow process to be able to get there. The anticipation 
is for the next 30 years, at least, we are going to have 
increasing demands for oil, gas, and coal. If we continue to 
allow infrastructure to be able to die off in the next 30 
years, we are going to continue to have price spikes if we 
continue to discourage investment in those areas.
    You have read, I am sure, the JP Morgan study to be able to 
look at the CapEx deficit in oil and gas, especially. Just in 
those two areas, they anticipate in the next eight years we 
will have a CapEx deficit investment of $720 billion in the 
United States. That is big number. That is, we are not 
investing enough into what we know we are going to need. So the 
question I am trying to figure out is, what are we doing to 
address that, because if we have declining infrastructure and 
increasing demand, at least for the next 30 years, we have a 
problem coming that is going to continue to rise.
    Secretary Granholm. But you see, the globe is moving toward 
decarbonizing solutions. And so, that is why you all have 
provided--maybe not you--but many have provided in the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for the investments in carbon 
capture, for example, to help decarbonize the existing fossil 
fuel. That is what the world is asking for as well. And that is 
why Wall Street----
    Senator Lankford. I get it. I am just trying to figure out, 
but the infrastructure still has to be there in place. We still 
have to have pipelines to be able to move it.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Lankford. Again, the Energy Information Agency says 
in the next 30 years we are going to have an increasing demand 
for oil, gas, and coal.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Lankford. But we will have a decreasing investment 
into those areas. That is a bad formula for us. That is why I 
am trying to see what are you all doing looking over the 
horizon to see how we----
    Secretary Granholm. I mean, that is what I am saying, is 
that we have to provide the technology to do what the world is 
asking for, which is to provide energy solutions, whether they 
are fossil fuel-based or they are renewable-based or other 
clean technologies that are moving in the direction that the 
world is headed, which is to decarbonize. And so, for the 
natural gas industry, that means addressing the methane flaring 
and the methane leakage so that those technologies become much 
more accessible and desired across the world. Those are the 
solutions that will help to increase the deployment.
    Senator Lankford. I think we are literally talking past 
each other on this because you are answering a question I am 
not asking. And so, I wish we had more time to be able to----
    Secretary Granholm. You are saying what are we doing.
    Senator Lankford. Right.
    Secretary Granholm. Right, what are we doing? We are 
developing the technologies that will make those very things 
you are talking about more in demand. The reason why Wall 
Street--one of the reasons why Wall Street is projected to 
continue to pressure down on CapEx is because they too want to 
see a movement toward clean. These oil and gas industries, 
many, some of the businesses are diversifying----
    Senator Lankford. Right.
    Secretary Granholm [continuing]. Into broader energy 
companies.
    Senator Lankford. Sure.
    Secretary Granholm. But that is what, that is where 
everybody is going.
    Senator Lankford. But it is interesting you mentioned the 
Wall Street thing. When Wall Street actually answers this 
question, they have four different reasons, and you said this 
is not what the Dallas Fed says, but when Wall Street answers 
the same question to why they are not doing some of this 
investment, one of their answers is restricted access to 
capital. The other one is uncertain regulatory outlook for 
fossil fuels. It is tough to be able to do an investment into a 
pipeline that everyone knows we are going to need for the next 
30 years plus, because even the Biden Administration's own 
numbers say we are going to continue to need that, but it is 
tough to actually do that investment.
    Secretary Granholm. But the point is, excuse me for 
interrupting you. The point is, I do not think we are talking 
past each other. The existing pipeline--I mean, to Senator 
Manchin's point--we should be investing in pipelines that are 
ready for the next generation technologies as well. We should 
be investing in pipelines that have buttoned down the problem 
that the world is trying to solve, which is climate change, so, 
investing in leak-free infrastructure, making sure that 
infrastructure is ready to be converted. The technology 
solutions are how we are going to get there by decarbonizing 
the existing fossil fuel offerings and increasing clean and 
renewable.
    Senator Lankford. Sometime we will get more time to be able 
to clarify this, to be able to go from there.
    So, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Heinrich.
    Senator Heinrich. Secretary, America has dramatically 
increased our production of oil and gas over the last decade. 
Certainly, New Mexico has done its part for the country there. 
Yet, as we know, prices of oil, fossil gas, gasoline, they are 
all at record highs. It is almost as if gasoline prices are 
actually a reflection of a global commodity market. Spoiler--
they are.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Heinrich. Can you elaborate on how this managed 
transition from fossil energy sources to clean domestic 
renewable energy creates real American independence and also 
buffers consumers from the incredible swings of fossil fuel 
commodity prices?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, thank you for raising this. This 
is not a surprise that we are paying $110 per barrel today and 
so are the people all over the world. This is an issue that is 
happening across the globe because oil is traded on a global 
market. And so, the question is, how do we increase supply in 
the immediate so that we can reduce the pressure so that supply 
and demand can meet each other and at the same time, press on 
the accelerator to move toward clean, because you do not see 
the volatility with electrified cars. You do not see increases 
because of access to the sun, or access to wind, or access to 
battery technology, for which the price keeps going down and 
not up. And that is true with solar and wind as well.
    The smartest move over the medium- and long-term, and 
starting right now, is to diversify our energy supply and 
create the millions of jobs that would go with that, not just 
in the United States, but the demand for those products 
globally is going to be, by 2030, $23 trillion. We should be 
doing this for our own economy and for our own energy security. 
We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
    Senator Heinrich. You mentioned stock buybacks. Do you know 
how much oil and gas stock buybacks increased in the fourth 
quarter of last year in the run up to these record prices?
    Secretary Granholm. A lot. Something tells me you may have 
that number in front of you.
    Senator Heinrich. According to Bloomberg, 2,181 percent. 
And we wonder why the prices are as high as they are.
    I want to ask you about something else. Last week, the LA 
Times wrote a short piece about both the challenges and 
opportunities of building clean energy projects in the West. 
And when asked about the Commerce Department's investigation of 
the Auxin solar tariff petition, the reporter writes that you 
lightly slapped your forehead with both hands and looked down 
in a gesture of frustration. According to the reporter, you 
described the investigation as ``friendly fire'' on the 
Administration's clean energy agenda and said that the 
``Commerce Department needs to keep the investigation narrow 
and resolve it quickly.'' If that is accurate, I completely 
agree with that sentiment, but I was hoping you could elaborate 
on what's at stake in solar energy if this thing drags on for 
months or years?
    Secretary Granholm. At stake is the complete smothering of 
the investment and the jobs and the independence that we would 
be seeking as a nation to get our fuel from our own generation 
sources. I know it is an adjudicative process that is in the 
Department of Commerce and therefore, it is not in the 
Department of Energy's purview, but I certainly am deeply 
concerned about being able to achieve the goal of getting to 
100 percent clean electricity by 2035, if this is not resolved 
quickly.
    Senator Heinrich. Yes, I am hearing from manufacturers, 
from installers, all about laying people off now, about 
projects being canceled. It is not up to any of us to tell 
Commerce how to resolve that process. However, if it is not 
done really quickly, we are going to destroy an entire 
industry.
    Thank you, Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Marshall.
    Senator Marshall. Thank you, Chairman. Welcome, Madam 
Secretary. Glad that you are here with us today.
    The last time you filled your car up with gasoline, do you 
remember what the price was?
    Secretary Granholm. I drive an electric vehicle.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Marshall. Do you know what the price of gasoline is 
in Washington, DC?
    Secretary Granholm. I know that on average, the price of a 
gallon of gas today across the country is $4.25.
    Senator Marshall. So, it is over $5 a gallon here.
    When you were Governor of Michigan, what was the price of 
gasoline the last year you were Governor?
    Secretary Granholm. I don't know. It was a lot less.
    Senator Marshall. Probably, you know, around $2-3 a gallon, 
something like that.
    You know, back home in Michigan, I assume you still have 
lots of friends back there and you guys have relationships. 
What is the number one concern of people back home?
    Secretary Granholm. It is not just back home, it is across 
the country, the number one concern is inflation, and that is 
fueled by the price of fuel.
    Senator Marshall. Okay.
    I took Economics 101 from my track coach in college, so I 
am sure it was not quite the Econ 101 of some of the bigger 
universities, but he taught me that all things else being 
constant--if you decrease supply the price is going to go up of 
any product. Would you agree with that?
    Secretary Granholm. If you increase supply----
    Senator Marshall. If you decrease supply.
    Secretary Granholm. Decrease supply, yes, the price will go 
up, yes.
    Senator Marshall. Okay. Have your policies resulted in 
decreasing supply of oil and gas?
    Secretary Granholm. No, sir.
    Senator Marshall. Okay.
    We were making 12 million barrels of oil per day in 2019, 
pre-COVID, and now it is 11 million barrels per day. Why have 
we stopped producing that much oil? What has happened, then?
    Secretary Granholm. You say, ``you''--you mean why has the 
oil and gas industry stopped producing that. It is because of 
the fact that during COVID, demand went down, so supply went 
down. Wall Street, as we have been discussing, has demanded 
that there be fiscal discipline on the part of the oil and gas 
companies when it comes to reinvesting that. And so, there has 
been a constraint on investment in favor of the shareholder 
buybacks that Senator Heinrich was referring to, but most 
importantly, in the most recent, is that supply has come off 
the market in terms of Russian oil and gas, rightly, because of 
countries like the United States saying we will not buy oil 
from you in order to finance Putin's war. If a million and a 
half to two million barrels comes off----
    Senator Marshall. So, I ask----
    Secretary Granholm. That means the global supply has 
reduced and since oil is traded on a global marketplace----
    Senator Marshall. So you do not believe any of your 
policies have impacted the supply of oil and gas in this 
country?
    Secretary Granholm. Nor do the CEOs of the oil and gas 
industries, 94 percent of whom have said that the failure to 
produce more has nothing to do with the policies of government.
    Senator Marshall. Yes, I would argue that point, and I 
think most Americans would as well. I grew up in the oil and 
gas industry. I am still connected to it. And those folks are 
afraid to invest because of your policies--your overaggressive 
policies. And I just hope that your economists would stop and 
take responsibility that the decreased supply in this country 
is what has led to the increased price, and your policies are 
responsible for that. I understand that oil is a world 
commodity, but when we were a net exporter of oil, we were not 
as dependent upon that world market. So you could say the same 
thing about it. Wheat is a world commodity, but if there is 
enough of it to feed ourselves, that certainly gives us much 
more control. I do think your policies have contributed 
significantly to this fear of investing. People are so scared 
to invest in this because it takes a year or two to turn this 
product around. It is not like turning a switch on and off.
    You know, I want to go back to inflation just for a second 
more. You know, my son called me in January and said his 
utility price had doubled. And he said, Dad, is this a mistake, 
or what has happened? Why do you think utility prices have 
doubled in America?
    Secretary Granholm. I think utility prices, fuel prices are 
constrained by the same things that we are seeing in other 
inflation-affected areas, which is supply chains are slow to 
catch up with the opening up of the economy after COVID. I 
think that is a big reason for the inflation, in addition to, 
as we have discussed, the price of fuel, which is a global 
price, the price of oil.
    Senator Marshall. What policies are you implementing now 
that will decrease the price of gasoline at the pump and 
decrease my son's utility bill?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, as you know, oil, which gasoline 
derives from, is traded on a global market, and what the 
President has done is tried to replace the lost barrels of oil 
from the Russian oil that has been pulled off the market by 
releasing 180 million barrels--a million barrels per day--from 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Energy Information Agency 
has said that the oil and gas industry will be ramping up, and 
they have started slowly, to be increasing to another million 
barrels per day by the end of this year. They will be at record 
production by the end of this year. We are at record production 
for natural gas production and natural gas export.
    This Administration, to your point about instituting 
policies, has issued more permits for oil and gas drilling in 
the first year than the Trump Administration did.
    Senator Marshall. That is totally deceitful to describe 
that as a solution. You only issued about 10 or 20 percent of 
what we needed----
    Secretary Granholm. That's not true, sir.
    Senator Marshall [continuing]. And then you do not allow us 
to build the infrastructure of what we would need to do as 
well. So I think that is just disingenuous to go down that 
rabbit hole as well.
    But thank you, I am over my time.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Cortez Masto.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    So, let's put this to bed, because I think the facts are 
important, and Secretary Granholm, I do think it is important 
to talk about the Biden policy because we are talking about 
supply and demand. So, correct me if I am wrong, because in 
fact, the BLM, under the Biden Administration, has approved 
more permits to drill last year for oil and gas than it did in 
the first three years of the Trump Administration?
    Secretary Granholm. Correct.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Oil production on federal public 
lands is higher now than at any point since at least 2003?
    Secretary Granholm. Correct.
    Senator Cortez Masto. And the oil and gas industry has more 
than 9,100 approved permits to drill that have not yet been put 
in use and 14 million acres of leased public lands that have 
not yet been put into production. Is that correct?
    Secretary Granholm. That is correct.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Great. Because I do think my 
consumers, and across the country--we need to deal in facts. We 
really do. The truth matters. It still does, including in this 
body.
    So, let me jump to something else, Secretary Granholm, that 
you and I have talked about, and thank you for coming to 
Nevada. Thank you for talking and really focusing on what we 
are doing to make these big, bold investments that you have 
talked about. One of the things you and I have talked about are 
nuclear waste and consent-based siting, and as you, the 
President, and the Administration have repeatedly stated that 
Yucca Mountain is not a viable solution for a repository. 
Instead, there is an urgent need for the U.S. to incorporate 
the consent-based framework and findings of the 2012 Blue 
Ribbon Commission on America's nuclear future. With this in 
mind, I am interested to learn more about the $53 million 
request for the consent-based siting process in the 
Department's Fiscal Year 2023 budget.
    Can you please elaborate on this request and explain how 
you intend for these funds to contribute to the Department's 
consent-based efforts should it be appropriated by Congress?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes. As you know, first of all, the 
consent-based siting process has begun, and our Office of 
Nuclear Energy has put out a request for information for seeing 
whether there is some interest on the part of communities 
across the country who would be willing to have this 
discussion. That request for information resulted in over 200 
comments. You know, some were in favor, some opposed. Those 
comments are being evaluated and will be made public, I think, 
within the next couple of weeks. The next step is to be able to 
put out a funding opportunity announcement to begin this 
conversation. And so, that funding that you describe, I think 
it may be a little bit less than that, but the funding that is 
in the budget for that is to be able to begin that conversation 
and understand the needs of communities who might be willing. 
As you noted, Yucca Mountain is off the table. So the question 
is, are there communities that may have, you know, the openness 
to be able to do that? Obviously, we would have to come back to 
Congress. There would be some need to compensate communities 
for their willingness to do this and obviously compensate them 
for any infrastructure that would be necessary.
    But that process has begun. And the second step of it will 
happen, I believe, in early fall, where we will issue the 
funding opportunity announcement to begin that conversation.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    Let me ask you on hydrogen, because you were just with me 
in Nevada, and thank you so much for taking a tour of the new 
Air Liquide Hydrogen facility in North Las Vegas with me last 
month. I was pleased to see that the FY23 budget featured a 24 
percent boost for the hydrogen fuel cell technologies program 
within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 
How does the FY23 budget ensure that clean energy is utilized 
in applications that represent a clear pathway for systemically 
reducing carbon emissions?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, I mean, the wonderful thing about 
what Congress has done in providing the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law funding--for example, for hydrogen hubs--is 
that it allows for the stages of research that have been 
happening in hydrogen, and I am assuming your question is 
related to hydrogen, actually get deployed. And we get to see a 
variety of applications. So, you know, the Air Liquide site 
that we saw potentially could have been using gas from landfill 
waste. That is one feed stream that we might be looking at, or 
natural gas or renewable energy. And so, the research that has 
been done on hydrogen--and is being done--it is a cross-cut 
across the Department because there are some fossil fuel 
feedstocks and there are some renewable feedstocks, but it will 
be informing the hydrogen hub funding opportunity announcement, 
and then the awards.
    So the research part and the deployment part are tied very 
closely and that is why we have to keep the research part very 
active.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
    Madam Secretary, thank you for being here.
    I have enjoyed our offline communications, thank you for 
that.
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
    Senator Cassidy. I think an ongoing issue of debate is 
whether or not the Administration is or is not encouraging 
industry to produce oil and gas. And this has all the 
implications at the gas pump--the mom sitting at home who 
cannot afford her gas and she cannot afford an electric 
vehicle, her pickup truck is 15 years old. She is frustrated 
and she would like to have answers. So, with that, I approach 
this conversation. And we know that if the Administration sent 
signals--you rightly say that you cannot turn on production 
like that--but if the Administration sent signals now that 
there was going to be increased production, futures prices 
would fall. There is an inverse correlation between supply and 
price, and if investors are assured about future supply, then 
price can have a downward pressure now. So all of this is 
beyond finger pointing. It is reality as to the implications 
for that mom sitting at home unable to afford a nice new 
electric car.
    So with that said, I think it is important to note that you 
have mentioned some oil companies saying that government 
regulation is not an issue, but I think it is important to say 
that the independent producers feel as if it is, and the IPAA--
their members produce 80 percent of the oil that is consumed in 
our nation. They sent a letter dated March 18th, to the 
President, in which they say specifically that government 
actions are chilling the ability of them to produce.
    [The letter referred to follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Senator Cassidy. My colleague from Nevada rightly points 
out that there are a lot of leases out there. The folks from 
the IPAA, who make 80 percent of the oil, say that leases are 
ineffective without a permit, and that the amount of permitting 
that has been allowed in 2022 has dramatically fallen off from 
the permits in 2021. They also point out that there is a big 
pressure--rightly so--a big pressure to limit methane release--
associated gas--when they are producing, but if you are going 
to limit methane release, you have to have the permits for the 
gathering pipelines in order to capture that methane. And those 
permits, as we have discussed before, have been incredibly hard 
to come by.
    So, on the one hand, do not produce the methane, but on the 
other hand, we are not going to give you the permit to have the 
pipeline to gather the methane so that it can be shipped 
elsewhere. But if you release that methane, we have a rule we 
are about to club you with. Now, I think everything I am saying 
is, frankly, indisputable. I can show you the regulations that 
have had a chilling effect upon the financing of these 
projects. And it can be the Department of Labor rule reversing 
a Trump Administration rule as regards the rule of the ability 
of investor funds to use ESG as a criteria by whom to fund. 
This Administration's Department of Labor is allowing ESG to 
play the role, which is chilling the financing. It can be this 
SEC rule, which is telling the companies you have to come up 
with your upstream and downstream emissions profile so that 
investor communities should take this into account.
    I mean, how I use my gasoline is going to impact how one of 
these publicly held independents is going to be viewed by the 
investor community. That is this Administration's rule. Three 
Democrats voted for it. One Republican voted against it. And 
so, as you speak of the financing mechanism, clearly, financing 
is having a role here and the Administration is enabling 
financing to be inhibited. There was some progress where the 
EX-IM Bank said they will begin to do domestic production--
their Make More in America initiative. It was approved by the 
Board on April 14th, but it is on renewables, energy storage, 
semiconductors, biotech. There is nothing about fossil. We are 
now in a scenario where if the Chinese decide to help fund one 
of these projects that otherwise cannot get funding because of 
everything I have just described, they can buy our natural gas 
at Henry Hub and sell it on the open market at three to four 
times the price because we cannot get domestic financing. And 
that is a plausible scenario.
    I think the reason that we are so frustrated is that if you 
look at the reality, the context of this Administration's 
attitude toward fossil, you have killed financing. I hate to be 
accusatory, but talk to the IPAA, those folks cannot get the 
financing they once did. If the Administration, on the other 
hand--going back to my original point--sends the signal that 
over the next year and the next three years, we are going to do 
our best to help financing, you are going to put a downward 
pressure on that price, and that mom will be able to spend some 
of her disposable income on a night out at the movies with her 
husband as opposed to, oh my gosh, I have to fill up my 15-
year-old pickup truck and I sure wish I could afford an 
electric vehicle, but that is beyond my means because I am 
paying for everything at higher prices. And I don't usually 
spend my whole time venting. I apologize. But I feel like there 
has to be some context to these valid points, but when you look 
at the daggone reality, Department of Labor, SEC, FERC, doing 
everything they can, BOEM, everything they can to kill domestic 
production. Financial markets have picked up on it. And so 
these folks cannot get capital, and that was their complaint.
    I apologize for spending my whole time complaining, but I 
just felt like there had to be some context. I yield.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    I am going to add to that because there are some 
conversations going on, some negotiations that have been very, 
very fruitful. Everything you have said is absolutely correct. 
We have been working with that. The Administration has 
acknowledged that we all have to be in this together. And right 
now, putting a fee on methane when it is not even feasible to 
be able to take the methane off and take it to market, so it is 
just basically designed to take someone out of business or put 
them out of business.
    Senator Cassidy. By the way, because FERC would not give 
the pipeline to gather it.
    The Chairman. Well, let me just tell you this, we are 
working on negotiations that they will not be able to apply a 
methane fee if a pipeline is prohibited from being able to take 
the methane off. So you are either with us, and we are all in 
this together, and we understand we have to have 
infrastructure, or we are not. And we are making some good 
movement on this. And I can tell you, I feel very strongly 
about that, and I said that we have to have reliable, 
dependable, and affordable--and we have to reduce our 
emissions. We have talked about this. They are getting it. They 
understand it. Let's just see what happens, the end result, but 
we have had, between us and EPW, Senator Carper and Senator 
Capito and their committee have been working with us and I 
think we have good movement on this, some reasonable things.
    Okay. I'm sorry.
    Senator Kelly, if you will.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Granholm, I want to discuss a little bit about 
Russian oil for a second here. This is with regard to the SPR. 
The SPR can be used to store oil from and for foreign nations. 
In fact, there was an estimated 25 million barrels of Russian 
oil in the reserve, and this is according to DOE reports 
published last year. Currently, I strongly feel that we must be 
certain that no Russian oil enters the reserve, and that 
includes oil from companies still active in Russia. Oil service 
companies--U.S. companies--that were doing business in Russia, 
claim to be winding down operations. But if you just look at 
some of these companies' websites, the last things they have 
said about operations in Russia were seven weeks ago, in March. 
On March 18th, Schlumberger said, and this is a quote, 
``Immediately suspend new investment in technology deployment 
to our Russian operations.'' On the same day, Halliburton, a 
little bit better, Halliburton said, and I quote ``we will 
prioritize safety and reliability''--I am not sure why 
reliability matters so much if you are winding down operations, 
but--``prioritize safety and reliability as we wind down 
operations in Russia.'' Baker Hughes, the next day, and this is 
another quote, ``Suspended new operations and fulfills current 
contractual obligations.'' That does not sound like winding 
down operations in Russia. It sounds like not starting anything 
new.
    All of these three companies are listed on the New York 
Stock Exchange, have headquarters here in the United States, 
and other producers certainly could be evading sanctions by 
blending their own oil with Russian oil at sea. So Secretary 
Granholm, I want to find out--what do you know about U.S. oil 
services companies continuing to operate in Russia?
    Secretary Granholm. I only know what has been publicly 
reported as well. And I think your point underneath what you 
are saying here is very valid that we should be encouraging, 
with whatever tools we have, to have full withdrawal from 
Russia, to not assist in any way in the regime that is engaged 
in these atrocities.
    Senator Kelly. Because especially Schlumberger and Baker 
Hughes, I mean, just what they have said, it just sounds like 
they are going to continue business as usual and just not do 
anything new, and that really concerns me. So I appreciate 
that. I think the Administration should take a long and a hard 
look at this and see what more we can do. And if there are 
wind-down claims, how do we confirm the accuracy of these 
claims, and if in some cases they are not even claiming to wind 
down existing operations, that really concerns me.
    And with regards to the SPR, I would like a written 
response from the Department on how it will certify that no 
business operating in Russia is involved in the storage of oil 
in our Strategic Reserve.
    And then I have one final question for you, and this is, 
again, with regards to the SPR. Will the Department use the 
revenue from recent sales to refill the SPR with domestic oil 
and expand its maximum capacity from about 700 million barrels 
to a billion barrels of oil?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, I think the maximum capacity is 
just over 700 million. We would have to build out new 
facilities in order to do that. I will say that today we are 
announcing the start of the buyback plan, and this is partly--
Senator Cassidy, I know you and I have had this discussion 
about how to refill the SPR by sending those downward price 
signals. And so, the first part of that will be today. We will 
be announcing a future call, starting in the fall, for 
producers who will replenish the first chunk, and we will do a 
series of these so that we can continue to replenish and give 
the price signals that you were describing to the oil and gas 
industry that there will be future opportunity--obviously, 
American made.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    And now we have Senator Daines. Snuck right in there.
    Senator Daines. I did.
    Chairman Manchin, thank you. Secretary Granholm, welcome 
back to the Committee.
    Over the past month, I have met with several eastern 
European leaders--prime ministers, presidents, direct face-to-
face conversations about Russia's ongoing war of aggression 
against Ukraine. The wrath of Putin's invasion has been felt 
throughout Europe and the world. Many have called what happened 
on February 24th Europe's 9/11. And it served and should 
continue to serve as a wake-up call for many countries. 
Vladimir Putin has weaponized energy. That message was clear 
from every leader I met with. I had Ukrainian leaders in my 
office back in September from Odessa pleading with us to stop 
the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. They said Vladimir Putin has 
weaponized energy. It fell on deaf ears in the Administration. 
It was not until after the invasion that we finally started to 
see some action from the Biden Administration on that pipeline. 
They want and they need the United States to step up and help 
cut off Russia's energy dominance in the region and help supply 
them with American-made energy that includes oil, that includes 
natural gas, as well as cutting-edge nuclear energy technology, 
which all provide reliable baseload power.
    Unfortunately, President Biden has not seemed to get this 
message as he remains laser focused on hampering made-in-
America energy. Instead of supporting American energy and 
supporting our allies, he is looking to other world leaders. 
But it is clear the world is safer when the United States leads 
in energy production. It will not only undermine Putin's energy 
stranglehold on Europe, it will create more American jobs. We 
can do this by opening up more LNG ports, working with 
countries to remove costly barriers for energy imports, and 
supporting more nuclear plants. Secretary Granholm, I was 
encouraged to see you recently approve LNG export 
authorizations. Thank you. But we do need to do more.
    The question is, what is the Department of Energy doing to 
reduce barriers and increase energy trade with Europe?
    Secretary Granholm. We are certainly part of making sure 
that enough volumes of liquefied natural gas go to Europe, 
which is, of course, what they have been asking for as they 
contemplate what they are doing with respect to both gas and 
oil. As you noted, we have permitted every LNG terminal that 
has been requested of us that is in our domestic space. So 
there are no pending permits. They have all been permitted. 
There are two in Mexico that have not begun construction, and 
for other reasons are on hold--or not on hold, but we are 
looking at those. But the others have all been permitted. We 
have also permitted an additional--``we'' meaning the last 
Administration--had permitted, and are still waiting on an 
additional 30 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas from 
terminals, about 12 additional projects that are looking at 
financing.
    So we believe that it is important for us to be allied in 
supplying the liquefied natural gas to Europe. The President 
has called for, by the end of this year, an additional 15 
billion cubic meters.
    Senator Daines. Yes, the Europeans, I mean, the fear is in 
their eyes.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Daines. You saw the Russians shut off Bulgaria and 
Poland.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Daines. I mean, this is--it is very, very serious, 
the inflationary pressures, what this means here where 
literally Vladimir Putin has Europe over a barrel right now.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Daines. We warned the Europeans about that. We 
tried to warn the Administration about that. I am concerned in 
our own country, that with this kind of anti-energy philosophy 
we see, and I appreciate we do the LNG, but it just concerns me 
we don't put America in the same position at some point.
    I want to move on to carbon capture technology. I just was 
in eastern Montana last week celebrating the success of opening 
the CO2 pipeline that will move CO2 
captured at a helium processing operation in Wyoming and inject 
it back into the ground for enhanced oil recovery so we can 
sequester carbon and actually extract more oil out of some of 
these oil wells that are 50 to 60 years old. It is the type of 
project I think we need to be supporting to reduce carbon 
emissions. What is DOE doing to support carbon capture 
solutions in Montana, both in the energy and the industrial 
sectors?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, thank you for asking. In fact, 
today we are putting out a notice of intent on carbon capture, 
particularly in this portion is $2.5 billion, saying that we 
are looking for places that have good geology to be able to 
store the carbon. We want to characterize and verify where 
might be in the country the best places to store 
CO2. And obviously, the region that you are in has a 
lot of good geology to be able to do that so you should----
    Senator Daines. Thank you, and I am out of time. I will 
follow up with just a quick question. We asked for a report on 
the jobs lost with the Keystone XL Pipeline cancellation. It 
was due on February 13th. I would just ask if you would follow 
up with that and get that report back to us. I will tell you, 
as European leaders try to process why our President canceled 
an oil pipeline, why he stopped new leases on federal lands, 
the response from the leaders is, what in the world are you 
doing over in America? So, thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Secretary Granholm, let me just first say, it is always a 
pleasure to have a former Governor before us because I don't 
feel any reluctance to ask wonky, granular questions, and I 
appreciate your coming here today, but I also appreciate your 
service and the fact that you have come back into government at 
this level and put up with a lot of challenges through a very, 
very difficult couple of years. You are to be commended.
    Last year, in Colorado, we enacted bipartisan legislation 
that requires our transmission utilities to join an organized 
wholesale market by 2030. And obviously, we are pushing the 
potential to promote grid reliability and efficiency. 
Hopefully, it will lower costs. I think there is great 
opportunity to lower costs in rural parts of the state. The 
Department of Energy's budget establishes the Wholesale 
Electricity Market Technical Assistance and Grants program. And 
I was just going to ask you if you could talk a little bit 
about how this program could help Colorado and other western 
states voluntarily explore their options with respect to these 
wholesale electricity markets.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, we would love to see a western 
regional transmission organization so that the states in the 
West that now have individual markets might be able to share 
generation of energy among each other. I mean, if there is an 
oversupply of solar in Arizona, for example, and a need in 
Colorado to be able to ship the electrons across through a 
regional transmission organization that would also prioritize 
cost, it could lower cost for people who are in that region as 
well as supply clean energy and just make better bulk 
purchasing decisions. They have these regional markets, of 
course, in a number of places in the country, and I think the 
West could benefit from it too.
    Senator Hickenlooper. We will be applying for some of the 
technical assistance. And it is, if you think about it as a 
metaphor as world trade, the more trading you do with more 
different countries you, basically, everyone gets benefits.
    Secretary Granholm. Right.
    Senator Hickenlooper. You know, keep peoples' tempers down 
and make sure everyone gets along and has the same forward 
vision. There is great benefit to collaborating like that.
    I wanted to hear a little bit about--you have put a lot of 
effort into the R&D in terms of the effort to get to net zero 
by 2030--and I just wanted to hear how that, so much R&D--I 
support it 100 percent. In other words, I believe that we have 
to continue investing in the research on every level if we are 
going to address climate change successfully and make sure that 
people don't get killed at the pump when they are filling their 
gasoline tanks. How is that going? Is the R&D--do you feel you 
are still on track to get to net zero by 2030?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, I mean, by 2050.
    Senator Hickenlooper. I mean 2050.
    Secretary Granholm. We have put forth a number of big goals 
in terms of cost reductions for clean energy, for example. We 
have launched a number on the R&D side of Earthshots. One 
Earthshot to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen, for example, to 
$1 for one kilogram within the decade. The same to reduce the 
cost of carbon dioxide removal, atmospheric as well as 
terrestrial. We are launching this Earthshot on long-duration 
storage to reduce the cost of long-duration storage by 90 
percent. And that, of course, is utility-scale storage, which 
would make wind and solar essentially a baseload power if we 
could crack the code on that. We have launched goals to reduce 
the cost of solar and wind to just pennies per kilowatt-hour--
same thing with offshore wind.
    So if we are able to continue to move down these--and there 
is all kinds of research going on, on the continuous 
improvement and taking them to scale, which is partially what 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allows us to do is to take 
some of those ideas to scale so that we then can continue the 
downward price on cost for everyday citizens.
    Senator Hickenlooper. And that 2030 was when you were going 
to reduce the cost of solar by 50 percent, I think.
    Secretary Granholm. Correct.
    Senator Hickenlooper. I conflated those two things, but all 
these goals, I mean, I think that the efforts and the focus you 
are bringing to that is probably some of the most important 
work that is being done to address climate change anywhere. So, 
again, Godspeed.
    I have a bunch of other questions. I am out of time, so I 
will yield my 16 seconds back.
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you.
    Senator Hickenlooper. But I will submit the questions 
separately.
    Secretary Granholm. Very good.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary 
Granholm, for being here today.
    Maria Robinson, who has been nominated by President Biden 
to lead the Department of Energy's Office of Electricity 
recently stated that she does not believe that the residents of 
her home state, Massachusetts, pay too much for energy. Yet, 
the people of Massachusetts are paying energy costs at a rate 
72 percent higher than the national average. What do you think 
about this? Do you think paying 72 percent more than the 
national average, which is already significant, and people are 
feeling the pinch, is that too much to pay for electricity?
    Secretary Granholm. I think paying anything more than is 
absolutely necessary is too much. I don't know when she said 
that statement. I don't know if it is taken out of context, but 
we would all like to see the price of energy reduced.
    Senator Lee. Right.
    Now, it is, of course, the statutory purpose of the 
Department of Energy to provide, ``an adequate and reliable 
supply of energy at the lowest reasonable cost.'' So, I believe 
it is clear that Ms. Robinson's views are not compatible with 
that mission, and if you review the statement and conclude that 
it was not taken out of context, it was sufficiently in 
context, that you cannot differentiate it, you cannot set it 
aside as something that didn't apply here somehow, I assume 
that you would advise that the nomination be withdrawn?
    Secretary Granholm. No. And when was it said?
    Senator Lee. It was--yes, so these were very recent. These 
were in her questions for the record to the Committee when she 
came through the nomination process, which we have received in 
the last few days--few months. No, it has been a few months 
now. So these are recent. And it is concerning.
    Yes, so when asked whether she believed that the cost of 
electricity in Massachusetts was too much, she provided a one-
word answer--``no.'' So this was not in a larger context. That 
is troubling to me. Any response to that?
    Secretary Granholm. You know, again, I have not seen what 
she was responding to. I don't know exactly when it was 
submitted. But I do think we should be lowering the cost of 
fuel all the way around.
    Senator Lee. Right.
    In today's New York Times, ``Electric Bills are Latest to 
Spike.'' So Americans are feeling the pinch when they buy 
everything from housing to healthcare, gasoline to groceries. 
And now electric bills are spiking. So to have somebody who is 
nominated to head the Office of Electricity within the 
Department, the Department whose whole job is to provide, ``an 
adequate and reliable supply of energy at the lowest reasonable 
cost.'' It seems a mistake to me. It seems tone deaf to the 
American people who are suffering.
    Now, energy reliability is also a concern. Since this 
Administration has taken office, it has not done anything, as 
far as I can tell, to address our growing dependence on 
intermittent sources of energy, like wind. For instance, the 
Biden Administration has actually advocated for the extension 
of the production tax credit, the one that subsidizes these 
intermittent sources, like wind. Now, are you aware that in 
some places the production tax credit actually provides federal 
subsidies to wind energy to the point that producers are 
actually paying people to consume the energy that these 
producers are making?
    Secretary Granholm. I would like to see your information on 
that.
    Senator Lee. Okay. I would be happy to provide it. I assume 
you are--I cannot imagine that you are disputing the fact that 
it does occur.
    Secretary Granholm. What I know is that we have to provide 
American energy with a silver buckshot approach, not a silver 
bullet approach. We have to be investing in the production of 
clean energy. We have to be investing in the technology to get 
us to those energy sources, including the decarbonization of 
the existing fossil fuel industry.
    Senator Lee. Okay. Decarbonization of the existing fossil 
fuel industry is not your mission. Your mission is to provide 
an affordable, adequate, and reliable source of energy at the 
lowest reasonable cost. If you are not determined to advance 
that mission, in fact, if you are undertaking other efforts 
that do that, then we have a problem. You know, if the 
Department does not want to pursue the statutory mandate for 
which it was created, perhaps the Department should not exist.
    Would you dispute, Madam Secretary, at a minimum, this 
shows a market distortion, that it creates a market distortion? 
The minute you are--you are federally subsidizing something to 
the point that you are actually paying people to consume 
electricity. Does that not create market distortions?
    Secretary Granholm. We have federal subsidies for all kinds 
of energy, including fossil fuels. So the question is, do we 
want to see the United States build on these energy sources, or 
do we have to rely upon technology or fuel from others? And we 
need, in the United States, to become American energy 
independent, and that includes the technology for clean energy 
as well.
    Senator Lee. Yes, but those sources, at least, are baseload 
power. Baseload power is something that is essential. It is the 
sine qua non of your ability to fulfill your statutory mandate 
to make sure that Americans have access to an adequate and 
reliable supply of energy at the lowest reasonable cost. And at 
a minimum, I would imagine that you would have to concede--that 
you would want to concede. I don't know why you would even try 
to dispute the fact that the minute we are subsidizing--the 
question of whether, to what extent, and in what ways we should 
subsidize this or that source of energy, that is a different 
question than the one I am asking.
    I am asking whether, when we get to the point where we are 
subsidizing something--wind, here to the point that the 
producers of that energy are actually paying people to consume 
it, does that not reflect that is something is dangerously 
wrong and that we are creating market distortions?
    Secretary Granholm. No, it does not. It says that we want 
to further this energy source. And if you add batteries to 
renewable, they essentially become a form of baseload power. So 
that is why the technology that is being worked on at the 
Department of Energy and the investments that this Congress has 
made in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in battery technology 
are so important to create clean, dispatchable, baseload power. 
And yes, we are competing globally for this. And so, we want to 
make sure that we have adequate supply, and that means early-
stage technologies often require some kind of subsidy. And even 
very well-established technologies, like oil and gas, are 
benefiting from subsidy as well.
    Senator Lee. Does that technology exist today?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Lee. To provide baseload power--baseload power?
    Secretary Granholm. The technology exists in terms of 
battery storage, and we are continuing to improve it, but the 
question is, if we take it to scale, can we make it more 
affordable?
    Senator Lee. And in the meantime, we are creating a massive 
market distortion that is perpetuating high energy prices. This 
is why the American people are suffering. This is why the 
American people are being left out. They are being told that 
they can go eat cake, and I find that unacceptable.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Senator King.
    Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First, Senator Granholm, we are having a community climate 
and energy conference in Maine in June. Governor Mills has 
asked me to convey an invitation to you. We would love to have 
you. June is a great time to visit Maine. So please see if that 
is a possibility.
    Secretary Granholm. Will do.
    Senator King. Thank you.
    This has been a fascinating discussion, and instead of 
mixing apples and oranges, we have been mixing gas and oil. 
Let's talk about them separately. As you kept trying to point 
out to Senator Marshall, oil is a global commodity. The price 
of oil is affected marginally by what is going on in the U.S., 
but it is affected by everything from Iran's sanctions to 
Russia's removal from the market to how oil is produced in 
Venezuela or Nigeria. It is a worldwide commodity. It is not 
something that we can set. The oil companies wake up in the 
morning and they look in the Wall Street Journal and if it says 
it is $101 a barrel--Brent crude--that is the price.
    The high price of gasoline is a reflection of the high 
price of oil. And the high price of oil is a reflection of the 
global market. I was in Germany with Senator Marshall. I did 
the calculation. We drove by in the buses--at gas stations they 
are paying $8.50 a gallon, not $5, not $4.50. At that time, it 
was almost exactly double the price in the United States. So, 
to blame President Biden or any other individual for the 
worldwide price of oil to, you know, the Keystone Pipeline, is 
just nonsense. So I think we really need to be clear about 
that. The high price of oil is a global price that is high 
everywhere in the world. The inflation of gasoline is high 
everywhere in the world. And in fact, in many places in the 
world, it is worse than here. Is that correct?
    Secretary Granholm. That is correct.
    Senator King. Now, let us talk about natural gas. Electric 
bills, as the Senator points out, are going up. Why? Because 
natural gas is going up. Why? In my view, talking about 
regulations on methane is, as my mother used to say, straining 
at gnats and swallowing camels. The camel here is exports of 
natural gas. And this is where I take issue with you because 
you proudly said we have approved every applicant for LNG. 
Approved applications now constitute 57 percent of U.S. 
production. Natural gas is not a global commodity. It is a 
local commodity. The price has been very different here. It was 
about $3.50 here for a million BTUs and it was $13 or $14 in 
China. That is an advantage to the United States. We have now 
vastly increased the capacity for exports. Supply and demand, 
there is--we have dramatically increased the worldwide demand 
for our natural gas. We are now the largest LNG exporters.
    I sat in this Committee five years ago with a 
representative of the natural gas industry. He said, we will 
never go above nine percent of our production, so it will not 
affect domestic prices. Well, we are now at about 15 percent. 
We are headed for over 50 percent. That is what happened in 
Australia. Natural gas prices domestically in Australia almost 
tripled. And it is already happening here. My colleagues argue 
that we have to export more. And I understand helping the 
Europeans and dealing with Russia. The problem is, we are 
building 35-year assets in terms of LNG. We are going to be 
committed to 50 percent of LNG. LNG gas is going to become a 
global commodity, and our advantage vis-a-vis China is going to 
be eliminated. Thirteen percent of our LNG now goes to China. 
We are exporting our advantage in price.
    I hope that you will take a closer look at these 
applications because the standard is supposed to be the public 
interest. I believe domestic natural gas prices are part of the 
public interest. Can you give me some thoughts on this?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, thanks for raising it, and your 
point about the supply of natural gas and whether it is 
increasing to accommodate the increased volumes of production 
or whether it is a zero sum is an important point. I know that 
a couple of years ago, I think in 2018, our Fossil Energy 
Office--then Fossil Energy Office--did a study to determine 
whether, in fact, increases of exports cause prices to go up in 
the United States. At that point, it said no, basically. The 
Energy Information Agency, because of the increases that we are 
seeing, is looking at this again, and they will have a report 
out hopefully by the end of this year. Let me just----
    Senator King. I hope, before you make more approvals of 
these long-term commitments, that you will have that data in 
hand because----
    Secretary Granholm. For sure.
    Senator King [continuing]. It is hard for me to believe 
that 57, from zero to--it was zero six years ago, to 57 percent 
of daily production is not going to affect domestic price.
    Secretary Granholm. I will just say, on the four permits 
that we just granted, those were permits requested to take 
existing volumes that would have been sent to free-trade-
agreement countries, and allow them to be diverted to Europe. 
So it was not an increase in volume as much as it was a 
permission to allow non free-trade-agreement countries to be 
able to get it.
    Senator King. I want to support the Europeans, and I think 
getting them off Russian oil and gas is an absolutely important 
geopolitical decision on our part, but I also want people to 
realize that there is a price to be paid, and that we are going 
to be paying that price, in terms of electricity, because 
largely in many areas, in New England, it comes from natural 
gas. Our electricity bills have skyrocketed. Why? Because 
natural gas prices have skyrocketed. Why? In part because of a 
lack of investment in production, but I believe in part also 
because of a substantial increase in exports.
    So, let's not point fingers and say it is any individual's 
fault. This is a worldwide problem, but part of the fault, I 
believe, is that we have to really think hard about this policy 
of wholesale exports of natural gas unless domestic production 
significantly increases. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator, with all due respect, if we could 
get a good pipeline up to you all in the Northeast, we could 
give you a lot of West Virginia gas.
    Senator King. I totally agree. I totally agree, and that is 
one of the major issues, is pipeline capacity. That is why the 
Marcellus and----
    The Chairman. Marcellus shale and Utica----
    Senator King. Cannot get the gas out.
    The Chairman. Marcellus and Utica would take care of the 
Northeast, more than enough.
    Senator King. When I was Governor of Maine, we permitted a 
Greenfield pipeline project from Nova Scotia to Boston, through 
the state. I helped work with the companies----
    The Chairman. We can build you one and also have it be able 
to be coated to where it could carry hydrogen too, as we 
transition in, and be able to give you both.
    Senator Hyde-Smith.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 
certainly want to be associated with Senator Cassidy's remarks. 
I think that since we had been in these circumstances, he put 
it so eloquently of exactly what is going on there. And I 
cannot imagine, Governor Granholm, how hard your job is. When I 
go to Mississippi, whether it is in the grocery store or at 
church, I cannot take two steps without just being covered 
with, can you please explain to me why this Administration shut 
down the Keystone Pipeline? Can you please explain to me why 
immediately our gas prices are to the point where we cannot 
afford them? And it has really hit everybody in the country and 
has hit everybody in Mississippi, including the industry of our 
Ag products when they have to fill up those big trucks to take 
products to harvest, and they have to buy a 150 gallons at a 
time. It is devastating, to say the least. But we have talked 
about natural gas. We have talked about infrastructure and the 
permitting process. But the data from the Energy Information 
Administration shows that natural gas is the most affordable 
way to heat homes and that gas appliances deliver significant 
savings for consumers. Plus, the EPA states residential natural 
gas use accounts for less than five percent of U.S. emissions.
    So why does the proposed funding for clean energy 
infrastructure programs, such as the $150 million for tribal 
homes and colleges to transition to renewable energy--it does 
not even allow for natural gas. Can you answer that?
    Secretary Granholm. One of the reasons why the focus is on 
renewable energy is because renewable energy can be produced 
right there on site. It does not require additional 
infrastructure. It can be produced and dispatched with 
microgrids, for example, for tribal communities, they are very 
interested in that. And we are in lots of conversations with 
tribes across the country, and they are very interested in 
using the resources from the sun and the wind to be able to 
produce energy for their people, their 30,000 tribal homes that 
do not even have energy at all. And so, they want to get it 
quickly. They want to get it in a way that is cheap. And so, 
renewable energy is the choice that they have made.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. And so natural gas is completely 
eliminated and not even allowed.
    Secretary Granholm. In terms of the focus that we are 
bringing on it, we are focused on renewable sources and 
renewable technologies because natural gas technology is well 
along, and of course, there is always the methane issue with 
respect to natural gas. Though many of the natural gas 
producers are very enthused about making sure that they button 
down their pipelines so that there are not methane releases, 
but methane, of course, is an extremely potent greenhouse gas 
emission, and we would want to partner with the natural gas 
producers to make sure that they will eliminate those methane 
emissions.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. We have talked about the effects on 
Americans--Vladimir Putin's effect on America--lives here at 
home. And I agree with your written testimony that I read in 
which you state the impact on gas prices has highlighted the 
national security importance of the energy investments. And I 
can also appreciate the need for clean energy, but it will take 
years or decades to move away from using oil and gas. And so, 
American families and businesses, you know, they are hurting 
right now. What investments is your Department making into U.S. 
energy security that will help the situation we are facing 
right now, not 10 or 20 years down the road?
    Secretary Granholm. I think we have to do both. We have to 
focus on the now, which is why we are calling for increased 
production of oil and gas. It is why we have released from the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is the big tool that we 
have. It is why the Department of Energy has been agreeing to 
the permits for liquefied natural gas as well. It is why the 
Administration has been so quickly permitting. The question is, 
what can we do both on the immediate as well as with our eye on 
the long-term. And that is why investments in both the 
technology and the deployment of renewable have to happen also.
    American-made energy can make us energy independent and can 
increase our security. And I think that this, you know, focus 
on it has to be fossil or it has to be renewable, we can clean 
up the fossil side and we can invest in renewable. And that is 
the mission of the Department of Energy.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. And I guess because it is such an 
aggressive mission that that is the reason, you know, during 
that time period, you know, we literally had businesses that 
are closing because they just simply cannot afford the energy 
cost associated with the businesses and transactions that they 
are obligated to. And I, you know, I just think that it is a 
pretty aggressive mission and maybe not enough time given to 
these businesses and these companies to adjust, and for 10 to 
20 years down the road of the infrastructure that would be 
there.
    Secretary Granholm. The goal is to get to net zero by 2050. 
So we do have a transition period. And in the meantime, like 
right now, the Administration is helping with, for example, 
low-income home energy assistance--$100 million for that. We 
are making sure we are also releasing funds for the 
weatherization program to help everyday citizens reduce their 
costs and weatherize their homes, but the Administration is 
very focused on both the now and trying to relieve the pain 
that they can--increase supply, but also invest in the future.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Hyde-
Smith.
    Senator Hirono.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Madam 
Secretary.
    Yes, there is a lot of concern about the price of gas at 
the pump, and it is impacting all of our families, and Hawaii 
faces one of the highest prices in the country for gallon of 
gasoline, it is around $5.27 per gallon. That is the highest in 
the country. And skyrocketing oil prices in 2008 solidified 
Hawaii's commitment to move toward renewable power. So we are 
now at about 30 percent toward our goal of 100 percent 
renewable power by 2045, but that does not include gasoline. We 
are talking about electricity.
    How will the President's budget help us to accelerate the 
transition to renewable power, electric vehicles, and other 
zero-emission transportation options so that we are not 
dependent on the whims of Russia, OPEC, and the global oil 
markets?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, we know that, for example, people 
cannot afford today--not everybody can afford today--an 
electric vehicle. And so, we want to make sure that we bring 
down the price of that vehicle. And the reason why that vehicle 
in many models is expensive is because of the price of the 
battery. And so, we are all-in at the Department of Energy in 
bringing down the price of the battery, both through 
technology, making sure that we are building out the supply 
chain for that battery inside of the United States so we can 
control the inputs for it. So that is one thing, and the second 
thing I am hopeful that this Congress will do is to extend and 
expand upon the tax credits that will reduce the price of the 
electric vehicle at the dealership. And that is something that, 
I think, would be a great assistance for folks who are paying 
over $5 a gallon today.
    Senator Hirono. Does the President's budget include any tax 
credits for electric vehicles?
    Secretary Granholm. No, the President's budget does not 
include the tax credits. We are hopeful that Congress will 
approve them in the very near future.
    Senator Hirono. Why didn't he include that then? Nevermind, 
I think that is a rhetorical question. Thank you for saying 
that we need to do more to encourage lowering the price and 
affordability of electric vehicles. I agree with you.
    So Hawaii and remote communities in our country, we face 
unique barriers to accessing affordable, sustainable, and clean 
energy, and DOE's Energy Transition Initiative program-- the 
ETI--supports communities like those in Hawaii with energy 
transition efforts by facilitating the sharing of best 
practices and providing important technical support. And I know 
you are well aware that places like Hawaii and remote areas are 
vulnerable to severe weather conditions and that there are 
disruptions to our energy as a result. So, construction of 
microgrids in places like Hawaii and remote areas is really 
important. And the ETI is currently helping assess which 
communities on Oahu could most benefit from microgrids, and on 
Kauai, it is doing much the same thing.
    Can you explain more about how the Energy Transition 
Initiative is helping remote and island communities address 
high energy costs and unreliable infrastructure and what impact 
additional funding for the program would have on communities in 
states like Hawaii?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, the 2023 budget is requesting an 
additional $34 million to be able to support that program, and 
the theory that no community should be left behind, and 
islanded communities are often overlooked, and we want to make 
sure we take advantage of the natural assets they have to be 
able to move toward clean energy. So, for example, in Hawaii 
you have so much geothermal, which is a huge opportunity. It is 
one of the reasons why Hawaii is such a robust renewable 
portfolio standard, but there are other issues related to that. 
How do you get access to that power? And microgrids are one 
solution. Offshore wind, solar--there are so many renewable 
solutions, but you also have to add battery technology.
    So, the point is, you have to have technical assistance for 
these communities to be able to see what the options are based 
upon their comparative advantages, and that is what this 
program does.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you.
    I just want to note that with regard to geothermal, there 
are very important cultural issues that exist in Hawaii with 
regard to resorting to geothermal. I know that you were already 
asked about the investigation that is being conducted by the 
Commerce Department relating to solar components and the 
possibility of additional tariffs that this part of our 
industry is facing. So my question is, what resources could the 
DOE make available to address short-term impacts on solar 
projects and address longer-term issues relating to the solar 
supply chain?
    Secretary Granholm. Well, it does beg the question about 
building out the full supply chain for solar inside the United 
States so we do not have to worry about the import issue. And 
that is why one of the President's requests of Congress is, for 
example, the Solar Energy Manufacturing Act, which would help 
to bring down the cost of manufacturing solar in the United 
States and all the components included. We are very supportive 
of that. We are also supportive, of course, of being able to 
use the advanced manufacturing tools that have been provided 
through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act to accelerate solar. 
We have a request in our Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
budget for a solar accelerator to advance solar manufacturing 
in the United States. That is $200 million we are requesting in 
this budget for.
    Senator Hirono. Mr. Chairman, all of that is going to have 
to happen pretty fast because the solar projects are coming to 
a screeching halt as a result of the potential outcome of the 
Commerce Department's investigation. So I hope that your 
Department can figure out how you can be of help right now.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
    I have a couple additional questions and I know Senator 
King does as well.
    I just wanted to ask about LNG exports. I think we need to 
do everything we can to cut off funds to Russia's war machine, 
and I heard Senator King's comments. To me, that includes money 
they are receiving from natural gas, and I believe we have an 
abundance of natural gas to support our allies, partners in 
Europe. Some of it is still in the ground, some of it we do not 
have the pipelines for. I think we need the export potential, 
the infrastructure, you know.
    You referenced that there were two more applications for 
facilities in Mexico which use natural gas from Rocky Mountain 
states. These applications have been pending, I know, since the 
start of the Administration. When can we expect the Department 
to act on these two applications?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, those are--those applications--the 
terminals are not even under construction yet. We are taking a 
look at it. We are also looking at what is happening in Mexico 
with respect to their energy reform and have concerns about 
that and the questions that have been raised about violation of 
the USMCA. So we are watching all of that. Know that we are 
well aware that those are pending, and since they are not under 
construction yet, and we are watching what's happening in 
Mexico. We are taking all that into consideration.
    Senator Barrasso. Yes, my thought was that if we approved 
these applications--or you do--it would send a strong signal to 
Mexico. So that would be my recommendation.
    You know, with regard, and we talked about this by phone--
the uranium reserve. Congress gave the Department $75 million 
to establish a Strategic Uranium Reserve back in 2020. During 
last year's budget hearing, you stated that the Department, 
``plans to be ready to start purchasing uranium by the end of 
calendar year 2021.'' So the Department had not made any of 
that purchasing yet. Last week you said a funding opportunity 
announcement would be issued in June. So if the Department 
followed the directions provided by Congress, we would already 
have the reserve. Will you commit to this Committee that the 
Department will purchase uranium this calendar year?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Barrasso. Okay.
    You stated the Department would make limited amounts of 
this high-assay low-enriched uranium available for advanced 
reactors. Limited amounts are not going to get the job done. 
The two advanced reactor demonstration projects--one is going 
to be sited in Wyoming, and one in Senator Cantwell's State of 
Washington. I think they need about 20 tons of high-assay low-
enriched uranium. The Department has uranium that can meet that 
need. I think you simply need to prioritize that work. Will the 
Department make 20 tons of fuel available for these two 
reactors?
    Secretary Granholm. This is all part of the uranium 
strategy that I am talking about. We are very committed to 
making sure we have enough HALEU available for those advanced 
reactors, and the question is, what is the best way of doing 
that? We have to build up the full supply chain here in the 
United States to be able to do that. And we are focused on that 
as part of this uranium strategy, which you should be hearing 
about from Dr. Huff within the month, maybe.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, that would be terrific.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Barrasso. Because I am ready to go to the floor and 
make a speech recommending her confirmation today.
    Secretary Granholm. Thank you so much.
    Senator Barrasso. The vote is scheduled for 1:45 today.
    You know, you have spoken of the urgent need to increase 
the domestic supply of critical minerals for renewable energy 
technologies and EV batteries. You just pointed out the 
importance of the battery and bringing down the cost of the 
battery. On March 31st, President Biden issued an executive 
order to increase domestic production of critical minerals, and 
we have had two hearings on the topic of what the needs are, 
what is available right now worldwide. You know, to me that 
order does not do a thing in terms of addressing the biggest 
hurdle preventing more domestic production because it takes an 
average of ten years to obtain a federal mining permit. That is 
what we heard from people testifying here. Do you think that is 
too long?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Barrasso. Will you support efforts to streamline 
the permitting process to open new mines?
    Secretary Granholm. Yes.
    Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
    And then, finally--and I want to get to Senator King--we 
import the majority of our electrical transformers from China 
today. If we are to meet President Biden's goal of a carbon-
free power sector that you talked about, utilities are going to 
need to deploy these technologies in huge numbers. What steps 
is the Department taking to address the resiliency? Because you 
talked specifically about the resiliency of these components to 
cyberattacks and Chinese intrusion.
    Secretary Granholm. Yes, fortunately the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law provides $5 billion the purpose of making 
our electric grid resilient. We did the supply chain analysis 
that identified the transformers as being a huge problem. We 
should be making them in the United States. That is part of the 
resiliency effort, but also making the grid itself resilient 
through technology or undergrounding or other ways that we can 
make sure that it is either resilient from cyber or from 
extreme weather events.
    Senator Barrasso. Senator King.
    Senator King. Thank you. A couple of specific questions.
    Storage is incredibly important, as you have testified. 
That is the only real path to a renewable energy future because 
without storage, it is intermittent, and so we need to solve 
that problem. I know that you are putting in a lot of research 
money. We have put a lot of research money into storage. I hope 
that you will also emphasize non-battery storage as 
alternatives.
    Secretary Granholm. Non-lithium.
    Senator King. Non-battery. I am talking about pumped 
storage.
    Secretary Granholm. Oh, I see what you are saying.
    Senator King. And molten salt and all the other possible--
flywheels--all the other possible technologies because I think, 
in the long-term, batteries do have issues, and particularly if 
you are talking grid-scale in terms of availability of 
minerals, cost, and all those things. So, I just, I do not want 
the storage research, which I think is one of the most 
important things that you are doing, to focus entirely on 
batteries.
    Secretary Granholm. Correct. It is the suite of storage.
    Senator King. Great.
    Second, and this is not exactly in your field, although 
CESER is within your office. I am very worried about the 
cybersecurity of pipelines. FERC has jurisdiction over the 
grid, but not pipelines. TSA has jurisdiction over 
cybersecurity of pipelines. I think it is, I am just not--I am 
not denigrating TSA, but I am just not--I have this almost 
intuitive concern about the cybersecurity of pipelines because 
pipelines have become part of the electric grid. In New 
England, 60 percent of our electricity comes from gas, all of 
which comes from through pipelines, and if the pipelines are 
compromised, our grid is down.
    So I really hope that CESER and you will work in an 
interagency way to address this problem. My concern is that it 
will fall between the spaces between agencies, and we learned 
from the Colonial Pipeline what a fairly minor cyberattack did 
to the southeast supply of gasoline. So----
    Secretary Granholm. Right.
    Senator King [continuing]. Please put pipeline 
cybersecurity on your list of priorities.
    Secretary Granholm. It is, sir. And the interagency working 
with TSA and CESER has been very important. I think what we 
have done on the electric side has been sort of a model for 
what could happen on the pipeline side.
    Senator King. Exactly. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you, Senator King.
    We do have a number of statements for the record and 
submissions. You stated repeatedly the Administration is doing 
nothing to discourage American oil and gas production. So I 
would like to enter and ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
record, letters and statements written by oil and gas industry 
associations, asserting that the Biden Administration is, in 
fact, discouraging energy production. These letters and 
statements offer recommendations on steps the Administration 
can take today to increase American energy production.
    So without objection, those will be introduced.
    [Letters and statements for the record from oil and gas 
associations follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    Senator Barrasso. Again, thank you for being with us and 
joining us this morning for this discussion. Members are going 
to have until the close of business tomorrow to submit 
additional questions for the record.
    With that, the hearing is adjourned and the Committee 
stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]